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: 10/07/2026

I, Chung Kwan Lee, 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 Accredited Practicing Dietitian who see NDIS participants.

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 consultation period impacts me because, as an NDI dietitian, I have

limited non-clinical time to review complex legislative changes while managing a full

clical workload. Meaningful consultation also requires time to discuss the proposed

reforms with colleagues, professional bodies and, where appropriate, the participants

I support to understand the practical impacts. Many NDI participants require

information to be presented in accessible formats and need additional time to

consider and communicate their views. A two-week consultation period limits

meaningful participation and reduces the quality of feedback that can be provided.

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.

In my role as an NDIS dietitian, I regularly see how changes to funding or eligibility directly affect participants’ health and quality of life. If these decisions can be made without transparent parliamentary oversight, participants may unexpectedly lose access to essential supports, disrupting ongoing therapy and placing them at greater risk of poorer health outcomes.

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.

As an NDIS dietitian, I support participants whose nutritional needs and functional capacity often change over time due to growth, disability progression or emerging health concerns. If participants cannot easily request a reassessment or challenge funding reductions, they may lose access to essential supports despite clear clinical evidence that their needs have increased, leading to poorer health outcomes and greater long-term costs.

3

• 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.

As an NDIS dietitian, I work with participants who require consistent funding to access essential nutrition supports, including dietetic intervention, feeding therapy and disability-related nutrition products. Funding reductions without notice or review rights could interrupt essential supports, delay clinical progress and increase the risk of malnutrition, hospitalisation and other preventable health complications.

• 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.

As an NDIS dietitian, I support many participants with multiple co-occurring disabilities and health conditions that together affect their nutritional status, functional capacity and ability to participate in everyday life. Requiring participants to exhaust treatment options and assessing only a single eligible impairment does not reflect the complexity of disability and may delay access to essential supports, resulting in poorer health outcomes and increased long-term costs.

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.

Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN)

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.

In my role as an NDIS dietitian, I work with many children and adults whose functional capacity is influenced by multiple disabilities, medical conditions and changing health needs. Accurate, evidence-based assessments are essential to ensure participants receive supports that reflect their real-world functioning rather than the results of a single assessment at one point in time.

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

Page 7

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.

Many of the participants I support rely on capacity building and community participation supports alongside dietetic intervention to achieve meaningful improvements in their health and daily functioning. Reducing this funding before Foundational Supports are available risks creating gaps in care that may lead to poorer health outcomes and greater pressure on families and the broader health system.

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.