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: 29/05/2026
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 participant/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 Scru/ny 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 extremely difficult to consult meaningfully
with the disabled community and healthcare/policy experts to a sufficient extent. The
rushed timeline and lack of transparency for far reaching legislation is deeply
concerning to me as a participant, a person with a disability and an Allied Health
student/future practitioner.
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30
days.
Key decisions le6 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 support I have received through the NDIS saved my life. It is the only reason I
have been able to receive the healthcare I needed to participate socially and
professionally. More importantly, removing peoples access to support with no
established means or systems to replace this healthcare access is the equivalent to
killing disabled people, after running on a mandate to protect the NDIS this is not
only morally repugnant but politically unjustifiable. This legislation will allow this
administration, and any that comes after it, to dismantle the NDIS piece by piece,
and along with it, the Labour Party legacy of introducing this lifesaving and publicly
supported legislation.
2
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.
Exis/ng par/cipants 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.
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).
3
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.
Deep ableism is apparent in these broad support category cuts, and it spits in the
face of evidence-based practice in healthcare and allied health. To pretend it is not a
return to “ugly law” style disability policy is farcical.
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 has major implications for bodily autonomy and agency of choice for disabled
people and their healthcare decisions. This goes against every ethical practice
4
standard that exists in the medical field, and it deeply worries me as a future allied
health care provider and personally, as someone who has reckoned with the history
of medical ethics and the historical harms perpetrated on disabled people
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 func/onal capacity assessment tool risks misiden/fying 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.
My disability means that my presentation is extremely variable, and functional
impairment is not always visible on a day-to-day basis. However, if my support needs
are not met over time, I run a very high risk of long-term reductions in my capacity
that will affect my ability to live and work independently. As a person with conditions
5
co-morbid to my primary disability (as is extremely common in the disability space),
this could result in deep cuts to the supports I rely on. Not only is this amendment
against best practice recommendations regarding assessment across disabilities,
and provision of holistic healthcare, but it will also be more expensive in the long
term, forcing disabled people into systems that were not designed for them and will
cost more to deliver (i.e. aged-care spaces, prisons, emergency departments, etc.).
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.
These changes are morally repugnant, will have far-reaching negative effects on the
economy and will result in a huge number of preventable deaths. To kick people off
the NDIS, promising they will be supported by systems that have not been well
outlined and do not currently exist, is blatantly dishonest and clearly designed to
placate people so they don’t notice you are stripping away a widely supported public
service.
6
Economically, these deep cuts will have far-reaching negative effects that the
government has clearly not accounted for in their latest budget. The NDIS is one of
the most productive government expenditures in terms of economic growth stimulus.
These cuts alone are estimated to cost 200,000 jobs and $36 billion in economic
output.
These legislative changes are in no way informed by sound economic policy, medical
evidence, best-practice standards, or a publicly supported policy mandate. They are
simply an effort in austerity that expects the most vulnerable people in society to
bear the brunt of the cost. This will result in preventable deaths and suffering for
disabled people and their caregivers. Choosing to target a vulnerable and
marginalised population, to disingenuously balance a budget, rather than taxing gas,
is illogical and evidence of deep cowardice. If allowed to proceed, this legislation and
the blood on the hands of those responsible will become this administration’s lasting
legacy.
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