Date: 1/06/2026

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 28-year-old, third year law student, and NDIS participant of almost 2 years with a

severe lifelong psychosocial disability (Disosciative Identity Disorder). 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 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 impacted my capacity to produce this response as I was still had to factor in my daily appointments, university commitments, as well as ability to read through the proposed amendment bill with the time and attention required.

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.

• 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.

The NDIA has an extended history of unnecessarily and arbitrarily cutting funding for participants. The Administrative Appeals tribunal is the only way in which participants and their families have been able to fight these cuts, with 70% of these decisions being overturned by the tribunal in favour of the participants. Removing or even restricting this avenue creates massive safety risk to participants and further empowers the already negligent practices of the NDIA.

I myself, only gained access to the NDIS via the ART tribunal process, in which it was found that I did meet access, and qualified for significant funding.

• 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 cross 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.

Politicians are simply unequipped to understand or comprehend the complex lived experiences of NDIS participants and their families. Ministers are not qualified to make decisions on functional capacity, or anything related to the complex and fluctuating disabilities participants live with. It is highly likely ministers will make decisions purely on a “cost savings” analysis rather than a needs based one, and this was cause significant harm to those who rely on their funding to have independent and fulfilling lives.

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:

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 persons individual circumstances will not be considered, including ability to pay for treatment, where they live or whether treatment is actually available to them.

• People with complex or rarer conditions could be forced to undergo treatments that are
• unsuitable or unsafe for them. There is also a risk that the NDIA may be uninformed about
• current treatment guidelines, forcing participants to potentially undergo treatments that were
• never going to work in the first place to satisfying the NDIA’s ignorance.

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.

Many of my physical and psychosocial disabilities fluctuate in severity depending on a variety of factors. There is a very real risk these assessment tools will not cover the full complexity of my disabilities, nor for those with disabilities with a similar complexity to mine.

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.

There are no alternative supports for me. I cannot legally ever hold a licence due to my disabilities. I cannot function without significant therapy that is currently funded through the NDIS. I cannot independently attend appointments that are required to maintain my physical and mental health or engage in further study. Prior to NDIS I was frequently hospitalized and frequently at risk of self-harm and suicide. Should my supports be suddenly cut, or I no longer meet access, I would like only be able to survive without my quality of life for perhaps six months before I would require instutionalisation.

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.

In its current state, this bill has the capacity to end my quality of life as I know it and potentially end my life full stop. I cannot stress enough to committee how dire the consequence of this bill could be to myself and others with similar circumstances.

I simply want to live with dignity and pursue a better life for myself through study and a career in law. I have worked hard for close to a decade to achieve this. When I am supported and accommodated reasonably, I am able to achieve this. All I ask is for our current federal

I have worth as a human being. I deserve to live. I should not have to

to a committee for my life to not be cruelly cut short due to “social licence” and budgeting concerns. What the federal government is proposing in this bill goes against everything our country and their government claims to stand for.

My life as a disabled person is worth more than fiscal saving, and that is consistent with every single disabled person on the scheme.