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 31 May 2026

Dear Committee Members,

My name is , and I am a disability advocate from metro South Australia.

I have several disabilities, including but not limited to Cerebral Palsy and autism (level 2). 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 write this submission out of concern for the wellbeing of people with disabilities across the country, particularly that of my older brother, for whom I recently became a carer/guardian following the death of our mother some seven months ago.

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.

Before I outline my overarching concerns about the Bill for all current and future NDIS participants, I want to try and help you to understand the situation of my brother as one real life example of the devastating and life-limiting impact this Bill could have on people like him. As a former state parliamentarian myself, I certainly appreciate that governments must make decisions for the economic good of a nation. However, I am deeply concerned that through political debates and media portrayals, disabled people are being rapidly reduced to static numbers in a ledger,

respected and invested in as whole human beings with valuable contributions to

make and an inherent right to a meaningful and high-quality life.

My brother is 40 years old and has Sturge-Weber Syndrome (SWS), a rare

eurological condition which in his case includes intellectual disability and epilepsy

as well as other potential health risks. For most of his life he lived in our family home

and had limited opportunities to develop independence, social connections and

community participation. The NDIS has changed that. Today, lives outside

the family home, is actively exploring employment opportunities, participates in his

community and is more socially connected than I have ever seen him. For the first

time since leaving school, he talks about what is happening in his life now and what

he is looking forward to in the future, rather than repeatedly revisiting memories from

decades ago. He is creating new experiences, developing new skills and building a

meaningful adult life.

I have personally witnessed the transformative impact that social and community

participation supports can have. These supports are often characterised as

discretionary or non-essential, but in ’s case they have been fundamental to

his wellbeing, independence and quality of life. They have given him opportunities to

form relationships, develop confidence and participate in society in ways that would

otherwise not have been possible.

Approximately two years ago, ’s social and community participation funding

was reduced by around 50 per cent. The consequences were immediate and

significant. We saw a marked decline in his mental health, emotional regulation and

overall wellbeing. He began experiencing suicidal thoughts and thoughts of self- harm. His support needs increased substantially and the burden of responding to those needs increasingly fell on family members.

As one of ’s guardians and primary source of informal support, I experienced the consequences of these cuts firsthand. During this period, frequently contacted me at all hours of the day and night seeking assistance with emotional regulation, reassurance and support to remain safe. The impact on our family was

considerable. It affected my ability to work, my own mental health and my capacity to maintain relationships and responsibilities outside of caring for him. The reduction in funded support did not eliminate ’s need for support. It simply shifted that responsibility onto family members who were already doing everything they could.
This experience has left me deeply concerned about the proposed changes to the NDIS. I am not evaluating these reforms in the abstract. I have already seen what happens when vital supports are reduced. The fear and uncertainty generated by the prospect of further cuts is not theoretical. It is based on lived experience.
There is also a significant economic concern. Reducing access to preventative and community-based disability supports does not necessarily reduce overall government expenditure. Instead, it risks shifting costs from the disability system into the health system, emergency services and unpaid family care. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that the average cost of an acute public sector mental health inpatient day was approximately $1,758 per day in 2023-24.
Preventing a mental health crisis through appropriate community participation and support is not only better for the individual but is likely to be considerably more cost- effective than responding after a crisis has occurred.
For , social and community participation funding is not merely life-changing. I genuinely believe it is life-saving. The funding enables him to remain connected, engaged and hopeful about his future. Having witnessed the consequences of previous reductions, I am profoundly concerned about what further cuts could mean for his wellbeing, safety and future. I am also concerned about the impact this would have on the family members who would inevitably be required to fill the gaps left behind.

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 greatly because, as a person with both physical and neurodevelopmental disabilities who is a carer and is employed almost fulltime, I have been forced to write this submission during my limited free time. This requires me to expend significant physical effort and cognitive energy at a time when I would ideally be resting ahead of my working week, so that I am well enough to contribute to the economy and the community through my work. This puts my wellbeing and the quality of my work at risk.

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.

Using a instrument or NDIS rule, rather than primary legislation, to determine who is eligible for supports or how much funding is available fundamentally changes the legal and practical environment for NDIS participants. While legislation passed by Parliament is subject to extensive debate, scrutiny and public accountability, legislative instruments can generally be created, amended or replaced more quickly and with less oversight. This reduces opportunities for participants, advocates and

Page 5

The use of legislative instruments also creates greater uncertainty for participants.

