PWDA Template: 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: 31/5/26

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 an NDIS participant with a physical disability.

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 me

by not allowing me enough time to process what changes are proposed, assist my friends with different disabilities to understand the proposed changes and what this might mean for their supports going forward, and assist them to write their submissions in a way that will be taken seriously by the government. We do not trust that if they write their submission in a language that is accessible to them (be it Auslan, compix, or a language other than English), that a) you would accept it, b) you would organise translations so you can read them, or c) take the submissions seriously

Everything is so vague and in such high register that communication could mean

anything but doesn’t actually say what it means.

Recommendation: Require that all decisions affecting NDS 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.

With stable disabilities, once our needs are known, our supports typically do not change. There is no need for us to undergo the trauma (and yes it is trauma inducing) of a reassessment meeting every 12 months. Having to justify ourselves over and over again to public servants whose entire raison d’être is to reduce funds wherever possible and who are approaching our lives with the idea that “capacity must be build and therefore you will require less funding” is traumatising.

My disability is energy limiting.
There are days where I am unable to cook for myself because my disability does not allow me to. Planners have told me I need to have support workers to teach me how to cook. However, on the days I am able to cook, I can make a complex meal with multiple steps. I know how to cook. But my body doesn’t let me some times. No amount of capacity building will change that.
Sometimes, planners make decisions on funding based on their biased beliefs about disabled people and their assumed capacity. It has been admitted in sentate estimates, that despite demanding OT reports and functional capacity assessments, that planners do not take the time to read the reports that are written by expert allied health professionals who have spent time with us and have made decisions and recommendations using their tertiary training and experience. An NDIA planner, with no allied health experience, will not be able to make correct funding decisions if and when they do not read the reports, and with this new system of not being able to review funding decisions, disabled people are going to be severely impacted and will be left to the mercy of a planner with no right of reply.

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.

I am only able to continue working as a result of having my NDIS supports in the community participation, capacity building and assistive technology funding buckets.

I am a professional with highly sought after skills. I am only able to work because I have assistance to get to and from assignments, and have the support to make sure my body is functioning from my physio and OT, and have the equipment I need to work while I am there. If these categories are cut, I would lose my job.

I have looked at my spending on NDIS supports and compared the total cost to the tax I pay as a result of being able to work in this professional role. On average, the income tax I pay is 1.75 times that of the cost incurred by me to NDIS. If these supports were to be cut, my income would be cut severely. And, the people who I serve with my skills would also not be able to do their jobs and pay their taxes.

Economically, it would be devastating if funds were arbitrarily cut.

Community participation funding is not just “going to get coffee” or “going to the movies”, although if someone wants to do that and they need support to do so they should have access to it. Community participation also means, support to attend vital medical appointments and meetings with NDIA or to go to work. It means support to be able to do everyday things like grocery shopping or going to the dentist or attending a funeral. Community participation means that people belong to a community not just exist within the four walls of their houses.

Further, many of us plan ahead, knowing that we will need to spend more later in the funding period. For example, I was invited to present my research at an international conference and to provide workshops in two different countries to support and uplift the lives of people there (workshops which I have conducted here in Australia). I personally paid out of pocket for a support worker to come with me. I paid out of my own pocket and raised funds for her airfare, accommodation, meals, and excursion

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.

This is perhaps one of the most concerning changes. In order to prove that my disability is permanent, severe, and life long, and thus be eligible for NDIS support, I

had

**to pay $4000 out of pocket for an OT to conduct a functional capacity assessment. The NDIA assessed this as being sufficient evidence to meet access. And now I may have to do it all again? To what end? And who will determine the treatments I must undergo? Who will determine if the risks outweigh the benefits? Will I be forced to undergo surgery that has a high likelihood of damaging my spinal cord for the chance of regaining SOME function, but not enough to make me not disabled? Will deaf children and adults be forced to have cochlear implant surgery which will remove any remaining hearing they have for the hope that they MAY have access to some useable sound? Will blind people have to wear two pairs of glasses, and a monocular aid (as was suggested to my blind friend) before being allowed access to tactile material? And how are we to be “fully treated” if best practice is to have ongoing regular hands on support to release muscles that are in spasm because of the disability? Who decides? It should always be the doctor and the person who is experiencing the disability. Bodily autonomy needs to be maintained.

And the government should not force NDIA public servants to practice medicine without a licence by proscribing treatments that they have been told need to be undertaken.

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

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.

We already have an assessment tool that is validated and has international trust –

the WHODAS. This is an assessment tool that can only be delivered by allied health professionals who are trained to implement the assessment. The I-CAN is a far inferior test, without validity and cannot be used across all disabilities. What is deemed disabling for a person like myself who has a physical disability is completely different to what is disabling for a deaf person who was denied access to Auslan until they were in their teens and who did not have access to useable sound or any language until that time. It is also different to a person with an episodic mental illness who, with the correct supports in place, will not present as disabled as they are properly managed! It is also traumatising to have a government official in your home watching your every move for 3 hours at a time, being made to perform tasks like a performing monkey. How often will this test need to be done? It is not culturally sensitive for First Nations folks, folks from CALD backgrounds (including deaf people who use Auslan). When proceeding with ANY standardised test, as soon as you run the test through an interpreter, the test becomes invalid and non-normed. This has not been considered either.

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.

All other supports were defunded in order to fund the NDIS. Deaf people used to have Auslan interpreting services available to them to attend medical appointments, funded by the same department that funds interpreters for GPs and allied health professionals through TIS. This service was cut although TIS remains. If you cut deaf people’s access, they have no other option. All mental health supports outside of crisis support were cut to fund the NDIS. These have not been reinstated. And there are NO supports out there for people like me with a physical disability that will enable me to work and live the way I currently do. If you cut these supports there is nowhere else for me to go.

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.