NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Senate Submission Template

Before You Start

You do not need to complete every row.

Pick the changes that affect your life and leave / delete the rest.

A submission discussing one issue in detail is often more valuable than a submission that briefly touches on twenty different topics.

You don’t need to understand every section of the Bill, read all 113 pages of legislation or become an overnight policy expert.

The purpose of this table is simply to help you identify the changes that matter to you and put your concerns into your own words.

Parliament already has access to lawyers, economists, public servants and policy advisers.

What it doesn’t have is your story. Your expert evidence in living with disability.

Even one page or a few lines describing how one proposed change would substantially and adversely affect your child, your family or your future and in the long run will cost the Government more, is a valuable contribution to the Senate Inquiry.

Access and Eligibility

becomes a key eligibility

test (s9B). A functional .capacity tool will be used to determine who can become a participant of The scheme.

The assessment tool has hot yet been released and it is unclear who will administer it.

Instead of clinical information from qualified allied health professionals who know the participant, access decisions may rely more heavily on a standardised asessment which may involve automation.

Evidence will be required around the ‘Permanence’ of a person’s disability.

There will be a requirement to exhaust ‘all appropriate treatment’ before NDIS eligibility is confirmed.

New eligibility framework from 2028

It also raises difficult questions about where the line sits between an “appropriate” treatment and a treatment a person does not wish to undertake.

Could a participant be required to trial certain medications before accessing certain supports? Could a family be expected to pursue surgery, intensive therapy or another intervention they believe is unsuitable, ineffective or carries unacceptable risks?

Where people have a rare condition or diagnosis, many experts don’t know what treatment will be beneficial or effective.

Because the NDIA can no longer take into account a person’s environment (i.e. financial status) this may mean that if they cannot afford a specific treatment (to prove that it is not effective), they cannot access the NDIS.

I have been on multiple medications, multiple assessments. It is documented and noted of the struggles I face from since a very young age.

Due to my ID, my ADHD and my Autism - memory issues and executive functioning this creates barriers in all areas of my life. School/ study, employment, Family, relationships – both friendships and romantically.

I have severe challenges with appropriate Social interactions whereby I’m unable to pick up on social cues and im always decoding everything .

I lack the capacity to independently access the community. This has many impacts of across my daily living, trying to live independently without becoming isolated and having a health decline.

Due to my permanent intellectual disability, ADHD and autism I’m unable to build on my capacity to learn new skills and maintain my current skills. I require support to safely participate in my daily living, accessing the community and development and upkeep of my development of skills.

People already receiving the NDIS may need to demonstrate they continue to

• Massage therapy, water therapy, talk therapy,
• exposure therapy.

This creates fear that I will lose my supports and will therefore go back to a dark and low place due to my

(s9B and related meet the new eligibility criteria. Existing extreme daily functioning decline. The NDIS talks about provisions) and future participants face uncertainty what risks are there that we can avoid… well this is going against that. They say they are here and designed for us with functioning declines because of our disabilities, but they are leaving us to fight at a high cost just to get the support we need and deserve. All current participants will need to be reassessed under the new functional capacity eligibility framework from January 2028. Some may lose their access in this process. Families are concerned children and young people who currently receive support could lose access despite no improvement in their disability or functional capacity. We don’t know what assessment tool will be used for this eligibility process, what evidence participants can provide and if there are any appeal rights. There doesn’t appear to be any other Foundational Supports in place for those who are exited from the NDIS. Functional capacity will be assessed with reduced consideration of environmental and personal circumstances (s9B). The bill seeks to assess a persons functional capacity without taking into account environmental factors such as their financial circumstances, their home environment or the assistive technology they use. Two children with the same diagnosis can have vastly different support needs depending on poverty, housing, transport, family supports, family violence, culture, geography and access to services. Ignoring context risks underestimating need. I was born with a permanent neurodevelopmental disability you can not change or cure that. The support I require is essential to ensure I can function daily in a safe, calm, appropriate manner. I have the ability and right to speak and fear if I do not, I will fall through the cracks and my life will be lost and I will not be able to function. I am exhausted mentally, physically and emotionally having to continually justify and prove myself and my permanent disabilities. This bill seeks to assess a person’s functional capacity without taking into account environmental factors such as their financial circumstances, their home environment or the assistive technology they use. I don’t understand this – how can you not take into account environmental factors? I have moved house due to my sensory overload from my Autism and yet I still struggle functioning daily. I still use assistance with other tools and still struggle. Due to my communication barriers and shutdowns, I use AI which has helped me from being so overwhelmed and shut down as well help me express my thoughts and ideas to those I engage with though I still struggle in other areas of my day-to-day life.. Household chores being one and work related-if I don’t have the right supports in place I neglect my basic needs including food and water and hygiene due to burn out and forgetfulness and executive functioning. I am not lazy I want to do the things I need to participate in daily life but I

