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

We welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDI for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

We are [choose all that apply - NDIS participant/family member/carer of an NDIS participant/person with 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 us because there is not enough time for us to do a proper full submission and I believe further consultation with the disability community plus proper co-design for a proper NDS which is individualised is what is needed! No ICAN assessments, no cutting of social, community funding or therapy budgets or changing support coordination / plan management just to name a few examples

Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.

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.

If the above were to happen it would affect me personally because the supports I can access now could change without notice and I may not know that supports have changed until my plan is affected whenever that it! As for eligibility I am bedridden at all times and require 24/7 care so one would HOPE my eligibility would not be affected however since I came across from Disability SA I have never done access to NDS because it was automatically granted, as it should have been, when I transferred across from Disability SA

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.

If my funding as a participant was reduced (as it has been several times over the past few plans and I am actively seeking the funding to be increased in lots and lots of areas and will be going to the ART at the end of July after a COC and then a RORD failed to give me what I required) and I did NOT have the ability to challenge this decision in the exact way I am now ie through ART (after a COC and RORD failed) then I would potentially be hospitalised depending on how MUCH funding and which funding was reduced simply because my husband who is primary carer can NOT assist me 24/7 by himself (I am 2 person support but I live in my OWN home)

not in a facility or group home or SDA or SIL funding!!! If would depend which type of
funding was reduced if therapy funding was reduced across the board I may not be
able to get the equiopment I require from my two Ots and I wouldn’t be able to
access speech therapy or the AHA persn I see, my feet would deteriorate further
because I would lose podiatry funding, plus I see a dietician and also a physio I lso
have nursing funding for my catheter care so if ANY of these (or any ive forgotten)
were reduced it woulds have huge consequences for me and depending how much
reduction I could be hospitalised due to some of these helping me maintain my level
of functioning. Also if I was not able to access a reassessment when my needs
change this could ALSO lead to hospitalisation because my needs were not being
met by the NDIS and if I needed more daily living/social community funding I
wouldn’t be able to manage without this therefore id have to go into hospital because
my husband would be unable to “take up the slack”
I as my wifes carer would be affected because depending on how much funding was
reduced it may lead to me needing to retire from work which I do not wish to do at
this stage (I work part time) as this would be the ONLY way forward because of the
reduction in the funding (depending on WHAT funding eg daily living, social
community OR therapy budget or even STR funding or something else) anny of the
above would affect my wife
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.

If my community participation, capacity building or assistive technology funding was cut without any warning or right to appeal would affect me as a participant because losing any of these categories in their entirety would lead to me being hospitalised due to not being able to stay at home anymore. My husband (and carer) would not be able to care for me if the first two were removed he needs the assistance of the support workers during the day (even more funding than I currently have) because he cannot support me by himself ALL the time he does over 12 hours a day every day plus working 3 days a week but when its his day off he is always going shopping doing errands! Its no good.

My current plan is 5 years long with 6 month plan periods it is the FIRST plan which has not been 12 months and now ive gotten ysed to this and to the plan periods with the help of my SSC I now feel confident with this however it is CRAZY to take away the ability save unspent funds across plan periods for high-cost items – how else would you be able to pay for them?

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 cannot believe we would have to PROVE our impairment cannot be treated??? I am BEDRIDDEN! I am also unable to sit past 20 degrees including pillows, I have MULTIPLE conditions which all have multiple impairments….I don’t understand this part – if I have ME/CFS which has multiple impairments but I am also deaf and that is completely separate to the ME/CFS plus I also have anxiety as well…on top of this I have dystonia… So all these conditions affect me but they are all separate from each other some cross over but most of them do not. For starters there are NOOO treatments for ME/CFS and the outdated CBT and use of GET (cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy have definitely already be tried but they failed more than once only to make me worse!) there is absolutely no “treatment” for my deafness except for the AT which the NDIS provides eg deaf smoke alarms, alarm clocks, doorbells, device which tells me the mobile is ringing or there is a sms (my hearing aids are provided through a different scheme sideways but connected to NDIS I forget the name but provided through Hearing Australia) Soooo its only low to mid cost AT which the NDIS provides as well as Auslan lessons. But without the WHOLE OF PERSON aspect I don’t really understand this how my needs would only be assessed by ONE eligible impairment even if I have 15 different eligible impairments how on EARTH does that give me the supports which I require?? Will I be sent to live AWAY from my husband in a nursing home or in a SDA group home or institution? Will large institutions be made for everyone like they were years ago so that people with severe disabiltiies will be looked after cheaper

but AWAY from family, friends and away from their community away from their

children their pets their wives their husbands? I have been married for 23 years I did

