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.

The short timeline impacts me by limiting meaningful consultation with the people

most affected by these changes. Many NDS 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

effect their lives. As a clinician working with NDs 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 NDI5 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.

How this affects providers: Through my work with NDs 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 NDS, 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.

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.

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.

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

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, much 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.

Conclusion

As a clinician working with children and adults with disability, I see every day the

time 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)