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: 30 May 2026
I am an NDIS participant due to the profound and multi-systemic impacts of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).
I recognise the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS and support reforms that improve consistency, transparency and participant outcomes. However, I am concerned that several provisions in this Bill would weaken participant protections, reduce accountability, and create significant uncertainty for people with disability.
People with disability often rely on long-term planning and stable supports. Repeated uncertainty about eligibility, funding and assessment processes can itself be harmful, particularly for people managing complex or fluctuating disabilities.
My key concerns with the Bill are:
- excessive reliance on ministerial instruments rather than primary legislation;
- reduced review and appeal rights for participants;
- funding reductions that can occur without adequate safeguards;
- eligibility changes that may disadvantage people with complex or fluctuating disabilities;
- the use of an assessment tool that has not been fully validated across all disability groups; and
- reductions to supports before replacement systems are operational.
I believe the Bill requires substantial amendment before it proceeds.
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.
As a participant, my ability to maintain my health, independence and quality of life depends on
access to appropriate NDS supports. Allowing key eligibility and funding decisions to be made through ministerial instruments rather than legislation creates uncertainty about whether those supports will remain available in the future. I am concerned that changes made without parliamentary debate or adequate consultation could reduce supports, disrupt established care arrangements and create significant uncertainty for people who depend on the scheme.
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 NDSIS, 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 existing NDIS participant, I joined the scheme with the expectation that decisions affecting my supports would be subject to fair review and appeal processes. The proposed changes would weaken those protections and could leave participants unable to challenge funding reductions or seek reassessment when their needs change. This is particularly concerning for people with fluctuating conditions such as ME/CFS, whose support needs may change over time.
The NDIS should strengthen, not weaken, participant safeguards. Removing review rights and limiting opportunities to seek reassessments risks leaving participants with inadequate supports and no meaningful avenue to challenge decisions that directly affect their daily lives. Any decision that reduces a participant’s supports or funding should be subject to independent review.
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 issue:
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.
Participants should not be exposed to funding cuts imposed through ministerial instruments without parliamentary scrutiny or any right of review or appeal. Reductions to supports such as assistive technology, capacity building or community participation can have a significant impact on a person’s independence, health and quality of life and should only occur through transparent processes with appropriate safeguards and review rights.
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.
For conditions such as ME/CFS, where there is no universally effective treatment and where some interventions may be ineffective or even harmful, a requirement to exhaust treatment options before accessing the NDIS is particularly concerning. Eligibility and support needs should be assessed based on the real-world functional impact of disability, not on whether treatments exist, are affordable, are accessible, or are effective for a particular individual.
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
Page 4
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.
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.
Assessment tools used to determine eligibility and support needs must accurately reflect the lived experience of people with disability and must be independently validated before being used to make decisions with significant consequences for participants. For people with fluctuating conditions such as ME/CFS, a tool that does not capture variability, post-exertional symptom exacerbation, or the cumulative impact of disability over time may significantly underestimate support needs and lead to unfair outcomes.
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 flucating disability, and demonstrated to be culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
Supports cut before replacement system is ready
The issue:
The Government has announced its intention to reduce funding for social, civic and community participation supports by 50 per cent and capacity building daily activities by 10 per cent from 1 October 2026, with those reductions to 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.
For many people with disability, including those with conditions that can be isolating such as ME/CFS, community participation and capacity building supports play an important role in maintaining connection, independence and quality of life. For many participants, these supports help prevent social isolation, maintain functional capacity and reduce reliance on more intensive supports. Cutting them before Foundational Supports are available risks increasing isolation, reducing independence and leaving participants without meaningful alternatives to meet their 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
While I support measures that improve the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, sustainability must not come at the expense of participant rights, procedural fairness, or access to essential supports. The Bill proposes significant changes to eligibility, assessment, funding and review processes while leaving many critical details to future ministerial instruments.
I urge the Committee to recommend substantial amendments to ensure participants are protected from harm, retain access to independent review, and are not disadvantaged by changes that have not been fully scrutinised by Parliament. The NDIS was established to support people with disability to participate in their communities and live with dignity, choice and control. Any reforms to the scheme should strengthen those principles, not weaken them.