Registered Occupational Therapist
1.6.2026
Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on community Affairs PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canbera, ACT 2600 Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au To Whom it may concern, Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs I am writing 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 registered occupational therapist who provides therapeutic support to people who access the NDIS. I live with a disability and am in community with people with disabilities who access the NDIS. I want writing to urgently express my concerns regarding the Amendment Bill, and address the harm this Amendment Bill will cause if it passes Parliament. I believe the Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds. Reducing funding for the NDIS will harm our community with long-lasting impacts into the future.
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 timeline for consultation is insufficient to complete comprehensive consultation and if the bill proceeds within the short consultation period, it is likely that decisions will have been made on insufficient information.
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 is likely to have immediate harmful impacts on people who are accessing the scheme as well as their families and care networks. Decisions about funding should be made by qualified health professionals such as occupational therapists who can make comprehensive assessments to evaluate the functioning of a person. People with disabilities deserve to live in freedom and dignity with adequate supports to live full and connected lives.
This bill strips people of that right.
- 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 will have immediate and significant harmful consequences as people are unable to have their funding increased or reviewed outside of scheduled reviews. Function and support needs change for people with disabilities. An example of this from my own professional experience is of a woman requiring a prosthetic following an amputation resulting in significant changes in function. She will not have access to required supports until her plan review takes place, putting her at immediate risk of harm and injury.
- 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.
This will have immediate harmful impacts on not only participants but the workforce of professionals who support people with disabilities. People deserve access to high quality, therapeutic support that endures over the course of their life, with an expectation that support needs fluctuate over time, ot decline in a linear way.
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, heir 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.
This will create an inequitable system where vulnerable people cannot access
the system due to lack of resourcing - this will result in further disability and
put pressure on mainstream services and the families of people living in
financial precarity.
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.
A standardised screen cannot accurately measure a person’s support needs.
Access to the NDIS should be assessed by qualified health professionals.
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.
The reduction of these supports will directly lead to increased disability, reliance on mainstream services and economic impact on hard working people who support those with disability.
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.