PWDA Template: 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: 1/06/2026

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 NDIS Psychosocial Disability Support Worker, working independently and through organisations.

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 making it harder for me to access the

information about the provided the changes. Given the short time period that has

been given I have not been able to adequately read and reflect about how

devastating the proposed cuts would be. I also am not able to communicate the

changes to others, including the people I support and the professionals such as

Support Coordinators and Recovery Coaches and ensure they are aware and

cogniscient of the changes that would have huge impacts on their daily lives.

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.

• This would have catastrophic effects to those I suppose on the NDIS. These

• people have already seen their funding reduced due to reasoning of not being

• disabled enough or not making adequete use of their funding to meet their goals.

• Further scrutiny of who can access the NDIS will lead to a motivation to have

• less people on the NDIS as a cost-cutting measure. When no scrutiny is given,

• members will have their funding cut quickly and without notice and be left by

• themselves to adjust their lives to suddenly having no access to the supports that

• allow them to create routine, access essential services and build greated

• indepence.

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 a change that would have devastating affect and mean that participants

would be at the mercy of any deicision handed down on them to devastatingly

change their life. The participants I support would instantly become incredibly

isolated from the world. They would no longer be able to see medical

professionals for regular mandatory appointments, leading to a decrease in

health. Some participants would no longer be able to leave the house as they

have no access to travel or supports needed for them to feel safe and comfortable in the world. Many participants lives would instantly shrink and indepence would plummet.

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.

Participants are entitled to the right to hold on to unspent funds that are

necessary. Some participants I support require expensive assistive techonology

that only needs to be replaced or refueled on a semi-regular basis. This means they do not always use their funds but always have the need. Another high-cost item that is used irregularly is the access to greater hours and travel.

example one person I support has a need for long road trips to manage mental health and take breaks from their life. This is done on an irregular pattern and due to the nature of other needs taking precedence at any given time is not done as regularly as this particular participant would like but they still have a great need for these longer shifts that include long travel. If their unspent funds were to be cut at every plan renewal this would no longer be a possibility for this participant and something that is a fundemental part of their life, their support and their reaching their goals would evaporate over night.

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.

This would effect all participants greatly and reduces their life experience to only being about one specific impairment that is scrutinized prior to joining the NDIS. This does not allow participants to be seen as whole living people. As a whole person impairments and supports shift and change over time. There are many

factors that may effect how this would change such as, a difference in financial

ability, work with professionals to reach a deeper understanding of themselves,

as the NDIS builds indepence they may find themselves discovering new and

lofty goals, goals that luminate different impairments. Participants on the NDIS

should be encouraged to widen their understanding of themselves and be open

and support to self-discovery instead of being defined solely by a fixed point in

time and reduced down to one singular impairment.

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.

Page 7

The I-CAN is a rigid & flawed tool that was not designed in any way to be used like this. I-CAN has not been validated or tested to meet the needs of all people disability. By only listing questions to be answered with I can statements the system does not account for masking to be employed by participants which in cases where a participant is meeting someone for the first time, masking is almost guaranteed to be used. It also allows for literal interpretations of questions, for example when this tool asks some can to agree with the statement ‘I can leave the house’ a participant might literally be able do that but it does not create space to detail how grueling and hard leave the house would be. By turning impairments into a simple yes or no there is no room for nuance and needs beyond the scope of the question being asked. The I-CAN tool is a reductive and dehumanizing tool that pushes forward the idea of disability being supple and managable. It furthers the measure of people as the tasks they are able to do over their thoughts and feelings and reduces a persons quality of life to their ability to be productive in society.

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 leave participants and their carers & families in complete free fall and

do very well to make it seem like the NDIS never even existed. The NDIS exists

to support people and build independence. A sudden and jarring reduction in this support will mean that many participants will lose progress to their goals and will

go back to relying on support systems that can’t give them what they need.

Participants will lose independence all over again that the NDIS has worked hard to provide for people. Support systems and their replacements exist to uphold independence. To use a metaphor if a car is driving along a bridge and the bridge suddenly disappears with no new bridge magically reappearing, the car can do nothing but fall or come back the way they came. This is completely antiethical

to the goals of the NDIS.

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.