NOT marry my husband to live AWAY from him!!! But I don’t understand how you

can choose ONE impairment when the person has multiple conditions and then say

this is the impairment you will be funded against and the rest of your impairments will

not be looked at??? How on earth does that give me what I need to LIVE??

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.

Do not proceed with only ONE impairment leave it the way it is now with WHOLE OF

PERSON instead.

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 persons 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.

Appropriate assessment matters because otherwise ALL my needs will not be

captured and as a result I wont get the funding I need or even the intensity of the

supports eg 2 support workers at a time either. When I had my FCA done in 2025 MULTIPLE assessment tools were used by my OT AND some of them were generic eg WHODAS 2.0 and others were specific to ME/CFS which is one of my main conditions. These assessments were appropriate for me but may not be appropriate for someone with a different type of disability and so that is why the assessment tool MUST be appropriate and that possibly different assessment tools should be used for people who have different disabilities example physical disabilities vs intellectual disabilities. On top of this I have a voice condition which fluctuates sometimes I can speak fine other times I need a eyegaze communication device if the I-CAN assessment tool doesnot pick up the fluctuations in my condition it will not pick up my varying needs. Further the ME/CFS itself also fluctuates as it has a impairment called PEM (post exertional malaise) which can happen anytime I do too much. It is particularly bad when I travel for example by ambulance to an outpatient appopintment when I come home my mobility in bed is much much worse meaning I take longer it makes me have worse fatigue making me sleep at the wrong times and stuff lke this! It is really not good. But even if I did too much, rushed my bedwash or shower bath routine I could easily get PEM even doing mental tasks like working on the computer or using the phone too lomg I could get PEM. However sometimes these appointments are unavoidable! So PEM is inevitable which in turn means im slower I cannot communicate as easily I have more brain fog and every other symptom I have is worsened and often unfortunately I never ever return to the baseline I had prior to going to that outpatient appointment I just cannot see how the I-CAN assessment would pick all of this up!

Recommendation: Do not proceed with I-CAN as the functional capacity assessment tool unless it has been demonstrably validated to identify the needs of 8

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 only have 6 hours a week of social community funding – which I use to make cards and sell these to raise money for a south Australian charity NGO. I have also in the past used a mouth controlled sewing machine to sew again something I LOVE to do!

I love these supports! But if they were reduced by 50 percent then there would be a big gap left in my roster and because my husband would be at work in the city I would be left alone for up to 3 hours…. I don’t really understand how this HELPS me? It isn’t safe for me to be alone at all so I would have to be given 3 hours of regular funding to make up the difference or since the foundational supports which are supposd to replace these supports do not exist yet I guess my husband woiuld possibly have to retire placing further stress on hm as my primary carer.

Further to this my therapy supports including but not limited to speech pathology (and an AHA person under the SP), 2 Ots (technology and regular), physio, podiatry, dietician and catheter nursing. So if any of these were 10 percent cut I would not manage as the majority of these are on the list to be INCREASED at the ART!

They help me in SO many ways which I don’t have the time to write about.

Cuts to any of my therapy would also put more unnecessary pressure on my husband as my carer as well depending which one was cut if they all were were cut by the 10 percent then I would not manage because I am struggling to manage at the moment since my plan did not receive the hours even requested by my allied health team so as a result I do not have CURRENTLY the funding which I require so I really don’t know how I would cope if these supprts were cut further. I am currently at the ART fighting to get more capacity building supports at the moment so if they they were cut after I received what I require this would defeat the purpose of going to the ART.

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.