PWDA Template: 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: 30/05/2026
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 a person with a disability, and 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 by requiring me to use up my limited capacity;
as someone with ME/CFS (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, also more commonly known by the misleading name Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) on a shorter timeframe, to get the opportunity to make representations on how the proposed changes affect me, and those like me – risking a flare-up due to improper pacing, which can leave me almost entirely bedbound for days-to-weeks at a time.
For the Bill, being one that affects a community of diverse issues including being time-poor and energy poor, to be made open for consultations in good faith, then this needs to be done in a manner that accounts for the accessibility needs of those that are directly impacted by the Bill in question.
A two week consultation period, for a document that is both long, and complex, is wholly inadequate – and would not be able to yield an earnest consultation from those directly impacted and involved in the changes to be implemented.
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.
- My mental health has already taken significant harm from the dread I have felt of the
impending changes to the NDIS plans of me, my community as a disabled person,
and those that have yet to be offered access to the Scheme.
- My NDIS plan has been able to provide major supports to me in my household, that
ensure that my wife, as sole breadwinner, is able to work fulltime – rather than taking
time off work to care for me, who, due to the circumstances of my disability is unable
to work more than 8-10 hours in a week.
- The purpose of open, and public, decision-making in our representative democratic
system, is so that we are able to feel secure that the government is making
educated, deliberated, and careful decisions – with active consideration to those that
may be adversely impacted as a result of changes.
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 could make it harder for people to get extra support when their circumstances or disability change.
Due to the circumstances of my disability - I have significant limitations in my mobility. As a result, it was recommended, by my occupational therapist, that I be provided with a power wheelchair, allowing me to engage in the community and work more - for instances where my mobility and/or energy are at such levels that I would not otherwise be able to even leave my apartment.
I now have this wheelchair, and it has made significant improvements in my independence and my ability to attend to errands, social interactions, and work - things that able-bodied individuals are able to do without such barriers.
However, that only occurred after taking the NDIA to the ART through a 2 year process. When I submitted the AT request form with my OT’s report, it was rejected for reasoning that I was apparently not on a plan for my ME/CFS, and only supported for ASD, and quote: “we do not provide wheelchairs for people with autism.”
funding to supplement the costs of pre-prepared meals to be made and
delivered.
It was only through this extended and drawn out process, that I was able to ensure
that the NDIA recognised that not only should they support me for my ME/CFS, they
already were doing so, and should continue to do so – and consequently added that
to my primary disability.
Additionally, once that was resolved, we were then able to ensure that the Agency
relented that they should have provided me with the device as per the AT request
that my OT had submitted 2 years prior at that point, and agreed to the provision of
this mobility aid.
This review and oversight process was a safeguard that ensured that the NDIS was
actually providing me with the support that, not only did I need, but that they should
have been providing me with.
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 5
right to appeal. Participants who save unspent funds across plan periods for high-
cost items will lose that ability entirely.
My disability has variable circumstances in severity and subsequently support needs.
As a result, my access to my supports also varies. If there were not to be unspent carry-over, and plan budget reductions due to periods that I am functioning better, thi would adversely affect my ability to access supports that I need during my worse periods.
A key example of this is that my symptoms spike when temperatures rise above an average daily maximum 34, and drop below an average daily maximum of 15. That is to say, I function better in Spring and Autumn, than I do in Winter and Summer.
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.
My Disability Exists In A Intermixing Nature Of Comorbid Conditions
My disability exists in a intermingling nature of comorbid conditions. My ME/CFS is
affected by my OBPI condition (Orthostatic Blood Pressure Intolerance, such as
POTS (Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome)), my hEDS (hypermobile
Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome), my narcolepsy, my ASD, my ADHD, and other conditions.
My impairment cannot be described in terms of single-impairment-source simplicity –
and so I would not be able to meet these new terms. Despite the fact that, as per my
ART process the NDIA has already admitted that they recognise that my disability
requires support, and that they are the ones that need to provide that support.
Furthermore, my principal condition does not have any cures or treatments, and is
still heavily under researched – and so the process of proving that treatment options
being exhausted is a common issue that people with my conditions face.
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.
My disabilities are not well understood by the wider health and allied health community – a one-size-fits-all approach would drastically fail to assess individuals like myself – especially in being done without the expertise and knowledge of my specialist care team who specifically focus on people with disability concerns like my own.
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:
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.
We rely on our supports to access life in ways that are still not in parity to what
people without disabilities are able to experience. These supports are essential.
They are not just line-items on a budget but an essential good.
By cutting these supports, without equivalent systems up and running already in place and functioning – people will go without the bare essentials.
Individuals with similar circumstances to my own would have to go without basic hygiene, being able to attend to basic every day activities like going grocery shopping or seeing a movie.
These are things people without disabilities take for granted. Those of us with disabilities need to rely on close loved ones, friends, neighbours, and professionals to do the same.
The needs don’t disappear just because the supports are cut. Individuals will just go without. And it is truly shameful that the Bill asks those who already deeply struggle with daily life, and have significant support needs, to be going without these; rather than, say, asking resource and mining companies to pay a fair share for what they take from the land that we live on.
A simple 15-25% resources tax on those companies, enforced appropriately, would pay for the supports that are being cut from the NDIS, and thensome.
But instead the government is choosing to harm those who often struggle to advocate for themselves. People will die. And the government needs to know blood will be on their hands if they pass this legislation as it is.
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.