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.

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 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.

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

parliament and allowing debate will marginalise an already marginalised population.

Where is the justice and equity in that?

Recommendation: Require that all decisions affecting NDS 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 NDS 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

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

none self-propel so how can one person take them out.
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 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

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.

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

Page 8

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.

Page 9

I urge the committee to consider the points I and others who have made submissions have made.