NDIA Accountability Project

Impact on NDIS support for a person with trisomy 21

‹ PrevPage 1 of 6 · Source p. 1Next ›

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: 31/05/2026

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 family member/carer of an NDIS participant/person with trisomy 21 disability (also known as down syndrome).

I absolutely support the intent of changes to the NDIS to make it a sustainable scheme, but 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 ScruƟny 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 not allowing me enough time to fully read and understand the bill and form my response.

Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.

Key decisions leŌ 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.

Further, in my experience, individual eligibility and plans have been developed based on assessment and recommendations from qualified and experience occupational therapists; and review and approval from NDIA. There have been many hoops to jump through to obtain reasonable and necessary funding through a process in which the decision making is less than transparent and the process is imperfect.

Having navigated this, to then have a Minister make sweeping decisions to change eligibility and funding without full parliamentary scrutiny and approval is significant ministerial overreach and must not be permitted.

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.

Automatic renewal without notice does not give a participant the opportunity to have any review as to whether the plan is meeting their needs. Where a plan has been in place for a years and is working and is fully utilised, primarily with 1:3 supports for a person who does not have capacity to function without support, reducing funding places the person with disability at considerable risk. The only way to reduce expenditure is to have periods of no support.

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.

The minister has focused on social and community support spending as being too high. I can only assume that he does not understand how this funding is used. It may be being charged under the incorrect service type, but in my experience, it is the funding that pays for a person with disability who cannot function independently to

  • Attend a group-based day program (funded at 1:3) which is focussed on skill development and health and wellbeing.
  • employ a support worker to accompany the person with disability to medical, dental and personal care appointments
  • employ a support worker to accompany the person with disability to social and community activities (again often on a 1:3 basis)

Cutting this funding will have a drastic impact on someone who has carefully planned and routinely used all their funding on reasonable and necessary supports.

Participants who save unspent funds across plan periods for high-cost items will lose that ability entirely. This has not affected me personally, but I can understand the need to carry funding from one plan to another for high-cost items.

Recommendation

Require independent review rights before any funding reduction takes effect. Require that NDIA allows a way for participants saving for high-cost items to carry over unspent funds for that purpose.

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.

The minister has stated that social and community support spending is too high. I can only assume that he does not understand how this funding is used. It may be being charged under the incorrect service type, but in my experience, it is the funding that pays for a person with disability who cannot function independently to

  • Attend a group-based day program (funded at 1:3) which is focussed on skill development and health and wellbeing.
  • employ a support worker to accompany the person with disability to medical,dental and personal care appointments
  • employ a support worker to accompany the person with disability to social andcommunity activities (again often on a 1:3 basis)

Cutting this funding will have a drastic impact on someone who does not have capacity to function independently and who has carefully planned and routinely used

  • all their funding on reasonable and necessary supports mostly at 1:3 pricing and

  • therefore using the least amount of funding possible.

As outlined above, this level of funding was assessed as necessary through OT assessment and NDIA review. I am not sure how a Minister can just cut funding

evels without considering the person’s needs. I consider that to be ministerial overreach and it must not be permitted.

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.

Consider how participants are using this support ie what percentage is used for group activities vs individual support.

Recognise that social connection is important for everyone.

Do not permit ministerial overreach.