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: 27/5/2026

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 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.

Page Text

The short timeline impacts me by reducing my access to advocacy opportunities to

explain the legal jargon associated therein, and the exact meaning of phrases, as

having an ASD diagnosis means we take words literally, even if that’s not what is

meant by the senator who wrote the bill. Sometimes our emotional state is too hot (anger\frustration) to think about a clear and concise response, it requires our

mentors\OTs to help calm us so we can “speak”, even if by using AAC devices, iPads, in sign Language, which some ASD’s or other disabilities need to vocalise their needs.

Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days; AND to give a similar period of advanced notice of bills, so we know a Consultation is in the future, and can plan events around it, to keep our minds clear to do a submission or other response (some Disabled people need time to write, read (dyslexia), or just comprehend the proposal itself) .

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.

Ministers are, by the nature of society are ‘NORMAL’, so have NO clue about how each disability is affected by any change to eligibility or ‘work Capacity’ rules.

ASD, Turret’s, and other ‘psycho-social’ (Non-physical) Disabilities’ are harder for them to imagine how our lives run, who helps us etc. Disconnecting these from

funding or supports due to ill-conceived ‘rules’, just to please budgets is morally wrong! We need NDIS security, don’t allow governments to just ‘pull the carpet’ without us knowing why!!

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.

Require a “Co-Design” project to be run by the people effected by the change, to ensure positive Outcomes for them, and to adhere to the “CHOICE & CONTROL” principle of the NDIS system.

Require or Design from scratch a “SAFETY NET” system, that disability is ASSUMED to NEED support and FUNDING! and is NOT removed automatically, or by too strict eligibility criteria. Like War Veterans, Disability needs your reverence, and RESPECT, recognise some disability as PERMANENT and KEEP them ON NDIS for their whole lives, no questions asked.

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 could make it harder for people to get extra support when their circumstances or disability change.

The assumption of ‘normality’ - if you can’t see an IMPACT, there isn’t one, is fundamentally Flawed, many disabilities, including pain conditions have good and bad days, you only see us out on the good ones.

Funding should be allocated by need, from a diagnoses, NOT how we ‘act’ that day/minute, it’s about REAL CAPACITY, a reduction of funding can and will have social and psychological impacts, if we can’t go out (because we can’t afford support workers) our mental health and usefulness suffers and our carers (mum’s, Dads and aunties\Uncles) also suffer, due to not having a ‘time out’ as we are with our other support team members, meaning YOU need to spend big on hospital services to take the damage caused by these issues.

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. Require a ‘good Will’ clause in assessments{like a cooling off period with contracts}, to ensure a decision isn’t made FOR someone (if they have the capacity, even with support workers present) just because they forced them, the ADULT SAFEGUARDING Rules apply with ALL interactions with us, as well as the Disability Discrimination act (for processes disadvantaging us); And that we have an “ESCAPE CLAUSE” always to hand, if we were forced to sign away rights, or accept a lower budget, that was not explained clear enough, or Dis-allowed an ‘advocate/Guardian’ to attend the meeting with us we deserve a chance at a review, or re-do of a process to ensure ‘good faith’, and the Ausie ‘fair go’ principles where applied.

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.

The reality of disability is that we can’t work full stop, or only part time, or with extensive assistive technology or work methodology, Community IS our ‘happy activity’ it gives us pride (we had the chance, or the capacity that day to do it); a sense of achievement of art, exercise, etc. and also it’s a Respite for our Guardians so they can ‘have a day off’ and recharge, to better help us when we need it.

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.

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.

Most ‘invisible disability’, including pain conditions AND asd\adhd can’t be ‘treated’, thatis the ‘medical’ model of Disability, a ‘social’ model needs to be adopted, where multiple conditions and their corresponding Combined impact are assessed wholistically and multiple conditions need to be listed, and without being afraid that listing one eliminates your ‘eligibility’ or perceived need for funding.

Support workers and ‘tools’ from OT’s and other healthcare professionals (including guide dogs/canes\walkers) are a necessary part of a persons participation in Life, and is a lifelong need, it doesn’t ‘cure’ them… it assists them to live life without anxiety and pain\discomfort.

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

Page 7

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 persons 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 ‘rigid’ capacity assessment, whatever they are called, assumes this ‘ability’ is 100% of the time, if a Disabled person gets to an assessment, its a GOOD DAY!!, what the assessment is there for is to prove the ‘need’ for the ‘bad days’ uses of this support funding, so some ‘false NEGATIVE’ results get through, What HURTS us is the misunderstandings that occur i.e.: us with the tests, and what they are asking us, what the result of one day tells versus the whole picture “what if s\he was there as a fly on the wall on one of my bad days”- would this have got me the funding? And sometimes we (as people with a disability) have to fight not just the paperwork, but the misconceptions\biases and ‘stereotypes’ people have about disability and the capacity we DO HAVE to participate in society.

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.

Furthermore, DON’T use Any assessment tool that is inappropriate for the person being tested, people do best with different styles of test, written\multiple choice\

verbal answers, have an ‘adaptive’ assessment process/s to see the real person,

and assess their true abilities.

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.

Community participation and mental health are inseparable from each other, PWLED use this as our ‘quality of life’ time, away from the stressful and Anxious time we take each day for ADL (Activities of Daily Living)-eating, toileting, showering, cleaning, paying bills. Most of us are on a D.S.P. which doesn’t leave much a week for anything like Community participation work (the workers ‘schedule of supports’ is often in the $3,000-5,000 range; for the year, of course!)- for ONE worker, let alone an OT or Ot’s assistant to oversee their work, and, of course don’t forget the ‘SUPPORT COORDINATORS’ who also have a fee.

Recommendation: Require that no reductions to community participation or capacity building supports take effect unless Foundational Supports are fully proven able to meet the needs of those who will lose NDIS supports; And the participant is given Choice as to what they need.

if NDS suits them better, KEEP THEM THERE! But consult with us about any

decisions, to allow us to defend ourselves! and to keep us informed, so we can ask

questions about this ‘foundational support’ and give us time to prove if it’s a positive

or not, case by CASE, not all for one.

Funding systems must be a Choice, NOT a mandatory use, one OR the other, each

has its use case, so Encourage individual selection, not just of services, but of the

funding that best suits each individual.