Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

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 a carer 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 issue:

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 all of us by preventing a reasonable time for affected individuals to analyse and properly respond. Especially for people with disabilities, this response represents a supplementary—yet necessary—task for them, over and above the requirements of normal life, which can often be overwhelming even without disabilities. Without proper time for responses, our result as a society will be negatively impacted.

Recommendation:

Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days, and ideally 90.

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.

Support for society’s most vulnerable members is not something that should be changed lightly. Removing the requirement for Parliamentary participation in changes is a recipe for needless suffering—and even worse—among NDIS participants, as people unqualified to make such determinations will no doubt make ham-fisted attempts at saving money while being ignorant of the extent to which many individuals and families rely on the supports that they have painstakingly built up at great personal cost.

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.

Participants include those of us for whom merely making it through a day is a challenge requiring what seems to be a superhuman level of energy and focus. This means that affected people need MORE options for interacting with the system, not fewer.

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.

It has been my experience that it is difficult to find qualified, high-quality providers. As a simple example, the best occupational therapists often have waiting lists that are years long. Since a poor fit between client and therapist may actively cause harm, the summary reduction in funding because of underspending a support grant penalises

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.

Many people on support have individual circumstances which merit consideration in an individual way. Any policy which pretends this not to be the case is misguided and guaranteed to cause harm because no general-purpose rubric can, by definition, account for such individual differences. And providers are of uneven quality: as previously mentioned, this change in policy will encourage participants to engage providers who will actively do them harm, because NOT doing so will cause a different variety of harm.

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.

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.

Assessment is the foundation of the system’s ability to care for people appropriately. This change would force assessment to take place in a manner which has not been shown to be effective or appropriate in the actual circumstances for which it would be used. Assessment is complicated. To do a competent job requires intelligence and judgment. Even a competent, experienced provider can be unable to produce a just result with an inappropriate instrument.

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 who are current beneficiaries of the NDIS are often using its benefits to the fullest in order that they may live productive, happy lives. I’m not against improving the system or even reducing the overall level of spending it entails. But this change would place serious, potentially life-challenging costs on the people who can least afford to be faced with more challenges. A compassionate system would prioritise care for those needing support the most. As a society, we can stand to build a new bridge before we destroy the old one.

• 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.