Eligibility criteria, funding cohorts and price limits can be altered more rapidly than would be possible through amendments to the Act itself. As a result, participants may face sudden changes to their eligibility or support budgets with limited warning.

This unpredictability makes it difficult for people with disability and their families to make informed decisions or plan for the future.

There are also concerns about transparency. Important details, such as funding caps, eligibility definitions or cohort classifications, may be contained within secondary instruments rather than the primary legislation. These documents can be difficult for participants to locate, understand or monitor, particularly when changes occur frequently. This increases the risk that significant policy changes could occur without participants being fully aware of their implications until they are directly affected.

The ability to change funding settings through legislative instruments may also undermine financial security. Participants often need to make long-term plans regarding therapy, assistive technology, home modifications, support workers and other essential services. If eligibility criteria or funding limits can be adjusted quickly through an instrument, participants may face reductions in support with little notice.

This uncertainty can have serious consequences for both participants and providers attempting to plan and deliver services.

Another concern is that cohort-based funding caps or price limits may not adequately reflect individual circumstances. Broad categories and standardised limits can fail to account for people with complex, fluctuating or high support needs. This risks creating inequitable outcomes, where participants receive support based on a predetermined cohort rather than an assessment of their individual needs and circumstances.
Participants may also be exposed to the risk of losing one-off funding or having previously approved supports become underfunded. Changes to funding caps or pricing arrangements at plan reassessment or through transitional instruments could result in supports being reduced, removed or no longer adequately funded, even where commitments have already been made or services have already been arranged.
The increased reliance on legislative instruments may also weaken review and appeal protections. Rapid changes to eligibility or funding settings can outpace existing administrative safeguards. Where decisions are closely tied to legislative instruments, participants may face greater difficulty challenging outcomes or accessing meaningful review processes. This has the potential to reduce access to legal remedies and procedural fairness.
Finally, the use of legislative instruments raises serious concerns about the potential expansion of automated or semi-automated decision-making. Instruments may be used to establish fixed rules, thresholds or eligibility criteria that are then applied through automated systems. This creates a risk of opaque decision-making processes that are difficult for participants to understand, challenge or appeal, especially where algorithmic assessments play a role in determining access to supports.

Australia has already seen how badly this can go wrong through the Centrelink

Robodebt scheme. Robodebt used automated income averaging to raise debts against welfare recipients, often shifting the burden onto individuals to prove that a dept was wrong. The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme delivered its report on 7 July 2023, and ABC reporting on the report stated that roughly 443,000 Australians received false dept notices. The Commissioner described the scheme as “crude and cruel”, and the report made 57 recommendations.

The human impact of Robodebt was not abstract. Legal Aid Victoria has published client stories showing the stress and hardship caused by inaccurate and unfair Robodebt claims, including people being pursued for depts they did not owe and having to fight to correct errors. Media reports also recorded individual stories of people experiencing severe stress, anxiety and despair after receiving Centrelink debt notices. In one widely reported case, the family of Jarrad Madgwick said he died by suicide after receiving a Centrelink debt and arguing with Centrelink about his claim.

Robodebt demonstrates the danger of building rigid automated systems around flawed assumptions, then placing the burden of correction on the affected person. This is particularly relevant to the NDIS, where decisions about eligibility, funding and supports directly affect people’s safety, independence, housing, communication, mobility, care relationships and ability to participate in community life. If legislative instruments are used to create blunt eligibility thresholds or funding caps that are then applied through automated or semi-automated systems, participants may face incorrect or unfair decisions that are difficult to understand, review or overturn.

For this reason, any use of legislative instruments to shape NDIS eligibility or funding must be accompanied by strong safeguards. These should include transparency about the rules being applied, mandatory human oversight, clear reasons for decisions, accessible review pathways, protections against retrospective dept or clawback, and a prohibition on using automated systems as a substitute for individualised assessment.

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.

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.

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:

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.