physically can’t. I get so overwhelmed that I cannot undertake the task at hand. I experience physical symptoms and psychological symptoms however when I have supports, I feel safer and regulated.

Functional capacity Some people have good days and bad The only way someone can capture this is to spend a high assessments may not days. Others can temporarily mask amount of time with me to see my struggles. I may appear dependently capture difficulties during assessments. Families somewhat capable to most. I tell people my struggles and I capturing fluctuating or non- are concerned assessments may capture get dismissed causing invalidation and a burden, as if I am apparent disabilities (s9B) what a person can do briefly rather than asking for too much. what they can safely and consistently I try to hide some of the parts of my struggles which are sustain in daily life. also worse. This is called masking. As of recently I am One day snapshots do not take into considering myself to be closer to high support needs due to account the cumulative effect of the cost of how long it takes me to do certain tasks as well disability and carer roles. as how long it takes me to recover from them if at all or the amount of processing I am doing each and every moment of the day. Aside from my support coordinator, therapists and support workers. Just because I may be able to do something one day doesn’t mean I can do it the next. People don’t see my struggles and how much it takes from me to complete a task. I am often unable to keep myself upright by lunch time.

To be funded, support Families may be forced to prove exactly needs must arise ‘directly’ which impairment causes which support from an NDIS-eligible need. Supports that arise from the impairment (s34(1)(aa)) combined effect of multiple disabilities, medical conditions or life circumstances may become harder to justify.

                        In reality, disability is rarely that neat.

Page 6

A child may have autism, intellectual disability, ADHD, epilepsy and anxiety. The need for supervision caused by the autism? The epilepsy? The intellectual disability? The anxiety? An unrelated early childhood trauma? Or the interaction between all of them?

A child with a rare genetic condition may experience a unique combination of physical, cognitive, behavioural and medical symptoms that do not fit neatly into diagnostic categories. The support need exists regardless, but determining exactly which diagnosis the support need ‘directly arises’ from may be next to impossible.

The question for families is whether support decisions should be based on the existence of a genuine support need, or on the ability to successfully attribute that need to a particular eligible diagnosis or impairment.

This creates a burden of evidence to prove a direct link between every support need and the disability / impairedment.

Stronger focus on moving

people to alternative funding systems.

This section states that people should not be eligible to access the NDIS if there are other compensation or insurance schemes that could support them instead. This may include the TAC, workplace compensation schemes and potentially even the Aged Care System.

This does not assist my permanent disability. I can’t afford the gap of a mental health care plan or other therapies. I must pay rent, bills, medication and all daily living costs on the disability support pension. I cannot afford mainstream service, and they do not help me with my life long disabilities.

I have tried medications, diet, lifestyle, iron infusions, talk therapy subscriptions, medical interventions and hospitals admissions, massage and water therapy, journaling, m medicine pill box, visual aids, and allied health professionals. None of which have made any significant difference aside from minor strategies and tools. They do not cure or fix my permanent lifelong disability that I struggle with every day all day. Since being on the NDIS this has helped me. And the thought that you may take this away from me leaves me in fear of declining, going backwards in all areas of my life. I need the NDIS and its supports.

