Submission to the National
Disability Insurance Scheme
Amendment (Securing the NDIS
for Future Generations) Bill
2026
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Date: 9th July, 2026
I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee
on Community Affairs about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I am a carer of a person with a disability.
I want to outline the harm this Amendment Bill will cause if it passes Parliament. This Bill is too far-reaching to pass as it stands. I believe the Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds.
Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency
The consultation period for the Amendment Bill is two weeks, which is insufficient to allow for appropriate consultation, considering accessibility and communication
needs. The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says
consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days where possible.
The short timeline impacts me by not allowing those in the disability community and the Government to work together to amend the NDIS in a way that benefits everyone.
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.
Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law
The issue: The Bill allows Ministers to change who gets NDIS support (Schedule 1 Parts 8 and 9) and how much funding people receive (Schedule 1 Part 4; Schedule
- by signing an instrument, without going back to Parliament. The rules that will determine critical eligibility thresholds (Schedule 1 Parts 1, 8 and 9) have not yet been written.
How this affects participants: The decisions that shape the lives of participants, whether they qualify for the NDIS and what supports they can access, could be changed without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny. Participants may not know supports or eligibility rules have changed until their plan is affected.
The Government has not been clear how they are going to cut 160,000 people out of the NDIS and how these people will find supports. This is really concerning when there are a lot more effective ways to create cost cutting measures to the NDIS.
Recommendation: Require that all decisions affecting NDIS eligibility and funding levels be made through primary legislation subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory advance notice to affected participants before any changes take effect.
Existing participants face narrower criteria and fewer rights to challenge decisions
The issue: The Bill changes the rules for existing NDIS participants and makes it harder to challenge some decisions about supports and funding. It also restricts when you can request a reassessment, removes review rights for automatic plan renewals, and makes funding reductions unreviewable (Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 8). Combined with restrictions on reassessment requests (Part 2), automatic plan
renewals without review rights (Part 5), and unreviewable funding reductions (Part 4), existing participants face narrower criteria with significantly fewer avenues to challenge decisions about their supports.
How this affects participants: This does not protect participants already on the NDIS, who could be reassessed under stricter rules. If someone’s funding is reduced or their plan renewed automatically, they may have limited or no ability to challenge that decision. This could make it harder for people to get extra support when their circumstances or disability change.
This is really concerning as disability needs are forever changing especially for children. As they grow they require different sized and types of equipment. It is essential that participants have the ability to advocate for themselves if decisions are made to their detriment.
Recommendation: Require a “no harm” safeguard ensuring no current participant loses access to supports unless equivalent supports are in place, with independent review rights before any exit decision and access to unscheduled reassessments preserved.
Unreviewable ministerial power to cut funding across all support categories
The Minister can reduce funding for any support or group of supports by a specified percentage through an instrument that cannot be challenged (Schedule 1 Part 4). This applies across all budget categories. Unspent funds will no longer carry over at plan renewal (Schedule 1 Part 5).
How this affects participants: A participant’s community participation, capacity building or assistive technology funding could be cut without warning and without any right to appeal. Participants who save unspent funds across plan periods for high cost items will lose that ability entirely.
If NDIS is blowing out cost wise, taking away funds and making people reapply for them again using therapy money is ludicrous. Once unspent funds are present they
should be left in case a participant needs them instead of making them waste more funds and NDIS time and money reassessing these needs.
Recommendation: Require that unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for participants saving for high-cost items and require independent review rights before any funding reduction takes effect.
Requirement to exhaust treatment options before eligibility
The issue: A person with disability will need to exhaust treatment options before they can be eligible for the Scheme (Schedule 1 Part 8). There will also be a removal of whole-of-person assessment, replaced by single eligible impairment consideration (Schedule 1 Part 3). The note that previously acknowledged environmental factors and other ineligible impairments could affect support needs will be removed (Schedule 1 Part 3).
How this affects participants: People with disability will need to prove their impairment cannot be treated before they access the NDIS. Once in the scheme, their supports will only be assessed against a single eligible impairment rather than their whole experience. A person’s individual circumstances will not be considered, including ability to pay for treatment, where they live or whether treatment is actually available to them.
