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: 29/05/2026
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 provider (Accredited Practicing Dietitian) for many NDIS participants/persons with disability at Family Dietetics.
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.
How this affects providers: As a private practitioner and small business owner, I do not have the luxury of a dedicated policy or legal team. Every hour spent deciphering complex legislative changes is an hour taken away from direct therapeutic support.
This creates a significant accessibility issue: if I prioritize this submission, my participants lose access to their scheduled care; if I prioritize their care, their frontline provider’s voice is excluded from the democratic process.
Furthermore, this timeline disproportionately disadvantages small-scale providers who represent the backbone of the NDIS. While large organizations have the administrative infrastructure to respond quickly, the current pace silences
community-based clinicians who possess the most direct insight into how these
changes will affect the daily lives of participants.
Ultimately, a rushed consultation process leads to poorly vetted policy. Without
adequate time to assess the practical feasibility of these changes, there is a
heightened risk of ‘thin markets’, where providers like myself may be forced to reduce NDS services due to administrative uncertainty. This lack of time prevents me from providing the thorough, evidence-based feedback required to ensure these reforms don’t inadvertently compromise the continuity and quality of care for the people I support.
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.
How this affects providers
This uncertainty compromises my capacity to provide
adequate care, as I cannot ethically or effectively design long-term therapy plans
when the fundamental rules for eligibility and funding can change without notice.
Effective clinical intervention requires a stable framework; without it, I am forced into
short-term, reactive service delivery rather than the evidence-based, goal-oriented
care my participants require.
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.
How this affects providers: These restrictions compromise my ability to respond to critical changes in a participant’s health or nutritional requirements, such as a decline in physical health or increased medical complexity. Removing review rights leaves me unable to advocate for medically necessary adjustments, forcing participants to remain on inadequate funding levels that may lead to preventable health complications and hospitalisations
- 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.
How this affects providers: Restricting support to a single impairment ignores the multi-factorial nature of health, while requiring participants to ‘exhaust treatments’ forces me into an unethical position where I must witness a participant’s health decline while they wait for inaccessible interventions. These changes, coupled with unreviewable funding cuts, compromise my capacity to provide life-sustaining care and prevent critical health complications, such as malnutrition or choking, for my most complex participants.
- 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.
How this affects providers:
As a dietitian, I see firsthand that nutritional and feeding needs are complex and fluctuating, often requiring longitudinal clinical assessment that a single 3-hour interview cannot capture. The use of an unvalidated tool risks misidentifying these critical risks, bypassing my specialist clinical expertise and leading to inadequate funding that directly compromises my ability to provide safe, effective care for participants with complex mealtime or nutritional requirements
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 government has announced funding for social, comic 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.
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.
How this affects providers: As a dietitian, these premature cuts directly undermine my ability to transition participants from intensive clinical therapy to sustainable, society-based independence. Without a functional replacement system, reducing these funds creates a dangerous support vacuum where participants lose the supervision and skill-building necessary to manage complex health risks like choking and malnutrition in their daily lives.
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.