It also raises difficult questions about

complexities and them understanding my needs and where the line sits between an qualifications and deep knowledge. e“appropriate” treatment and a treatment I need people that are attentive to my needs and see past my masking and are in tune with my capacities.

eCould a participant be required to trial certain medications before accessing certain supports? Could a family be expected to pursue surgery, intensive therapy or another intervention they believe is unsuitable, ineffective or carries unacceptable risks?

Where people have a rare condition or diagnosis, many experts don’t know what treatment will be beneficial or effective. People may lose NDIS Families are concerned participants could be found ineligible for the NDIS or have supports reduced before replacement systems are available, accessible, adequately funded and capable of meeting need. There is no consensus on what Foundational Supports are yet and how they will be rolled out or available. We cannot cut supports and then design the systems later.
I have all the documents to prove that I have these lifelong disabilities I’ve been living with since I was a little girl.

I have provided everything to the NDIS and can provide them again and further information of my permanent disabilities to support my need for the NDIS.

There is no consensus on what Foundational Supports are yet and how they will be rolled out or available. We cannot cut supports and then design the systems later.

I am not the only person who has complex disabilities and require high level supports. I am in fear that I will loose my life, my dignity, will lives in fear, darkness and unsafe situations if the NDIS supports are removed from me. Not only do my ID, ADHD and autism affect a few areas of my life they affect every area. Including school, study, family dynamics, friendships, employment, day to day life, transport, community access- being apart of the community.

We cannot cut supports and then design the systems later.

I have lived experience of knowing what happens when I have lack of supports such as hospitalisations, health decline, lack of food water, hygiene , meeting my basic needs. Being able to maintain bills, money, household tasks. Removing these needs from people puts them and myself at high risk of death due to not being able to look after myself.

Planning and Funding

Proposed change (Bill What this could mean in real life My experience / what I want the Senate to know section)

The Minister can make Funding for an entire category of support determinations support could potentially be reduced (decisions) which allow broad for large groups of participants reductions to support without individual assessment of need. categories (s34A) This would not occur on a ‘plan by plan’ basis. Families may lose supports that are currently working well simply because they fall within a targeted category. Not individualized. Right now, the Government is proposing a 50 % cut to social, civic, and community participation funding, and a 10 % cut to some capacity building daily activity funding. This would start from 1 October 2026 as new plan reassessments are completed. But this could be applied at up to 99% to any support category in an NDIS plan. The only limit around these cuts is that the Minister needs to ‘have regard’ for the safety of participants.

Minister may impose support Funding limits or caps can be placed caps, including for cohorts on support categories or cohorts of (s33(2EA)) participants and may be based on category averages rather than

individual circumstances. This would allow the Minister to set an upper limit for a particular support. For example, e people with Intellectual Disability cannot receive more than 12 hours of psychology funding per year, or e children under 9 years of age can only receive up to 3 hours of allied health support per week. Families caring for children with complex disability may be unable to access support levels that genuinely reflect their needs. Move toward more standardised planning and assessment-driven budgets Plans may increasingly reflect what the NDIS funding model or assessment tool/report generates rather than what is actually required for safety, participation and family sustainability. We still don’t know how the Functional Capacity Assessment In the New Planning Framework will be administered and how that report will translate into a Participant Statement of Supports. Less individualized support provision. Changes to the Reasonable and Necessary Criteria. The threshold for what counts as “reasonable and necessary” is being rewritten. The Bill changes the tests planners must apply when The Bill increases the amount of

• deciding whether a support is
• support the NDIA can expect families, -funded. Cost, informal -supports and parental -responsibility may play a larger role in funding -decisions.

