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: 29/5/26
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 with disability currently applying for the NDS.
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 on a bill that directly affects the disability community is an
ergious choice by the government, as it goes against the principles of disability access and limits the ability of many in our community to voice their concerns.
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days, or better yet, extend the period for even longer than that to recognise the support needs of the community that the bill is targeting.
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.
For myself, who is medically eligible to be accepted onto the NDIS program and is currently waiting to find out whether I have been approved, these changes may well affect whether I am accepted onto the scheme at all. Without NDIS I will continue to struggle daily as I do now, as I have done for many years as my condition continued to worsen. After 29 years of life, struggling through, facing mounting obstacles and difficulties, unsupported and forgotten by the system, I have only just reached the point where I could get diagnosed and discover the treatments and supports available to me. And now I am facing the prospect of being forgotten by the system all over again.
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 believe it is totally unethical to attempt to pass a bill that will allow funding reductions to occur without the opportunity to contest or review them. That is an infringement on the rights of disabled people to be able to advocate for their care and ensure that the NDIS are held accountable for any errors, oversights or cutthroat decisions being made. If there is no way for a person with disability to hold the NDIS review system accountable for mistakes, I fully believe that is a breach of rights.
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.
Again, I say, if a participant is unable to appeal a decision regarding their NDIS plan and supports, that is wholly unethical.
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, 4
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 is exactly the sort of change that would affect me and will affect many people
like me who are already accepted into the scheme. Many, many disabled people are
not singularly disabled; they have comorbid conditions that exacerbate and amplify
one other, conditions that flare up unexpectedly, and conditions that worsen over
time, especially when supports are removed or limited. My condition has worsened
throughout my life because the comobid nature of my disability made it present
atypically and it was missed. This sort of thing is common in the disability community
and the NDIS needs to put safe mechanisms in place to prevent these challenges as
much as possible. This part of the bill does the opposite, stripping away safety by
removing whole-of-person considerations.
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.
This is a form of functional segregation; without access to social, community and participation supports, disabled people that rely on these supports are being more or less removed from public life, and their access to it, which in many cases is already limited by the current budget allotment, is being reduced even further.
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.