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: 28/05/26
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 the guardian of a participant in their 40’s who has multiple, complex, profound
disabilities. I am the only consistent support they have who is not paid to do so. I
also have extensive experience working in an alternative to employment program
(community access) and group (SIL) homes prior to the NDIS being rolled out. To
respect their confidentiality and privacy I will be referring to them as the 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.
1
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 giving me time to read all the information and
the bill. Instead, I am relying on advocacy groups to summarise the changes for me.
It is also why I am using this template.
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.
Every person with a disability is an individual with individual needs and supports. The
funding we currently have is barely adequate but like a lot of participants and their
advocates we have been afraid to challenge a plan rollover in case funds get cut
further. At least if that did happen, while devastating we would currently have the
right to appeal. Allowing a minister to make changes without at least going back to
2
parliament and allowing debate will marginalise an already marginalised population.
Where is the justice and equity in that?
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.
The individual I support is exactly who the NDIS was designed for. Their disabilities
are complex and interact with each other. Having no or limited rights of appeal to
funding cuts would place their health and safety in jeopardy. Without the ability to
appeal previous plan changes it would have left the participant without the essential
allied health support they require. This includes making sure their mealtime
management is adequate so they don’t choke, they have the equipment in the SIL
3
house they currently live in to keep both them and the staff supporting them safe and
ensuring they keep their current level of mobility.
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.
As I mentioned the participant lives in a SIL house with 24 hours support and 3 other
residents. This support is funded at a 1:3 level except for personal care. They
currently have funding for 15 hours of community support however as we utilise 2:1
support in the swimming pool this is effectively 12 hours a week. Over time we have
built a great team who support the participant on a 1:1 basis to access the
community in a way that is meaningful to them. If that is cut by 50% that would leave
7.5 hours a week. We would have to choose between their physical health with
swimming or mental health with up to two other activities per week. Imagine, except
for medical appointments only leaving your house for 7.5 hours a week. The rest of
the time you are at home with your housemates. House staff can’t take them into the
community because all four people in the house use wheelchairs to mobilise and
4
none self-propel so how can one person take them out. The proposed group
community activity centres are also not suitable as the participant requires 1:1
support to meaningfully interact in a group or otherwise setting. So, then that leaves
informal supports. I’m it when it comes to informal supports but while I do what I can
I can’t replace 7 hours of community access. I have to work; I also already spend
several hours a week on admin and other tasks for the participant.
The participant’s plan ends in December. If we were not able to use any funds
remaining that would impact their ability to do as many other Australians do at that
time of year and enjoy the extra activities that come with Christmas and the holidays.
We also need to ensure we have enough funding for the 6 or so public holidays that
come in the first 3 months of their plan. Or are they not allowed to enjoy public
holidays as the majority of Australians will be doing at that time of year?
It also doesn’t allow us to us to save some allied health hours if a report for new
equipment is needed or equipment that keeps them safe in the home needs to be
replaced.
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,
5
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.
Multiple, complex disabilities interact with each other. They cannot be viewed in
isolation. An example from previous interactions with NDIA planners is we were
questioned why no mobility aids used by people who are blind were being used and
had to explain that a profound intellectual disability did not allow for the use of
independent mobility devices. Who is going to decide whether a treatment is
suitable? What medial and disability experience will they have? Even then, on paper
someone with the same listed disabilities as this participant could have very different
needs and support requirements.
This participant was in receipt of services from government disability supports before
the NDIS was rolled out. They were also born more than 40 years ago. Medicine is
very different now to what it was then. They do not have a nice, neat list of all their
disabilities. Are they now going to be forced to try treatments that may have been
effective if they were an infant or young child now just so a box can be ticked?
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
6
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.
This worries me so much. I have already referred to the participant’s multiple and
complex disabilities. Whenever we meet with new providers whether they be allied
health professionals or from the medical sector they always have so many questions
to understand the nature of the participant’s disabilities and how it affects them. How
can a computer-generated functional capacity assessment replace one done in
person? I worry that supports will be removed and they will no longer be safe in their
own home. If it gets to the point that a SIL provider des not feel they can operate a
safe home what do we do? I physically can’t care for them myself.
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
7
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.
I have already referred to my concerns about cutting community supports by 50%. A
10% cut to capacity building doesn’t sound like a lot but that means some support
will not be provided. Will I have to choose between safe mealtimes or safe
equipment such as a commode, wheelchair or epilepsy alert mat? Or maybe we
don’t pursue meaning ways to communicate. These cuts are going to have real
deleterious effects on this participant.
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.
I recognise that cost is a significant issue with the NDIS but why are the cuts coming
at the cost of participants? Nothing here refers to the fraud that has been the public
reason for making such drastic changes. People with disabilities should not be
demonised for wanting to live safely and securely in their homes and access the
community in a meaningful way. Not only will these changes do that, they will
adversely affect the quality of life of a group of people who already have to work so
much harder than the rest of us to have the same quality of life.
8
I urge the committee to consider the points I and others who have made submissions
have made.
9