-for children, greater emphasis is placed -on parental responsibility, including -supervision, personal care, emotional -support, transport and behavioural -support. Supports may be harder to -fund where they primarily reduce -parental workload, improve household -efficiency or replace care the NDIA -believes families should provide. -There will be a hierarchy of evidence, -giving greater weight to published and -peer-reviewed research than a -participant’s personal experience with -a support. Where research evidence is -limited, the NDIA may still decide not -to fund a support, even if the -participant reports that it is beneficial. -Repeal of section 31 – -Principles relating to plans -(Schedule 1, Item 66) -Schedule 1, Item 66) Section 31 currently contains -principles recognising participants as -individuals with unique goals, -aspirations and support needs. The -Bill repeals most of these principles. -While government states relevant -principles are being relocated -elesewhere, many advocates believe -important protections supporting -genuinely individualised planning -have been weakened or lost. -These principals help the NDIA and -the courts to understand how to -implement and protect the intention

Proposed reduction of social and community participation funding through support determinations (s34A)

The creates a reduction of supports that prevent isolation and maintain community inclusion. The proposed cuts could lead to children and adults becoming more isolated, segregated, and disconnected from community life. Supports that appear ‘non-essential’ on paper may actually be what allows a person to maintain friendships, participate in community activities, learn life skills, develop independence, and avoid social isolation. Right now the Government is proposing a 50% cut to social, civic, and community participation funding, and a 10% cut to some capacity building daily activity funding. This would start from 1 October 2026 as new plan reassessments are completed. Right now, we don’t know if this will apply to Core: Social and Community Participation, and Capacity Building: Increased Social and Community Participation. Children and young people may become more reliant on parents and carers for transport, community access, social activities, employment preparation, and daily participation.

Greater emphasis on lower- Previous planning criteria required

cost alternatives when consideration of whether a lower-cost funding supports option would achieve the same or

substantially similar outcome. This

bill changes the terminology so that when planners are considering

cheaper alternatives, they no longer need to consider whether those

alternatives would deliver the same or similar outcomes.

Therefore, the cost of the support becomes the major determining factor rather than if they are effective or not. For example, a cheaper support worker arrangement, therapy approach or piece of equipment may be available, but it may not deliver the same level of independence, safety or participation. Families may wish to explain the risks that exist where a cheaper support that is less effective is funded.

Disproportionate impact on Government modelling suggests some certain disability cohorts disability groups may lose a larger proportion of their current supports because a greater share of their plans is allocated to social and community participation. Will this affect children more than adults? Right now children may have funding for ‘Social and Community Participation’ where that funding is actually provided so that a parent can

take them to the supermarket or to a

doctor’s appointment. Those outings are not focused around social and community participation and should not be subject to funding reductions simply because they occur outside the home.

When it comes to children and young people, how does the Agency intend to distinguish between Assistance with Daily Life and Social and Community Participation?

What will the gender impact be in situations where women disproportionately absorb unpaid caring burden?

Support caps and funding Families are concerned that funding restrictions may push restrictions could make individualised participants into more group- supports harder to access and increase based support arrangements pressure toward shared or group-based service models which don’t meet the participant’s needs and therefore are less effective or less safe. These may also increase the need for Restrictive Practices.

Claims must be made within Self-managing families and small 90 days (currently 2 years). providers may lose funding or Commencing 1st December payment because paperwork was 2026. delayed during illness, crisis, hospitalisation or caring responsibilities.

Unspent funds removed at Many NDIS plans are currently being Whilst its all good and well to say you will remove unspent plan renewal (s50A) ‘continued’ or extended. funds - I need my support coordinator to maintain and find

In the future, even when a plan is

them for me. I don’t have capacity to source my own services rolled over or not reassessed (because the participant is considered to have ‘stable support needs’) their plan will ‘renewed’ meaning they will receive the same NDIS plan again with a new start date. Unused funding will no longer be carried over into the new plan which will contain the same supports and budget (less any one-off items like Assistive Technology). That ‘renewed’ plan is not a reviewable decision because no new decision has been made. Therefore, the application for an S100 or Internal Review of a new NDIS plan will become more important.

How will this affect families who have fluctuating needs?

