PWDA: Submission to the National

Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Date: 10/07/26

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 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 messing up any potential scheduling issues I could have, particularly with my University schedule.

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 3) 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.

If the person I am a carer for is not made aware of any changes in the NDIS, then they and I will not have adequate time to prepare to adjust their support plans.

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 dispute 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.

Many of the disabilities of the person I am a carer for are fluctuating and not immediately obvious, especially in controlled environments such as the assessments, and this would make it even harder to “prove” the existence and severity of the disability. Without the ability to challenge any decisions, any change in the support would have to come from me providing extra support, meaning I would have to suddenly increase the amount of support I can give at a moment’s notice, which would jeopardize any aspect of my life that requires time or money, especially my own education.

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.

The person I am caring for relies heavily on high cost sensory aids that could break or be lost at any time, and they cannot function without them. Without the option to save funds for this equipment, any time the sensory aids stopped working or were lost, the money would have to come from the finances I have while I attend university, and the person I care for would not be able to function while I gather the money to repair / repurchase their sensory aids.

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.

The person I care for is officially diagnosed with Chronic Pain, Level 2 ASD, ADHD, Bipolar Disorder Type 1 with Psychosis, Dissociative Identity Disorder, and Complex PTSD. Many of these disorders have numerous treatments that are expensive and far outside my financial ability to pay for, and all these treatments take place over the long term, where it is difficult to prove that the treatment is failing to take an effect and will not take an effect in the future. Exhausting all treatment options would mean

years without NDIS support, being left with no money, and a levy of side effects that

would likely never be recovered from.

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.

As a carer, the person I am a carer for is officially diagnosed with multiple fluctuating disabilities, including Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Bipolar Disorder Type 1 with Psychosis, and Dissociative Identity Disorder. Proceeding with I-CAN or other insufficient assessment tools would not see these disabilities given the 5

• treatment to the extent they require, meaning the only support for the disability would

• be that which I could provide on my own whenever the disabilities worsened.

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.

This would cut off occupational therapy, speech pathology and support work for the person I am a carer for, placing more burden on me as the carer, as well as my time and finances. This would also prevent the person I am caring for from learning how to take care of themselves on their own and maintain their independence.

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.