PWDA Template: Submission to the
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Date: Wednesday 27 May 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.
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.
While my supports who are registered will continue to support me, irrespective of the changes, it is the daily life and experiences in the community that will be worse off. I won’t be able to have my existing lawn mowing and cleaning through my preferred providers who I have developed trust and integrity. Otherwise, I will have to deal with services who are on the books but who are not ones I would develop trust to engage and to receive routine delivery which I have grown to receive.
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.
I won’t be able to receive the support to stay at home and in the community because I have physical and psychosocial disability but I have not been assessed as eligible for the physical limitations because my diagnosis is not considered as a disability. I won’t have funding to help me with putting on socks. I won’t be able to do cleaning because of my mobility limitations and I am exempt in the future from engaging in cleaning of my choice.
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.
That has happened to me previously because of a very poorly trained Assessor and this was eventually reinstated because it was illegally done in the first place. I went through a Review and I was prepared to go to the ART. In the future I won’t have access to the same checks and balances. I will have to go without. I could lose my Respite access with a decision by the Minister. It could be harder for me to find meaning or interest in life outside of my disability. I will feel helpless if I wanted to speak up. Advocates will be busy supporting other people so I will be on waiting lists for basic information and representation. Often it may mean I have no option but to accept the situation.
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.
I have multiple diagnoses. One is not more serious than the other. Collectively they meant I find it hard to engage, communicate and work. It has been near impossible because of these myriad of reasons. I will not be able to afford the specialist costs of both my physical and mental disabilities on the Scheme, as I receive the DSP. I have a physical disability but I have been advised not to apply, but it affects my mobility to the level that I find it hard to get around in life. I accept that I cannot apply so I do with what I can. People with DSP are extremely limited. I will have to have a hip operation at some stage but that won’t improve my condition which won’t get any better because of a labral tear.
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.
Speaking with my OT who explained it was designed for professionals but it will instead be done by Reviewers at the NDIS. I have Autism so I can appear to manage well but that does not include the regular times when I cannot function at all and need a carer living with me. I will potentially be mislabelled and this will severely access my need for basic supports. I had a good Reviewer this year who was from the Hospitals and Aged Care Discharge Team. If everyone was like her, I feel I would be understood and that the plan would reflect the understanding. But if a Planner does not understand the nuance of Autism then I will be worse off without any recourse to Appeal that decision. For Psychosocial Disability it means that there is no understanding of the mood and depression my condition has.
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 have previously reported on illegal actions by a NDIS worker for a registered provider. Whilst I was taken seriously by NDIS complaints team, the person was able to identify that I had complained about them. That person some months later contacted me (unwanted) via Instagram to say “karma sucks, doesn’t it?”. What they did was break the law to do with privacy and the NDIS law but she got away with it. She is still employed and dealing with vulnerable people in group homes. Her HR manager identified me when I raised my concerns directly with the NDIS provider. I felt injured as the “whistleblower” and received unwanted ill effects and distress because I spoke up against something which I found legally and morally wrong. Whereas, I can’t have my own lawnmowing service and cleaner that I have built trust and respect because to apply for registration is too onerous and complicated for me to explain. Also, these are local companies in the area who cannot afford to register. I give you both examples so you understand that not all registered providers are ethical and legal. I have had worse experiences with “well known” providers than I have had providing my own. Also, NDIS is supposed to be about “choice and control” while it feels like I lose autonomy and I may as well revert to the “typical”
Page 8
disabled person“ stereotype. I hope we, as a society, don’t go down that path. As a participant, I would feel helpless and less worthy than normal society.
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