PWDA Template: 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: 1 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 an NDIS participant and family member of an NDIS participant (previously helped with caring).

I am 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.

The short timeline impacts me as I struggle with the energy and mobility required for daily life and my very part time job, let alone to do extra tasks such as writing and researching for a submission.

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.

We already live with fear of random changes to our plan. We eke out a plan that doesn’t suit our needs (ie zero funding for evening or weekend support, which means almost never leaving the house at those times without my husband, and very little help with most other things that besides making sure I can keep my child safe and feed ourselves, bathe my child safely – still leaving us unsupported for large periods due to my husbands work). Because requests for changes of circumstances (backed by an OT) are ignored and we risk losing funding in our plan if we do try again).

• Additional changes to support without regard to our circumstances is very
• concerning and could leave us at further risk of harm from lack of support hours
• (daily and/ or community access).
• Eligibility decisions that don’t understand nuance and fluctuating disabilities also
• concern us. If they do not understand our situation and the risks involved, how can
• they adequately decide if we need support and how much we need?
• I can look okay at times on ‘good’ days. But I literally may not be able to move at any
• minute due to spastic episodes that can come on suddenly and randomly. I cannot
• necessarily be guaranteed to cross the street alone (might get stuck in the middle,
• wheelchair or walking). And cannot be guaranteed to be able to catch my child if they
• run or if they are in the bath. I am concerned that because I look okay for a little bit in
• a conversation, that the risks to myself and my child will be ignored without a
• qualified professional assessment.
• 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
• 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.

We already face limited choice and control. They ignored my change of circumstance

• when my husband went back to work full time. Changes that affect our funding will
• affect whether my husband can work or not. It effects if I can safely parent and look
• after myself and my family. It puts undue burden on my husband when I can’t safely
• grocery shop, parent, take our child to school, cook, clean, drive, etc etc. We have
• very limited family support with an elderly mother and a disabled sister. There is little
• capacity to absorb cuts to support.

My sister and family already suffered for 3 months when she was cut off from a

• rollover when she ran out of funding. She had little choice as her plan was not
• sufficient as per her OT recommendations. The lack of support exacerbated her
• condition and forced her to be once again nearly bedbound. Changes that are
• sudden and don’t allow for review hurt people with disabilities directly. Their families
• are often already at capacity. Any capacity the disabled person might have had to
• work is then severely affected, and their condition can be severely exacerbated.

I am currently experiencing a symptom flare up. But I have no extra funds to help

• manage my (and my child’s) life when in this condition. We have to reduce our lives
• to the bare minimum of existence and help to get him to school and feed/ bathe/
• clothe ourselves. Our home maintenance and cleaning degrades due to lack of
• support to meet my responsibilities as a person and parent. Lack of ability to request

• additional support harms us, worsens my condition and my whole families existence.

• It reduces my capacity to work the only 10 hours a week I have been doing (already threatened) and then starts to impact whether my husband can work (male jobs often being inflexible and almost no part time options).

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. Participants who save unspent funds across plan periods for high-cost items will lose that ability entirely.

Cuts to any area of my low support budget are concerning at any time. We barely manage with the budget we have. Half of my package is Social and Community support. Currently I use that to try to meet my parental responsibilities to get my child to primary school and get groceries and take him to swimming class. I get the odd coffee on the way (and marshmallows for my son). And this also includes taking us to doctors and Physio and other specialist appointments. My elderly mother is losing mobility but still drives and does school runs and pick ups if my husband isn’t able to because of work. Any cuts to social and community support will mean that I don’t

• know how to meet my parental responsibilities, let alone existing as an independent

• person from my husband.

• I use an electric wheelchair for long distance due to mobility issues. I can’t be

guaranteed to cross the street (or get my child across the street) due to spasms. So

trying to take maxi-taxis everywhere instead does not work for us. The wheelchair is

too heavy to go in Ubers. It needs to be in my car with the hoist and driven by

someone. I need supervision especially when with my child.

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

• Changing eligibility requirements needs more serious consideration.

My disability is primarily caused by Functional Neurological Disorder (FND). It is not well researched or known. Treatments are not guaranteed to work, especially if applied after 6 months of illness. They often can then only improve capacity perhaps but not fix the illness substantially. I have tried a variety of medication to assist with this, but none of them worked for me (had opposite of desired effects and other side effects), were expensive and unsustainable. The treatments that aren’t doing much are also expensive and often actually increase symptoms because of fatigue related to my disability. Other ‘treatments’ are often experimental and not necessarily evidence based.

Many people with ME/CFS (also part of my diagnosis) have been actively harmed by inappropriate recommendations for physical exertion - graded exercise therapy, as ‘treatment’. This treatment was based on now overturned studies that were not scientifically valid, yet were still being pushed as treatment for years after in Australia and other countries.

Requiring myself and others to do expensive treatments that do not even work, sometimes make symptoms worse but ‘might’ help is cruel and inhumane. The 5 sessions chronic health plans do not go very far at all as far as affordability goes.

I am ‘fortunate’ in that I used an awful lot of my TPD insurance payment to pay for treatments and specialists to try all the treatments I could. Accessing them often required me to pay privately for a carer to take me to appointments before I could access NDIS. My husband gave up work for months / years to assist me with life.

These treatments often made me worse for days to weeks at a time meaning I had even less capacity to function.

So many people on disability have such limited funds to start with or lose their house due to lack of working capacity for years chasing treatment and assistance.

Requiring people to lose what they had to have a hope of support ongoing is surely

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.

As noted above, my disability fluctuates both rapidly and over larger scales of time – I go through changes in baseline fatigue and mobility regularly which is often exacerbated by stress or exertion. I can be looking okay one minute, and unable to

• walk a few steps the next minute.

• I can sound okay one minute but be unable to talk

• I can lift a fork one time, but can’t get it in my mouth the next time.

• I can think okay now, but suffer from cognitive issues next hour due to fatigue.

• I might have some relatively ‘good’ days or weeks, but experience significant declines that leave me barely able to move or get out of bed, or hold my head up for long periods.

Any assessment tool (and person applying it) needs to be able to understand this and my needs rather than apply a tiny snapshot of me on a ‘good’ day / minute / hour.

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.

• A cut of 50% to my social and community participation budget is basically a quarter

of my main support budget. I use this funding to access doctors and Physio and

specialist appointments and to leave the house in general if my husband is not at

home (ie works full time). I also use this funding to meet my parental responsibilities

by helping me take my child to Kindy. All of which requires driving which I don’t do

due to my disability, and transport for my wheelchair, and supervision from a carer

due to my spastic episodes where I may be unable to move myself at all.

Let alone any ‘fun’ stuff like picking up my own groceries, the odd coffee, seeing friends or family. I already don’t do much of that as I do not have sufficient budget to leave the house independently in the evenings, or on weekends and only for part of some days. My husband is also very restricted as I shouldn’t be left alone for long periods with my child, and can’t be guaranteed to be able to keep him safe when outside and in public. We live with a lot of risk that the normal parent does not.

Taking my child to the park independently is something that I cherish but can’t do without support. Being able to take your child to the shops for clothes is something that every ‘normal’ mother takes for granted and is just expected to do, yet is something I need support to do.

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.