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: 01/06/2026
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 family member/carer of a NDIS participant/person with disability & also a
Registered Nurse & Support Worker who provides services to NDIS participants, so
have both personal and professional experience, ‘a foot in both camps’ so to speak,
which offers a unique and valuable insight to the lived reality of the NDIS.
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 adding stress to an already time poor life due to
having to prioritise this submission above other daily roles I perform.
I also believe that the short timeline is purposely designed to discourage people with
disabilities, their families and care providers from making a submission, as it does
not allow sufficient time for a full reading and interrogation of the changes being
proposed. This is unjust and yet another example of NDIS participants being
disrespected, disadvantaged, and marginalised. This ‘Rush to Hush’ the voices of
those who will be impacted goes against the ‘choice and control’ the NDIS purports
to provide!!
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.
2
I have already experienced the effect of how these changes will affect participants as
several of my current NDIS clients have had their funding reduced, one as much as
half, without any consultation or the opportunity of being able to supply evidence
from her healthcare and allied health professionals. This client has requested
information as to the reasons for this huge reduction in her funding and has had no
reasonable response. This has resulted in her appealing the decision and seeking
assistance from her Federal Member of Parliament. The processes currently in
place to communicate within the NDIS and NDIA systems are not easy to navigate
for participants and their carers and so add to an already stressful situation.
As a RN who has worked in the community setting, and particularly in hospital
avoidance programs for over 30 years, I have professional experience of what
happens when people with disabilities and chronic health conditions are not
supported adequately at home. Their function declines and they require more health
care resources, often hospitalization. This in my opinion is a false economy, a case
of ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’, in that taking funding from the NDIS participants or
removing them from the scheme altogether, to cut the NDIS budget, only results in a
huge increase in the health budget! It makes no sense either economically or more
importantly in a just and compassionate society, morally!
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
3
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.
I believe that this change is soley for the purpose of cutting the NDIS budget. I can
see no benefit to participants and it is obviously designed to make an already
complicated and frustrating system even more difficult to navigate. In fact , it
removes avenues for the participant to request reviews and to appeal decisions
made without their participation or provision of assessments and reports from their
independent health and allied health professionals. This is an abuse of power,
because the participants have no means to ‘participate’ in the NDIS decision making
process!
From my own personal and professional experience, I have seen and been a part of
the NDIS funding processes (plan reviews and appeals about the funding decisions)
and the NDIA Quality & Safety complaint systems. I have found both to be
extremely stressful and lacking in professionalism and ‘trauma-informed’ practice.
Therefore, by reducing these avenues further, it puts the mental health and wellbeing
of system users at great risk of harm.
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.
4
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.
Please refer to the points I have highlighted above which show how the current
system is unsatisfactory and not user friendly, so any change which further restricts
participants rights for transparency, seeking fairness in the processes, and
accountability will be further reduced. This is a backward step and not what the
architects of the NDIS envisioned.
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).
5
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
available to them
This model is what I call the ‘NDIS Frankenstein’ because it treats people as ‘parts’
(the disability and how it affects their function) that need to be sewn together, rather
than looking at people with disabilities as whole, integrated, complex individuals with
many facets which affect their lives and how they manage the challenges their
disabilities bring on a daily basis. By using this model, as we see from the novel, a
happy ending, that is a fulfilled and happy life does not result, instead a ‘Monster’ is
created!
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
6
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.
Again, please refer to my points above. It also depends on who is performing the
assessment, as to what results are achieved. A generic ‘one size fits all’ assessment
tool can never capture the intricacies of individual participants, and if used in this
way will result in a ‘tick box exercise’ only where on paper the participant has been
fairly and accurately assessed but the results do not reflect the truth of how their
disability affects their daily lives. Assessments need to be carried out by qualified
allied health professionals who have an ongoing relationship with their clients and
these assessments need to be treated with the respect and weight they deserve. I
know from my own lived experience as a carer for my daughter, an NDIS participant,
that her Occupational Therapist and Psychologist reports and assessments have not
always been adequately taken into consideration when her plan has been reviewed.
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.
7
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 proposal is unfair and unworkable for participants and their families/care givers.
In fact, it is cruel and lacking in compassion. People with disabilities deserve to
participate in social and community activities as much as anyone else in our society
and their carers who provide 24 hour, 7 days per week care deserve the respite
which social and community access with paid supports provide. This change alone
will result in a decline in the mental health and well being of many people and is
purely a cost cutting exercise! The price paid for these savings is unjustifiable! It
would cost the government significantly more to provide supported accommodation
and care rather than support them to remain at home. The capacity building function
of the NDIS is what makes it an INSURANCE SCHEME rather than a welfare
payment because the aim is to enable participants to build their capacity and reach
their full potential to be able to become as independent as possible. By achieving
this aim, some participants will require less supports in the future and so the cost of
funding the scheme will be reduced. The NDIS is an investment not a charity!
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.
8