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: 28/5/26
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 NDIS participant
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.
1
The short timeline impacts me by making it more difficult for me to write and
complete a submission as I have difficulty organising and communicating my
thoughts due to my disability. This limited window also made it more difficult for me
to arrange support for completing my submission and scheduling time to complete it
when I would have the energy and capacity needed for the task.
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.
This increases stress, anxiety and uncertainty for myself and other participants as it
would make it more difficult to understand how the NDIS functions, what changes
are likely to happen to participant eligibility and funding, and therefore access to
important supports. This increases instability in participants’ lives, including mine.
This will also disempower disabled people, and those supporting us, by excluding us
from important decisions being made about our access to supports which hugely
impact our wellbeing and quality of life.
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.
2
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.
As a NDIS participant this will make it more difficult for me to plan for the future and
make important life decisions (e.g. living independently, enrolling in tertiary
education) when my continued access to my current NDIS supports is uncertain. The
proposed restrictions for participant’s ability to challenge decisions will put myself
and others at risk of having important supports underfunded or refused entirely due
to assessment errors, including misread/misinterpreted evidence and reports,
misunderstanding of participant’s disability and circumstances, and clerical errors,
something myself and others have already experienced, without an opportunity to
have these errors corrected and issues remedied.
This will also make it more difficult to access additional supports when needed due
to changes of circumstance. This is personally very worrying for me as I rely on my
mother as a carer, I am worried that as she ages and becomes less capable of
3
supporting me I will be left without the support I need to survive and live my life in a
fulfilling way.
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.
This will increase uncertainty and instability in my access to NDIS supports making it
harder for me to plan ahead, create routine and consistency in my supports
(something very important for me as an Autistic person), and feel confident in my
future. The uncertainty I already experience with regards to my NDIS funding causes
me great emotional and psychological distress as I am left unsure of what my
supports will look like in the near-future, and I worry about losing access to the
supports I rely on to maintain my quality of life and wellbeing. These proposed
changes would greatly increase my distress as they would increase the instability
and uncertainty I experience regarding my access to NDIS supports, as my support
funding and therefore my access to supports would be at risk of being cut without
any consideration for my personal circumstances as well as without warning and
4
without a right to appeal. This makes me very worried for my future and my ability to
live the life I want, it makes me feel hopeless as so much of my life will become
dependent of the decisions an instrument with no possibility to challenge the
changes it makes.
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.
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.
5
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 someone with fluctuating capacity my needs differ over time, if my supports are
based on when I have my highest capacity my needs will not be met a majority of the
time as that represents a very small amount of my life. This would also overall
reduce my capacity long-term due to the impacts of autistic burnout for me (including
skill regression, severe depression, reduced functional capacity, and fatigue).
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.
6
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 will create large support gaps for me as my informal supports will be unable to
fill them. My carer (my mother) is already struggling to support me with my current
NDIS supports as she deals with her own disabilities, aging, and carer burnout.
Reductions to my NDIS funding will leave me without adequate support, severely
negatively impacting my quality of life and wellbeing. This will also greatly impact my
loved ones who do not have informal supports to fill these gaps and rely entirely on
NDIS supports to survive and live their lives.
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.
7