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: 29th May 2026
We 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 a NDIS participant and carer of a NDIS participant/person with disability.
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 the ability of Autistic people, people with disability, carers and families to meaningfully engage with and understand the
proposed changes.
As an Autistic person and parent of an Autistic young person, I
know that processing large amounts of complex information, seeking clarification, consulting with supports and preparing a response can take significantly more time. A two-week consultation period does not allow equitable access to participation and risks excluding many of the people who will be most impacted by these reforms.
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.
As an Autistic person and parent of an Autistic young person, this creates significant fear and uncertainty for my family. Supports that are essential for participation, emotional regulation, community connection and daily functioning could potentially be reduced or removed without proper consultation, transparency or parliamentary oversight. Families should not have to live with ongoing anxiety that eligibility rules or funding levels could suddenly change without meaningful scrutiny or safeguards.
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.
As an Autistic person and parent of an Autistic young person, I am deeply concerned
about the loss of review rights and reduced ability to challenge decisions about
supports. Support needs can change significantly over time due to burnout, mental
health, education demands and changing life circumstances, and families need the
ability to request reassessments and advocate for appropriate supports when those
needs increase. Without meaningful review processes, participants risk losing critical
supports with little opportunity to challenge decisions that may negatively impact
their wellbeing, independence and safety. In some circumstances, the loss of
appropriate supports could lead to severe mental health deterioration, crisis nsituations, or loss of life.
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.
As an Autistic person and parent of an Autistic young person, I am deeply concerned about funding being reduced without transparency, consultation or appeal rights.
Supports such as community participation, mentoring, therapy and assistive technology are often essential for emotional regulation, independence, connection and safety, and sudden reductions could have devastating impacts on mental health, daily functioning and overall quality of life. Many families also rely on the ability to save unspent funds over multiple plan periods to afford larger supports and equipment, and removing this flexibility will place additional financial and emotional pressure on participants and carers. In some cases, the loss of critical supports and resulting deterioration in wellbeing could contribute to crisis situations, severe mental health decline, or loss of life.
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.
As an Autistic person and parent of an Autistic young person, I am deeply concerned about requiring people to exhaust treatment options before they can access essential supports. Many treatments and therapies are expensive, inaccessible, unsuitable, or can cause additional distress, burnout and harm, particularly for Autistic people who may already be navigating sensory overload, mental health challenges and systemic barriers to care. Assessing people only against a single impairment also fails to recognise the complexity of disability and the way environmental factors, co-occurring conditions and daily living circumstances interact to impact functioning and wellbeing. Without appropriate supports, people with disability may experience significant deterioration in mental health, functioning, safety and quality of life, and in some circumstances this could contribute to crisis situations or loss of life.
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.
As an Autistic person and parent of an Autistic young person, appropriate assessment is critical because disability and support needs are not always consistent, visible or easily captured in a single assessment at one point in time. Many Autistic people experience fluctuating capacity, masking, burnout and significant environmental impacts that may not be recognised through narrow assessment tools focused on a single impairment. If assessments fail to accurately reflect a person’s lived experience and actual support needs, participants may lose access to essential supports, leading to deterioration in mental health, increased isolation, burnout, crisis situations and, in some circumstances, loss of life.
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.
As an Autistic person and parent of an Autistic young person, I am deeply concerned about community participation and capacity building supports being reduced before replacement systems are fully operational. These supports are often essential for reducing isolation, building confidence, supporting emotional regulation, developing independence and maintaining community connection and safety. Without these supports, many Autistic people and families may experience significant deterioration in mental health, increased burnout, loss of independence, family breakdown, crisis situations and, in some circumstances, loss of life.
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.
Page 8
As an Autistic person and parent of an Autistic young person, I urge the Committee
to carefully consider the real human impact these proposed changes may have on
people with disability, families and carers across Australia. Supports provided
through the NDIS are not optional extras, they are often the difference between
safety and crisis, connection and isolation, participation and exclusion. Reforms of
this scale must not proceed without genuine consultation, transparency, strong
safeguards and meaningful review rights. The disability community deserves
legislation that protects dignity, wellbeing and human rights, rather than creating
fear, uncertainty and harm for some of the most vulnerable members of our
community.
Thank you,
8