Reviews, Appeals and Participant Rights Proposed change (Bill What this could mean in real life My experience / what I want the Senate to know section) Restrictions on reassessments Families may struggle to access timely (s48A) plan changes when circumstances The ability to request an deteriorate, informal supports unscheduled plan collapse, equipment fails or a child’s reassessment (Change of needs increase unexpectedly. Circumstances) will become When almost all NDIS plans are far more difficult to request. continued or rolled over, how does a (Must be unanticipated, participant request a plan significant an ongoing). COC reassessment if they haven’t had one

• requests may be processed
• for many years? For adults who have
• only in extenuating circumstances.
• stable needs this is more reasonable,
• however children may require plan reassessments simply because they
• have grown older and the level of typical parental responsibility for their age may have changed. We would expect the core budget for a 6-year-old child to be very different to a 12-year-old child or a 16-year-old child.
• Future support needs assessments may have more limited appeal outcomes but tribunals may have reduced ability to substitute their own assessment.
• Right now, the Tribunal can review funded supports on a line-by-line basis.
• In the future, a Support Needs Assessment may generate a report via an algorithm that states what supports should be funded (called the Participant Statement of Supports).
• However, the Participant Statement of Supports cannot be appealed; the Tribunal can simply direct the Agency to complete another Support Needs Assessment, which will then generate another report resulting in another Participant Statement of Supports.
• Only the participant, nominee or child representative will be able to

• request reassessment (as
• opposed to your plan manager
• or support coordinator).

Timeframe for the NDIA to Will this cause any risks for your decide whether to complete a family? plan reassessment will extend from 21 days to 90 days.

Compliance, Administration and Safeguards

Proposed change (Bill What this could mean in real My experience / what I want the Senate to know

section) life

Plan suspension and If the NDIA requests information revocation for non-contact related to planning and a (s40A / s30(1A)) participant does not respond, the Agency could suspend their plan. If there is still no contact after 90 days, participant status could potentially be revoked. Families may wish to consider what could happen if letters are missed, contact details are outdated, English is not a first language, or a participant is experiencing illness, hospitalisation, homelessness, family violence or another crisis.

Expansion of mandatory Participants may lose access to provider registration trusted workers or experience workforce shortages, particularly in regional areas. People who directly employ their support workers (Service for

One) may not be able to continue

working with their trusted supports. A sole trader or contractor may be considered a ‘provider’ and need to undergo NDIS Registration to be able to continue to provide support – this may be a costly and difficult process. What would happen if you were forced to use only NDIS registered providers? There will be a focus on mandatory registration for providers delivering “high risk supports”. For participants who are children, parents are often t heavily involved in recruiting, s training, supervising and monitoring support workers. Families may wish to consider whether mandatory registration provides additional safeguards or simply reduces the pool of available providers. We also don’t have a clear definition of ‘High Risk Supports’ yet. Increased record-keeping Families may face financial obligations and debt recovery penalties if records are powers incomplete, misunderstood or lost during periods of stress, illness or crisis.

Stronger NDIA compliance

and enforcement powers

The NDIA would gain stronger powers to investigate how NDIS funding is being used, request information and documents, and issue fines where it believes NDIS rules have been broken.

Families may wish to consider what protections exist if an honest mistake is made and how easy it would be to challenge a decision.

Expanded NDIA information
The Agency can require participants, nominees, providers and others to provide documents, answer questions or attend a meeting with the Agency within 14 days’ notice. Failure to comply may result in legal consequences. Families may wish to consider whether appropriate safeguards exist and whether people will understand their rights and obligations when responding to these requests.

Automation of administrative
Automated processes may improve efficiency but also create risks where errors occur, particularly for participants with complex circumstances or where incorrect data is on file with the Agency.

We don’t know what kinds of Some decisions currently made by humans would be made by an

Page 20

would be automated. algorithm or automated process.

These decisions would still have the current appeal rights. Humans make mistakes. Computers make mistakes too. The difference is scale. If a delegate makes a flawed decision, one participant may be affected. If an algorithm gets it wrong, thousands of participants could receive the same incorrect outcome before anyone realises there’s a problem.

