Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Date 30th May 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 mother to a daughter on the NDIS scheme who has a NDIS plan and has done for many years. She has many disagnoses - cerebral palsy, diabetes inspidus and acquired brain injury being the main ones that impact her independence and wellbeing.

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 having to submit this quickly rather than giving real consideration to it, and this will be the same for many many people. It is daunting to have to do this which takes away from my caring role and to do it speedily.

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

How this affects participants

The decisions that shape the lives of participants, whether they qualify for the NDSI 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.

This is blatantly unfair and way beyond the capability of many participants and families to deal with, in many cases there is no say in how you will be affected or justification as to how you come to the decisions. You are aiming as usual at the wrong people, not the unregistered providers who take advantage, or people who ort the system, this is very unfair on those who are genuinely grateful for the help they get, whose lives it make a real difference to and whose life long disability requires the help that the NDIS can provide. It was always about choice and control and that is being stripped away under the new proposals.

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.

Why does the rules have to be stricter when one is already on the scheme, and been accepted as such at a realistic level, the nature of disability is that it does not get better but will inevitably worsen over time. Without the avenue of making a change of circumstance submission this is surely against human rights, and not being able to challenge any decisions ? This is again blatantly unfair and against basic rights again. All control is being taken away.

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.

The scheme has been so badly managed with so many flaws, it is this that need addressing not cutting peoples plans and no longer being to run funds over, it is often not possible with wait times to spend the funds in the plan time.

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, heir 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.

Again this is so wrong on every level, not being able to submit reports which give a twhole person approach (even if they are not read by the person making the decisions?) and people not trained in disability making these decisions is veryrightening.

Recommendation:

Do not proceed with a requirement to exhaust “appropriate” reatment“ 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.

Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN)

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.

The assessment tool cannot be allowed to replace a human with a human view of what is needed, nothing in the world of disability is black and white, cut and dried, there are always so many grey areas, and interpretation is key to making a persons life liveable, and to have the same rights and choice as everyone else.

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.

Why should you have a lesser life just because you are disabled? My daughter cannot travel or access on her own, and never has been able or will she be able to, s> so does that mean she will only be able to go our once a month not every other week? How can you possible justify that?

You obviously have no idea how exhausting it is looking after a disabled person and how carers do all they can to help their loved ones, but please please do not make it any harder than it already is by stripping them of the basic right of a social life and therapies and staff to help them go to medical appointments. No body would disagree that the NDIS does require reigning in and prosecutions to take place for unscrupulous providers and those who have somehow got on the scheme when they should not but please do not make the suffering of our people more than it already is by cutting the previously agreed to plans in this way.

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.