Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

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

Date: 29 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 the parent of an NDIS participant.

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 because, as the primary carer for four people (my parents, my partner and my son) and having to work full-time to support them and home educate my son, my time is very limited.

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 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.

I self-manage our son’s plan and work hard to keep across updates but changes of this sort might inadvertently mean that he is suddenly not eligible for supports he is currently accessing.

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.

• My son went into acute burnout at age 5 and it is only through NDIS supports that he

has been able to recover from a state where he regressed to infant level. He still

requires significantly more support than the average 9yo but whether or not this

would be recognised by the NDIS in the future is unclear. Without ongoing supports

my child could be plunged back into a state of extreme distress and have his future

stripped away. With them I am confident that he can build capacity to become much

more independent in the future.

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.

There are times when we have had funds sitting there for some time – either because we were awaiting access (e.g. waitlisted to a suitable specialist physiotherapist for a burst of therapy) or were planning how to best use funds for a piece of assistive technology under the guidance of our OT. To be responsible with the funds, it sometimes means not rushing to spend it – so the idea that these funds could then be suddenly removed is really scary.

• 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 is one of the most alarming of proposed changes. In my child’s case he has Autism – it is not treatable! I’m also Autistic and I don’t have an NDIS plan as I don’t require that level of support, but I know first hand that you can’t ‘treat’ Autism away. You can reduce autistic distress and build skills – but I can’t see under this model what the NDIS would require of an Autistic person with high support needs in order to be eligible. Would the NDIS require the Autistic person to take medication? There is no med that ‘treats’ autism so this would lead to massive overprescription of psychiatric drugs. Would the NDIS require the Autotic person to pay privately for extensive therapy? And then show that it ‘hadn’t worked’? That makes no sense as if therapies like occupational therapy or speech therapy weren’t effective at building capacity then the NDIS wouldn’t fund them at all.

I have very serious concerns about this rule as many disabilities are not ‘treatable’ in this way – if they were people wouldn’t be disabled!

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.

.I am extremely concerned that the I-CAN tool won’t cover the nuance or extent of my child’s disability, which – like my disabilities – fluctuates considerably.

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.

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.

Finally, I would say that even with NDIS supports I had to leave an executive level role to support my child full-time. We are responsible with funds and focused on building our child’s capacity so that in the future he requires far fewer supports but if we weren’t working so hard at this there is every likelihood that he would end up requiring permanent supported care. If the supports were to be lost it would be utterly devasting to my child and my family as a whole. To be honest the thought of it utterly terrifies me. There is no other safety net.

I understand that ‘Foundational Supports’ will be developed by the states but I gather these will be delivered in schools or community hubs. This is not accessible for my child – having therapists come to our house was the only option for us as our child entered a state of such distress he couldn’t leave the house for 9 months and he**

Would scream and cry if we left. Slowly, by having skilled professionals come to us,

we have rebuilt things to the point where he goes out in the community and attends

small group classes. However he is extremely sensitive to noise (misophonia) and

therefore ‘community hubs’ or schools are out of the question for him - he goes into

acute shutdown. Nothing I have seen has given any indication that there will be any

support whatsoever for children like mine. And there are many thousands of them.

Most of those families are hanging on by a thread - in financial strife, relationship

tension, mental health deterioration. Lives will be lost if they lose the only support

they currently have.

I appeal to the government to be compassionate. Fraud is one thing - we should

absolutely weed that out - but these changes seem more designed to strip access

and supports away from highly vulnerable people like my beautiful child.