Children and Young People Proposed change (Bill What this could mean in real life My experience / what I want the Senate to know section) Children increasingly directed Families may be redirected away from toward Foundational NDIS supports into systems that are Supports / Thriving Kids not yet fully established. pathways Increased reliance on parental The NDIS cannot fund support that responsibility arguments. reduce the carer burden on parents There is a change to the below what is typical for children of Reasonable and Necessary the same age. This takes into account criteria stating the NDIA transport, personal care, emotional must remember parents are support, behaviour support and responsible for providing a supervision. substantial amount of The NDIA must look at whether support for their children. funding support like support workers would expose the participant or someone else to risk of harm

Families May Be Expected To Absorb Additional Caring Responsibilities

Families may be expected to absorb additional caring responsibilities regardless of work commitments, hhealth, finances or sustainability. The NDIA would also be prevented from funding supports simply because they make family life easier, reduce the amount of time parents spend caring, or because a parent would prefer not to provide that support themselves.

How much unpaid care should parents, siblings, grandparents and other informal supports be expected to provide before disability support becomes the responsibility of the NDIS? What risks exist if this paid or unpaid support breaks down?

Governance And Ministerial Powers Proposed Change (Bill What This Could Mean In Real Life My Experience / What I Want The Senate To Know Section) Greater Reliance On Legislative Significant decisions about eligibility, instruments and delegated budgets, support categories and planning ules could potentially be changed through instruments and rules rather than through the full Parliamentary process. Minister May Temporarily The Bill allows the Minister to modify how parts of the Act temporarily change how certain parts of operate (Schedule 5 the NDIS Act operate without having to pass a new Act of Parliament first or uses the usual parliamentary process.

Families may wish to consider whether

important changes should always be declared and approved by Parliament. Minister has greater influence While the NDIS Review recommended over pricing arrangements an independent organisation should set pricing (such as IHACPA) this bill transfers pricing power directly to the NDS Minister with advice from the Agency. Self-Managers would still be able to pay above the Pricing Caps. Different pricing caps can also be set for different providers (i.e. registered and unregistered). What conflict of interest exists when the Minister responsible for controlling (and right now reducing) NDIS expenditure is also given the power to set the prices the Scheme will pay?

Informal Supports and Carers Proposed change (Bill What this could mean in real life My experience / what I want the Senate to know section) Increased reliance on When formal supports are reduced, the informal supports and unpaid work does not disappear. It is often I don’t have appropriate informal support. I don’t live carers transferred to parents, grandparents, with my family. My mum experienced burnout, my dad siblings and other family members, couldn’t understand my lived experience, we clashed. disproportionately impacting women. Resentment built up causing breakage in the relationships. How will this impact women with My partner is Autistic and is not my carer. He struggles disability in coercive control situations? with his own needs let alone mine. He also works extra How will this impact women in paid hard to support himself, he doesn’t need my issues on top. employment? In saying this, this creates extra stress and burnout, not to

Extra Writing Prompts

Proposed change (Bill What this could mean in real life My experience / what I want the Senate to know section) When support stops being What happens next? Who does the funded… work? Who pays the cost? Who When I don’t have funded supports I am bedridden, in extreme carries the risk? pain, lack of hygiene, lack of needs are met, more hospital visits, mental health decline, communication decline, functional decline, distress, unable to maintain household tasks. What disappears when If social and community Here is a list of what disappears when participation disappears: participation disappears? participation funding was reduced, what would be lost? Friendships? Loss of employment Employment opportunities? loss of social engagement Community membership? Sporting The small amount of independence I have clubs? Independence? Confidence? Loss of health Mental health? Mental health decline Loss of dignity and self worth Sensory overload Stress and pain Loss of support Lack of confidence No supports at all Lack of enjoyment in living

• What would my child stop
  • doing without these supports?
• Would they stop attending sport?
• Seeing friends? Going to work
  • experience? Learning travel skills?
• Accessing the community? Building
  • independence?