Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Date: 1st June 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 of a person with a disability

I am very concerned about 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.

It occurs to me that shortening the deadline from 30 days to 14 days is discriminating against people with a disability a fair proportion of whom take more time to communicate due to many issues including pain, access to appropriate technology and time pressures.

Recommendation:

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

Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law

My stepdaughter is dependant on her carers for assistance with household tasks, shopping and transport. The uncertainty surrounding the proposal that the Minister can make arbitrary wholesale changes to her quality of life without any consultation impacts negatively on her mental health. The NDIS has enabled her to make positive changes to her social participation but I fear that by allowing the Minister to make changes without going back to Parliament will leave people with disabilities like my stepdaughter confined to their homes, unable to participate in their community, as it was in the days of my youth.

Recommendation: Require that all decisions affecting NDI 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

As my stepdaughter gets older her needs will change as do the needs of people without a disability as they get older. However, this does not take into account disabilities that affects the muscles or skeletal system, the effects of which change with time and age - the same as everyone. This proposal makes no provision for future needs of participants.

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).

This proposal discriminates against people who take a longterm view in the management of their Plan categories. It is surely a no-brainer to save for high-cost items and to alleviate costs pressure on the NDIS.

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.

Unvalidated functional capacity assessment tool risks misidentifying need

This smacks of a one size fits all approach to disability which does not reflect the human experience, let alone those who have a disability. People who have the same disability do

• not have similar needs. I see a problem with those, like my stepdaughter, who have

• disabilities that are multifactorial or have complications not reflected in the I-CAN model.

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

This appears to cancel one of the NDIS’s foundations - that of assisting participants in connecting and participating in their community. People with disabilities have a right to participate in their community and to take away the ability to connect is ill considered. My stepdaughter values her participation in the wider community, it enriches her and the people she interacts with on a day to day basis. People with disabilities need to be seen to be accepted in their communities. If no disability is seen then it is easier for people’s rights to disappear.

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 NDS supports.

Tasmania