COMMITTEE SECRETARY, SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
E: COMMUNITY.AFFAIRS.SEN@APH.GOV.AU
01 JUNE 2026
Dear Committee Secretary,
Re: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 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 father of an 8-year-old boy with a rare condition causing severe, life-long disability in all areas of his life - non-verbal, intellectual disability, wheelchair-bound, and uncontrolled epileptic seizures. My son has been a NDIS participant since he was 10-months old and it has had a profound beneficial impact on his life and myself, along with his mother and my wife, as a primary carer. The NDIS has also allowed me to contribute more significantly via higher economic participation than if NDIS were not present at its current level – via increased taxes paid, as a senior industry leader in my profession, and my business role supporting greater employment.
We live in regional NSW two-hours from Sydney and find extra challenges in Hugos’ care due to the limited services available and longer distances providers must travel that often do not appear to be appreciated in our past dealings with NDIA and understanding of policy settings. In general, I consider that this bill will adversely affect younger people with severe disability, and those in regional remote areas, similar to my son.
I agree that the NDIS does need reform to improve efficiency, reduce overall cost while balancing this in a fair way for all. However, I want to outline the potential harm this Amendment Bill will cause if it passes Parliament. This Bill is too far-reaching and changes too ill-defined to pass as it stands. I believe it will result in an economic cost via reduced economic participation. I believe the Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds.
Selected issues I have identified, and suggested remedies, are outlined below for your consideration.
- Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency
The Issue: 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.
Personal Impact
Recommendation 1:
Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.
Assumption of parental responsibility without adjustment for need
The Issue:
The Bill inserts new subsections 34(1G), (1H) and (34)(1J), that relate to parental responsibility. Subsection 34(1G) sets out a presumption that “parents are responsible for providing substantial care and support for their children”. There are also subsections relating to use of informal supports. According to subsection (1H), substantial care and support includes: (a) supervision, personal care, transport, emotional support and behavioural support, and (b) other assistance with the activities of daily living that, regardless of the child’s disability, would reasonably be expected of a parent of a child of a similar age.
How this affects participants: This blanket reference to emotional and behavioural support, without any recognition or adjustment for different levels of support need, implies that it is considered reasonable for parents to provide any level of emotional and behavioural support required. This creates an elevated risk that families whose children require intensive supervision, emotional and behavioural support may still be deemed ineligible for the Scheme or not be provided funding for this.
Personal Impact: This definition could be used to deny my son support worker hours he needs for daily living causing serious safety concerns for my son and myself. I have other young children and a wife that requires to work late a few nights a week. These nights I require trained support worker to help with daily routine that know my son, know how to use support equipment and nursing care.
Recommendation 2a:
Provide a definition and assessment of parental responsibility that accounts for the significant variation in level and complexity of support needs.
Recommendation 2b:
Amend proposed section 9B(1)(b) to ensure that fluctuation is considered in the definition of functional capacity, and availability of informal and community supports is considered in the context of a person’s environmental and personal circumstances.
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.
Personal Impact
This fills me with constant anxiety that everything could change on a whim with no consultation on how this effects people. It is hard enough dealing with constant fluctuations in my son’s needs let alone changing the NDIS goal posts, which are typically ill-defined and unknown to participants, as well.
Recommendation 3:
Abolish the ministerial centralisation of power in the Bill, and replace it with oversight by the Disability Reform Ministerial Council in consultation with the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee. Require mandatory advance notice to affected participants before any changes take effect.
4. 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.
Personal Impact: We have had countless instances with the NDIA not adequately understanding our son’s disability and, in turn, needs. Therefore, I have no confidence that the NDIA, or any automated decision making system, will get this right.
Recommendation 4:
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.
5. 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.
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.
Personal Impact: I fear this will become another ‘Robo-debt’.
Recommendation 5a:
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 children.
Recommendation 5b:
Provide evidence-based, disability-affirming definitions of “appropriate treatment” and “material improvement”, with measurable minimum thresholds and reasonable timeframes to ensure provision of adequate supports both within and outside the NDIS.
6. 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.
Personal Impact:
This will greatly affect my son during the school holidays. My experience in regional areas is that available for-profit providers exclude children with severe disability because it is not economical or there are insufficient appropriate facilities or equipment available.
Recommendation 6:
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. Also, that this reduction isn’t applied to participants below the age of 18 as they typically have limit funding for access to the community.