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, Madison Bruhn, am a NDIS provider and Accredited Practicing Dietitian (APD)
working in private practice with children and adults with disability.
Through my work, I support NDIS participants with Autism, intellectual disability,
cerebral palsy, developmental delay and other lifelong disabilities. Many of these
participants require specialised nutrition and feeding support to maintain their health,
safety, independence and quality of life. I have significant concerns about the impact
this Bill may have on the participants and families I support.
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.
1
The short timeline impacts me by limiting meaningful consultation with the people
most affected by these changes. Many NDIS participants and families require
information to be presented in accessible formats and may need support from family
members, support workers or clinicians to understand how these reforms could
affect their lives. As a clinician working with NDIS participants, I also require
adequate time to consider how these changes may impact people with complex
support needs and provide informed, evidence-based feedback. A two-week
consultation period risks excluding the voices of both people with disability and the
clinicians who support them every day.
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.
How this affects providers: Through my work with NDIS participants who have
complex and lifelong disabilities, I support individuals who require consistent, long
term intervention to maintain their health, safety and independence. When key
decisions about eligibility and funding can be changed without parliamentary
oversight, it creates uncertainty for both providers and participants and undermines
the ability to plan and deliver effective supports. Over time, this uncertainty may
discourage specialised clinicians from working within the NDIS, worsening existing
2
workforce shortages and making it more difficult for participants to access
appropriately skilled providers when they need them most.
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.
How this affects providers: In my clinical practice, I regularly identify situations
where a participant’s support needs have changed due to growth, ageing, illness,
progression of disability or emerging health concerns. Restricting reassessment and
review rights may leave clinicians unable to effectively advocate for the additional
supports required to address these changes. As a result, participants may
experience worsening health, loss of independence and increased carer burden
despite clear clinical evidence that additional supports are required.
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.
How this affects providers: As a clinician working within the disability sector, I rely
on appropriate and flexible funding arrangements to deliver evidence-based supports
that maintain participant health, safety and independence. Unreviewable funding
reductions may prevent clinicians from responding appropriately to changing
participant needs, even when there is clear clinical justification for additional
supports. This risks disrupting essential interventions, leading to poorer participant
outcomes, increased carer burden and higher long-term costs to the NDIS system
through escalating support needs and increased reliance on funded supports.
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.
4
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.
How this affects providers: I regularly support participants with permanent and
lifelong disabilities where ongoing intervention is required to maintain health and
quality of life. Requiring participants to exhaust treatment options before becoming
eligible for support does not reflect the reality that many conditions cannot be cured
and may worsen without timely intervention. This may leave clinicians unable to
provide preventative supports when they are most needed, increasing the risk of
Malnutrition, aspiration pneumonia, developmental delays, reduced independence
and long-term reliance on more intensive and costly supports from the NDIS.
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.
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.
How this affects providers: In my clinical practice, I rely on comprehensive
assessment and ongoing observation to identify risks such as Malnutrition,
dehydration, feeding difficulties and reduced functional capacity. These risks often
fluctuate over time and may not be captured during a single point-in-time
assessment. If an unvalidated assessment tool underestimates participant needs,
clinicians may be unable to secure the supports required to maintain health and
independence, resulting in poorer outcomes for participants and increased reliance
on more intensive NDIS supports over time.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with I-CAN as the functional capacity
assessment tool unless it has been demonstrably validated to identify the needs of
6
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.
How this affects providers: I regularly work alongside support workers, families
and multidisciplinary teams to help participants translate therapy into meaningful
real-world outcomes. Without social, civic and community participation supports,
many participants may struggle to attend appointments, access community activities,
develop daily living skills, implement nutrition and feeding strategies, maintain social
connections or participate in education and employment opportunities. This reduces
the effectiveness of therapy, limits participants’ progress towards their goals and
increases the risk of poorer health, reduced independence, social isolation and
greater long-term support needs.
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
Conclusion
As a clinician working with children and adults with disability, I see every day the
positive impact that timely and appropriate supports have on health, independence
and quality of life. Many of the supports funded through the NDIS are preventative in
nature and reduce the risk of escalating support needs, loss of independence and
long-term reliance on more intensive funded supports. These supports are not
optional extras; they are often essential to maintaining health, independence and
participation in everyday life.
I am concerned that the proposed amendments may reduce transparency, limit
participant rights and create barriers to accessing essential supports without
adequate safeguards in place. I respectfully urge the Committee to carefully consider
the unintended consequences of these changes and ensure that any reforms place
the health, safety, independence and wellbeing of people with disability at the centre
of decision-making.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours sincerely,
Madison Bruhn, Accredited Practising Dietitian (APD)
8