NDIA Accountability Project

Impact of funding cuts on community participation and social connections

‹ PrevPage 1 of 8 · Source p. 1Next ›

PWDA Template: Submission to the

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Date: 01.06.2026

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 person living with a disability who is an NDIS participant.

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 impacts me because as a person with a disability it did not grant me sufficient time to gather my thoughts, organise my thoughts, organise and receive supports to submit a submission, read the Bill thoroughly or understand the Bill thoroughly.

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.

This means that people like me could be removed from the NDIS or have my funding reduced with little to no warning. It also means that people who do not have the requisite expertise to make these decisions are doing so and NDIS participants such as myself will suffer because I will not be able to have my support needs met or adequate assessed by appropriate professionals. Decisions about the lives of people with disability are not appropriate to made by government officials who lack the necessary expertise and understanding of disability, access needs, support needs and the everyday lives of disabled Australians.

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.

This could be devastating for NDIS participants like me as I have needed to use the review process twice throughout my time as an NDIS participant; once to access the NDIS and another time when my funding was halved. In both instances, my review was successful, indicating that NDIA officials are fallible and do make mistakes. My funding has not been cut again since my AAT hearing, indicating, that the higher support needs that were once rejected are now recognised. Removing the capacity for NDIS participants to review decisions about our lives is unethical, amoral and strips us off our internationally recognised rights as disabled people. It also goes against the NDIS’ core values of choice and control in our lives. Sudden loss in supports can have catastrophic impacts on disabled people’s lives and can lead to conditions worsening and in worst case scenarios, death. In my case, it would lead to significant isolation and alienation from my community interests and significant decline in my everyday functioning and quality of life.

  • 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.

There are many reasons an NDIS participant such as myself may not fully utilise their plan funds for a particular plan period. This is often an indication that somebodies functioning is worse, not better. Stripping somebody of life changing supports with no warning is punishing people for struggling. There are also many administrative burdens that can impact if NDIS funds are utilised, particularly early on in a person’s NDIS journey, and a participant should not be punished for not understanding how to utilise the NDIS and for systemic issues in the implementation of the NDIS.

  • 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

Page 5

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.

It is patently absurd that the NDIS is considering not taking individual circumstances of how disability impacts a person into whether or not they are eligible for funding. This has nothing to do with how disabled a person is and is simply a cost cutting initiative.

In my case, I am estranged from relatives and my disability means I can only work part-time. I have no means of financial support to access my treatment or community activities without NDIS supports. I would not have been able to exhaust all possible treatment options as they cost money that I do not have because of my disability. It is nonsensical to expect marginalised disabled people to rule out cost-prohibitive treatments prior to utilising NDIS services, when the NDIS would be appropriate to provide those treatments.

If this rigid restrictive and nonsensical selection criteria had been applied years ago there is a distinct chance I may not have been granted access to the NDIS. If this had not have happened, the best case scenario is that I am living a lonely, isolated life where I have no independence, do not function and have no access to community. In worst case scenario, I would have likely died from suicide. The NDIS

  • has in many ways saved my life and it is sickening to think that people like me would

  • not be granted access to the scheme because of arbitrary data such as this that

  • does not consider people’s individual circumstances.

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.

This tool is insufficient for exploring the full depth and breadth of a person’s disability and its emphasis on present day statements is exceptionally rigid and does not account for how conditions and access needs fluctuate over time with worsening of conditions. Furthermore, an independent assessment tool like this would result in a

high-masking person such as myself masking and not being honest about the areas

here I truly struggle. I would therefore miss funding. In addition, I have long-term ongoing relationships with treating professionals who can give accurate assessments of my needs, my struggles, and strengths. It is reductive and misinformed to expect a singular assessment tool to be more accurate than an assessment by a professional with whom I have an ongoing relationship. The NDIS is not supposed to be about one size fits all and all of these efforts to streamline systems completely contradict the person-centred goals of the NDIS and render the assessment tools useless.

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.

I use my social, civic and community participation funding to sing in a choir, attend jiu jitsu classes and attend art classes. All of these activities have greatly improved my life, independence and community participation. Within my choir, I now often sing

  • solo parts where when I first began attending the choir I would not speak to anyone

  • and often leave early. In my jiu jitsu classes, I have started taking on more

  • responsibility and help out in warms ups and support first class attendees. My art

  • classes I attend strengthen my professional and workplace skills.

Attending these social and community participation opportunities have given me purpose, confidence, social friendships, and built my self-efficacy. I have become an important community member where I used to never leave the house.

If my funding to these systems was cut in half, I would not be able to attend as frequently and this would be significantly detrimental to my daily functioning and quality of life.

The NDIS was designed to provide participants with the choice and control to participate in their community in ways personally meaningful to them. A return to block funding style models would mean I lose access to the unique hobbies I enjoy and all of the important relationships I have made in those spaces. I can not access these spaces without NDIS funds or Support Workers to help me to attend. Cutting this funding would destroy so much of the progress I have made in my life and return me back to square zero. I am actively petrified about this every single day.

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.