Submission regarding 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: 1 June 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 the mother of a NDIS participant, (19 years), who has accessed the NDIS since its rollout in the ACT. has ASDL3, is nonverbal and has an intellectual disability.
I am vehemently opposed to this NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the Amendment Bill) and the enormous harm it will undoubtedly cause if it passes Parliament. The Bill as it stands should absolutely not proceed.
Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency
The average consultation period for a bill is 3-6 weeks. The consultation period for the 113 page Amendment Bill plus the 289 page Explanatory Memorandum was initially 15 days (due on Friday 29 May 2026) then at the last minute extended a paltry three extra days to Monday 1 June 2026. The government has described the NDIS as ‘one of Australia’s most important social programs’ yet is seeking to rush this bill through with less than the 3-6 week average time period for people to submit submissions. Given the massive changes this bill seeks to bring about, 18 days is outrageous, especially when the cohort of people this bill most directly impacts, people with disability and their carers, have significantly less time, energy and many cases ability (without support) to respond in a short timeframe. The consultation period is totally insufficient to allow for appropriate consultation, especially considering accessibility and communication needs. The Australian Government’s own guide, the Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days. The way this bill has been introduced has unleashed incredible fear, stress and anxiety in the disability community.
The short timeline impacts me because I work full-time, am a carer for my son with a disability, have two other children living at home, a 91-year old mother-in-law who lives with us and elderly parents who live in an aged care facility interstate. Obviously, I have a lot going on, with little time to read the Amendment Bill and seek the assistance I require to understand the Amendment Bill and the impact it will have and then write a response.
Recommendation:
Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.
Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law
The issue: The Amendment 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 even 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.
Page 2
The NDIS works best for individuals, families and carers and long term outcomes when NDIS plans are tailored to suit the person with disability. Giving Ministers the ability to change how a cohort of people get NDIS support and how much funding they receive turns on its head the core principle of the NDIS that support and care is not a one-size-fits-all.
- 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 Amendment Bill changes the rules for existing NDIS participants and makes it harder to challenge some decisions about supports and funding. It also restricts when a NDIS participant 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, hey 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.
The NDIS review process is already extremely difficult and the changes in this Amendment Bill will make that process far worse. People with disability are already scared to contact the NDIS when a change of circumstances occurs resulting in increased support requirements, for fear that their plan will be reviewed and the funding in their plan will be reduced. People in the disability community have very little trust that those in the NDS making decisions about NDIS plans are qualified to be making those decisions. When my husband and I went for a review of our son’s plan we were asked how he was going in high school, when he was in primary school. This is nothing compared to people with Down Syndrome and other permanent genetic conditions being asked by NDIS planners if they still have the condition.
- 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. People who can’t spend the funds in their plans due to being unable to access services due to long wait lists or thin markets will also be disadvantaged. There is a false presumption that if the funds are not fully spent than they are needed and this has been used to reduce plan funding amounts.
- 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.
This requirement which removes the whole-of-person assessment and individual circumstances is absurd. I have listened to many people with disability describe what being assessed against a single eligible impairment rather than their whole experience means in practice. It is absolutely non- sensical to reduce a person who has multiple disability types to a single impairment. There is also no clear definition of what an ‘appropriate treatment’ option is or entails. Who decides what the tpreatment options’ are and will an expensive report have to be written as evidence that the tpreatment options’ have been exhausted?
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 Amendment 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 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 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. Where has the I-CAN assessment tool been used elsewhere in the world and has it been evaluated? Who inputs the information into the assessment tool. Where it the human that reviews the data put into the tool and confirms its accuracy?
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.
People with disability and their families are often already isolated due to the barriers their disability poses to participating in their community. This part of the Amendment Bill is particularly cruel and short-sighted. The wider community is more caring and inclusive when people with disability are visible and part of that community. Carers also benefit when the person with disability is not so reliant on them and can make connections outside of the family home.
- 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
In my view the government and media’s portrayal of the NDIS as being riddled with fraud by providers and participants is a false narrative deliberately used to gain public support for the budget cuts. Where is the evaluation showing where the fraud is occurring and the extent of that fraud? Why is the government not taking responsibility for designing a scheme that could allow this level of fraud and changing the scheme to contain that fraud?
I am also extremely angered by the government and media’s additional narrative that there are people, particularly those with what Minister Mark Butler has referred to as ‘mild’ ASD, who the NDIS never intended to have access to the scheme. This argument doesn’t take into account the enormous benefits of early intervention and the more favourable long term outcomes and cost savings for government.
I don’t believe there is a single NDIS participant or their family that would not agree that there are significant flaws in the NDIS model and the way it was implemented and has been managed over time. The answer is not to introduce wide-scale cuts to current NDIS plans and NDIS eligibility. The need will not go away, it will be shifted to informal unpaid supports, most often women, more expensive care options such as hospitals and services that don’t exist.
I am particularly concerned what this Amendment Bill means for women. Prior to the NDIS I knew almost no woman who was able to remain in the workforce and care for her child/children with disability. Most gave up their jobs/careers to become full-time carers for their children with disability. This means their income was significantly reduced, their superannuation next to zero and their long-term prospects one of poverty, extreme isolation and mental health issues.
I think this Amendment Bill is extremely lazy policy. In the short term it might make the budget figures look better but the long-term flow-on impacts will be far more costly not just in terms of money but in the ability of people with disability and their families to live ordinary lives.