Having a bureaucratic department of the Government decide if or not participants can be treated sounds really dangerous. If treatment is not available to them, how on earth are there to be treated? Also, who lives with a disability instead of choosing treatment if this is an option? NDIA pays for things directly related to a disability. There is no benefit for someone to ‘choose’ not to have treatment to receive NDIS.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with a requirement to exhaust “appropriate treatment” options – there are no safeguarding measures around participant harm due to side effects or complications, a participant’s financial ability to pay, or their geographic capacity to access treatments.
Unvalidated functional capacity assessment tool risks misidentifying need
The issue: The Bill shifts assessment from whole-of-person consideration to a single eligible impairment (Schedule 1 Part 3). Read together with the eligibility thresholds in Parts 8 and 9, the tool used to conduct functional capacity assessments must be capable of sufficiently identifying whether a person meets the threshold for that single impairment.
The named assessment tool is the Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN). I-CAN requires validation to ensure it will sufficiently identify the needs of all people with disability, including those whose needs may be fluctuating or episodic and may not be captured through a point-in-time assessment, and to ensure it is culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
How this affects participants: If the assessment tool does not accurately capture the full extent of a person’s disability, including needs that fluctuate or vary over time, a participant may be found ineligible or have their supports undercounted, with no guarantee the result reflects their actual experience.
Having one tool used to assess something as complex as a person’s disability needs is not idea;. The whole picture certainly needs to be taken into account.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with I-CAN as the functional capacity assessment tool unless it has been demonstrably validated to identify the needs of all people with disability, including those with episodic or fluctuating disability, and demonstrated to be culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
Supports cut before replacement system is ready
The issue: From 1 October 2026, the government has announced funding for social, civic and community participation supports will be cut by 50 per cent and capacity building daily activities by 10 per cent for all participants, reductions that will be implemented through the ministerial instrument power in Schedule 1 Part 4. The Foundational Supports system intended to fill that gap has no confirmed implementation date and is not yet operational.
How this affects participants: Supports that help participants connect with their community, build skills and maintain independence may be cut before anything exists to replace them, leaving carers and families with greater responsibilities and no additional support. These supports are often what help people stay visible, connected and safe.
It is a lot cheaper for the Government to provide support for people in the community than put people in institutions. If carers are burnt out and they can longer support their disable relatives, the Government will be a lot worse off.
Recommendation: Require that no reductions to community participation or capacity building supports take effect until Foundational Supports are fully operational, adequately funded and demonstrably able to meet the needs of those who will lose NDIS supports.
If the NDIS wants to save money, these are the things I have noticed in the last 6 years being involved as a carer of a person with a disability using the NDIS.
-
In my most recent eligibility assessment: an NDIS delegate took us on a journey for months trying to prove eligibility and wasted so much of NDIA’s time when eventually another delegate put us under the category of “genetic-other.” I submitted a complaint but imagine the amount of money saved if just sorted it out the first time?
-
NDIS spend so much money taking people to the tribunal to try and knock back funds-surely there is a better way.
-
NDIS require huge reports for equipment, knock things back and then require more reports. This costs so much in therapy money. If NDIS were clear what was required and required less documentation, a huge amount of money would be saved.
-
I have had a 19yo support workers with zero qualifications request the high intensity rate of $78 an hour to help with when I am with him also. In what other industry, can you walk into a job with zero training and earn this kind of money? We certainly found a different support worker.
-
When we applied for our bed, it got knocked back and as it came under restrictive practice, the NDIS gave me $15k to go and get a behaviour therapist to sign off on the bed. This also seems ludicrous. We went with a different bed in the end to avoid restrictive practice but
onces again, if an OT has said something is required, why do we need a behaviour therapist to sign off on it and what are their qualifications? How are they different from an OT?
- Why are we paying plan managers and support coordinators who often give the incorrect information and have zero qualifications in this field? I have met a few of these people and realised they really knew nothing helpful and am so blessed I can be self-managed. Surely, there needs to be a system in place for NDIS to provide these people and not anyone can do it.
Before we go and remove people from the NDIS, cut their funding and potentially create life threatening situations, surely we can have a really good look at the processes and ways to cut back in the way money is spent first within the organisation and the money-wasting processes that are in place.
Thank you for reading my submission.