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
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 person with disability who is an NDS 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 due to the fact that it has reduced the time I have
available to construct a response which fully addresses the scope of the potential
impacts, including consideration of second order and third order consequences. I
believe it is totally unreasonable to expect that ordinary citizens who have their
existing responsibilities and obligations, including the additional ones that family
members who are carers of people with a disability have, to be able to digest the
proposed amendment document which is more than 100 pages in length and is of
course complex to a lay person, let alone the accessibility issues that this poses with
respect to people in the disability community such as my brother who has an
Acquired Brain Injury. I also want to highlight that both my elderly parents who are
carers and who are quite exhausted and fatigued by the informal support they have
been providing to my brother are also impacted by the two week consultation
process, as they too have not been able to make a submission in such a short time )frame, which means that their perspective as parents to a person with disability are
not able to be heard. I myself have only been able to make a submission due to the
extension to 5pm on Monday 1st June 2026.
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.
I am deeply concerned that the support my brother receives from the NDIS could be
garbled text here. changed without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny i.e. without transparency and what I believe should be due process. Furthermore, that such a change could occur without any knowledge prior to the change being made, thus leaving my brother at risk of homelessness, given he currently lives in an Individualised living option (ILO) which is accessed in part through the support of the NDIS.
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.
As an adult sibling of an adult person with disability who is an NDIS participant, we both have elderly, aging parents. Our parents have done everything they can to have remained as fit and healthy as possible and this has enabled them to provide 3
- significant informal support to my brother several decades into his adulthood.
However, our family is aware that with the passing of time, the time will come in the
ear future where my parents will no longer be able to provide the informal supports
that they have been providing, and my brother’s circumstances will subsequently
change significantly and he will require extra support. Without the ability to apply for
and access additional support as his needs change in the absence of the informal nsupport my parents have provided, he will be greatly impacted by the proposed
narrowing of criteria and reduced rights to challenge decisions.
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.
I am concerned that the proposed change - i.e. granting unreviewable ministerial power to cut funding across all support categories - lacks transparency and due process and does not take into account that unspent funds may be the result of systemic issues with respect to the accessibility of services. I am concerned that it may affect my brother’s ability to access support to access and participate in his
community. This participation has been a crucial aspect of how the NDIS has
facilitated my brother to be able to access dignity, autonomy and some level of
independence as an adult.
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.
I am concerned that a removal of whole-of-person assessment, replaced by single eligible impairment consideration, will result in reduced nuance in how my brother and his humanity are viewed by the systems the government has in place to care for its most vulnerable members. I work in healthcare myself, and it is archaic practice to view a person purely on the basis of “a single eligible impairment” rather than their whole experience. I am concerned that such rigid systems will result in inflexibility with respect to plans, including reductions in support due to the inability of the systems in place to acknowledge the whole-person whom it is supporting.
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 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.
Due to the fact that the on the whole, world is set up for those of us who are currently able-bodied (because it is important to remember that it is only a matter of time before anyone looses some of their ability in life), people with a disability are already at a significant disadvantage when interacting and interfacing with the majority of the world around them. Appropriate assessment is crucial for my brother who is an NDIS participant to be accurately understood by the NDIS so that his needs can be appropriately supported. Given my brother has an Acquired Brain Injury (ABI), he
- has some difficulties with communicating with others, and requires assessment by
- an appropriately qualified and experienced professional with expertise in working with people who have ABIs.
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.
If funding for social, civic and community participation supports and capacity building daily activities are cut for all participants as planned, and in the absence of new alterative supports having been established e.g. the proposed Foundational Supports system, I am concerned that my brother’s mental health and wellbeing will be significantly impacted as it will reduce his quality of life, as he requires support to access and participate in the community.
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