The proposed shift away from a whole-of-person assessment towards a requirement that supports arise directly from a single eligible impairment represents one of the most concerning aspects of the Bill. While this change may appear technical, it fundamentally alters how disability is understood within the NDIS and risks excluding many people whose support needs arise from the interaction of multiple disabilities, health conditions and environmental barriers.

Page 10

The current approach recognises that disability is rarely experienced as a single, isolated condition. The NDIS assesses a person’s overall functional capacity and considers how their impairments interact to affect their daily life. The proposed amendments instead require a much narrower causal connection between a support and a single eligible impairment. This shifts the scheme away from understanding disability as a lived experience and towards a more rigid medical model focused on diagnosis and causation.

This approach fails to reflect the reality of disability in Australia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 5.5 million Australians, or 21.4% of the population, had disability in 2022 (ABS, 2024). The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare also describes disability as a dynamic interaction between a person’s health condition or conditions, environmental factors and personal factors (AIHW, 2024).

Earlier AIHW analysis of ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers data found that 51% of Australians with disability had two or more disabilities, including 45% of people aged 15–64 years with disability and 62% of people aged 65 years and over with disability (AIHW, 2009). Although this specific multiple-disability estimate is older, it remains highly relevant because it demonstrates that multiple and interacting disabilities are not unusual or exceptional. They are a central feature of disability experience.

As a participant with both cerebral palsy and autism, I cannot meaningfully separate the impacts of one disability from the other. My physical fatigue, pain and mobility limitations directly affect my concentration, executive functioning and sensory regulation. Equally, autistic burnout, sensory overload and cognitive fatigue can worsen my ability to manage the physical demands of daily life. The barriers I experience do not arise from one condition in isolation. They arise from the combined effect of both disabilities and the environments in which I am expected to

Page 11

function. A system that requires supports to be linked to a single impairment risks

ignoring the reality of how disability is experienced.

The proposed changes also create significant concerns for participants whose

support needs arise from interactions between physical disability, mental health

conditions, intellectual disability, sensory disability or chronic illness. Supports that

were previously considered reasonable and necessary because they addressed the

person’s overall functional needs may no longer qualify if a direct causal link to a

single eligible impairment cannot be established. This is likely to result in increased

disputes, greater evidentiary burdens and inconsistent decision-making.

The proposed requirement to exhaust all available and appropriate treatment options

before accessing support raises similar concerns. While this requirement may

appear reasonable in theory, it fails to account for the fact that many people have

already undergone extensive treatment, rehabilitation or intervention without

achieving meaningful improvement. In some cases, treatment itself may have

caused harm.

In my own case, I have cerebral palsy and became a full-time wheelchair user

following a failed surgical intervention during childhood. Prior to that surgery, I was

able to walk using a walking frame. Following the procedure, I permanently lost that

ability. The treatment options available to me were not only exhausted but

contributed to significant pain, distress and long-term medical trauma. As an adult,

those experiences continue to affect my ability to engage with healthcare settings.

Page 12

The treatment-exhaustion requirement also risks producing outcomes that are

illogical and deeply disconnected from the purpose of the NDIS. At the time of

writing, I am seeking review of a decision to deny funding for modifications to my

kitchen that would allow me, as a wheelchair user, to reach cupboards and use my

home safely and independently. The reason provided was that there was insufficient

evidence that I had attempted therapies to increase my reach. As a person who

cannot stand independently and who spends almost all of my time in a seated

position, the suggestion that I should first attempt therapies to increase my reach

before modifying an inaccessible environment demonstrates a fundamental

misunderstanding of disability. The barrier is not my unwillingness to undertake

treatment. The barrier is that the environment has been designed around standing

people.

This example highlights the broader risk created by the proposed amendments.

Rather than addressing barriers through supports, modifications and reasonable

accommodations, participants may increasingly be required to prove that they have

exhausted every conceivable treatment option, regardless of how unrealistic, ineffective or burdensome those options may be. This shifts responsibility away from creating accessible environments and onto individuals with disability to continually justify why they cannot overcome their impairments.

Taken together, these changes risk narrowing the practical scope of the NDIS, increasing administrative burden and reducing access to supports for people with complex, intersecting and lifelong disabilities. They move the scheme away from a functional, person-centred understanding of disability and towards a model that is more medicalised, more adversarial and less reflective of the realities faced by participants.

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.

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.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my submission.