Submission to the
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Date: 29 May 2026
I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the NationalDisabilityInsuranceSchemeAmendment(SecuringtheNDISforFutureGenerations)Bill 2026.
I am a friend of an NDIS participant/person with disability] and work for two not for profit organisations, one which is an advocacy organisation. 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 impacts people with disability. The proposed two-week consultation period for the Amendment Bill raises concerns about procedural fairness and compliance with Australia’s human rights obligations. Meaningful consultation is essential where reforms may disproportionately affect people with disability. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Australia must “closely consult with and actively involve” persons with disability in decision-making (Article 4(3)). A shortened timeframe limits the ability to provide accessible formats, arrange supports, and develop informed submissions, potentially amounting to indirect discrimination contrary to Article 5. It also departs from the Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis,
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:
For families like the ones I work alongside, caring a person with complex disability support needs including challenging behaviours is already a full-time role, leaving little capacity to work and causing significant burnout. Sudden, unannounced changes to eligibility or supports would create even more uncertainty and powerlessness, putting essential services at risk and making it harder to provide safe, stable care.
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: For families like the ones I work alongside, losing the ability to challenge decisions would be devastating. If supports are reduced or plans renewed without review, they could be left without essential supports and no clear way to fight back, especially in a timely manner—raising the very real risk of family breakdown, eliquishing care, or hospitalisation for the person with disability and even the carer due to severe stress and mental health decline. The increase of filicide-suicide is real!
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:Sudden funding cuts would put essential supports at immediate risk. At times, plan budgets are under- t utilised for reasons beyond a participant’s control—such as service availability, workforce shortages, or crises—and losing these unspent funds removes a vital safety buffer, increasing the risk of harm, burnout, care breakdown, or even hospitalisation for both the person with disability and the carer.
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
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:
Being forced to “exhaust treatment” options before accessing support is unrealistic and harmful—especially where treatments may be unavailable, unaffordable or ineffective. Wait times are already blown out and people are often left waiting for years before being able to access ‘treatment’. Reducing a person to a single impairment ignores the complexity of their needs, increasing the risk of inadequate supports, escalating behaviours, family burnout, and potential crises such as hospitalisation or relinquishing care.
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:
Accurate assessment matters because a person with disabilities often have complex, fluctuating support needs that are not visible in a single assessment moment. If these needs are
Underestimated Risks
If I-CAN as the functional capacity assessment tool is underestimated, it can lead to unsafe situations, inadequate support, and significant stress for both the person and their family or carers.
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:Cuting these supports risks a serious decline in mental health and wellbeing, increased social isolation, and loss of vital volunteer or employment opportunities that provide structure and purpose. It also places unsustainable pressure on families and informal supports, which are already significantly stretched, effectively pushing people back toward institutional-like conditions—an outcome that is discriminatory and undermines their basic human rights to inclusion, dignity, and participation in the community.
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 support