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: 1st June, 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 both a participant and a parent/guardian of a participant.
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 as it does not give me enough time to give a
- considered reply. It impacts the ability to be completely concise in giving you
- essential information.
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.
This impacts both me and my son. I have high assistive technology needs as well as communication support and access to community. It impacts the quality of the support that my son will have available to him. Both of us will lose choice and control over our own lives.
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
- 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.
As I get older, my needs change, as do those of my son. We do not possess a crystal ball in which we can determine what we might need in six months or twelve months. So, if our funding is reduced this will very likely cause safety issues for both of us, and so reduce our quality of life. My disability, as I get older, makes it harder for me do carry out every day, normal activities such as cooking, showering, and so on. This will have a huge impact on my mental welfare.
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 need assistive technology to live my life. It is as simple as that. I need communication support to contact medical providers, family and friends. If assistive technology funding was cut, my mental health would be severely impacted. I would not be able to call for assistance should this be required.
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.
Both my son and I have totally exhausted all avenues for treatment. I am profoundly deaf. No surgery can restore it. My son has brain damage. That cannot be treated. This requirement is insulting to those seeking access to the NDIS. Nearly all
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.
I would be considered high functioning on a good day. On a bad day, I would be seen as needing support. Yet, there are aspects of my disabilities that impact me 24/7 and mean I need support. I accept only the minimum support necessary as I feel it is important to be as independent as possible. This worries my family. The new assessment is to be carried out, most likely, by people with no qualifications or lived
experience in disability. How can they be expected to understand the person with the
disability? How can my son, who has speech delay, express his needs clearly in a
way the assessor will understand. This new assessment is of great concern and
worries me enormously.
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.
While I don’t personally care for my son daily, I do have someone bring my son to me weekly so we can have lunch together. If this were to stop, I would lose contact with my son, as I cannot hear him to talk to him on a phone, and his speech delay means I would not understand him, and I do not understand him on a good day face to face (hence a support worker in attendance), on a video call. I understand how the pressures on a family would greatly increase to a point where they would be forced to ‘abandon’ their child simply to get their child the care he or she needs.
Foundational Supports need to be in place before any one is taken off the NDIS.
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.
Personal Statement:
I am writing both as a participant in the NDIS and as the parent/guardian of someone who is a participant. I have grave concerns around the proposed changes to the NDIS.
These concerns centre around two things:
- The functional capacity assessment, and
- Community access.
I am profoundly deaf. I also have several other ‘invisible’ disabilities including arthritis, and poor balance associated with vertigo.
My son has a form of epilepsy that caused intellectual delay and behavioural issues.
Issues with the proposed functional capacity assessment
As I understand it, under the proposed Bill, anyone chosen by the Minister can administer the functional capacity assessment. Any other assessment already carried out by specialists, allied health professionals and so on would be disregarded.
I find it very difficult to understand the logic behind this. Would it not be better to have a person in allied health, or accept a report from a specialist? They have the capacity to undertake the testing with no bias. A public servant, on the other hand, has no background knowledge of disability nor do they have any qualification that would enable them to administer this test correctly.
As it stands, if I was to have the test done, I would be removed from the NDIS and placed on the waiting list for My Aged Care. No regard would be given to the amount of communication support I need, nor to the technological support that helps me live in a hearing world. As well, arthritis is invisible. It is difficult to comprehend how it impacts the body from the outside, unless you have specialist understanding of arthritis.
My son would not have any difficulties in qualifying for NDIS support. However, I am uncertain how the testing can be administered given his difficulty in communication, especially with someone he does not know, and so cannot trust.
Access to Community
Access to community is vital for both of us. For my son, it is how he can do his shopping and participate in sporting activities such as ten pin bowling (in which he has aptitude). It is also how he can do ‘normal’ things with someone who is not associated with his accommodation. He is brought home to me so he can have lunch with me on a weekly basis. He also is taken to exercise physiology to improve his gait and balance.
Recommendation:
That the functional capacity assessment portion of the Bill as it stands be abolished and, a new assessment be created in consultation with the disability community. I also ask that Community support not be interfered with in its present form.
Unreviewable ministerial power to cut funding across all support categories, with specific reference to community access
How this affects me:
Right now, I have communication support and access to my community. It enables me to attend craft meetings and my local Lions Club. I can do my weekly shopping, purchase clothing and anything else I need knowing I have assistance. I also have support to do things in my own home, such as housework, cooking, laundry and gardening. Because I cannot make my own phone calls, I have a supports coordinator who facilitates all the support I need. She makes phone calls for me.
My feelings around the proposed changes are fear and trepidation.
I am worried about what it means as I would be considered ‘high functioning’ on a good day. My arthritis, balance and vertigo will all be ignored as they are invisible disabilites.
I cannot go out at night by myself as this is when my balance and vertigo can be worse. On a bad day, I can be confined to bed due to severe pain and stiffness. I cannot move around my neighbourhood easily as footpaths are poorly maintained and, in many places, non-existent. This means I cannot walk my hearing dog around my neighbourhood.
My support workers work very hard to support me. If they are on their phone, it is because they are making phone calls for me or locating necessary information. For every dollar spent by NDIS on support, $2.50 goes back out into the community. Workers with young families can often tailor their hours so they can collect children from school. I have had a support worker who is close to retiring age. It gave her purpose in life to have a job. It gave me someone close in age with whom I could natter about things while she worked supporting me. I was sorry to lose her.
If these changes are implemented, more than likely my supports would vanish and I would be forced to go to the Aged Care supports system, which would not give me the support I need. Nor would I have access to assistive technology support.
My support workers would lose their jobs. One has a growing family who she supports. How will she be able to purchase necessities and pay the bills? She has become very familiar with my needs, and we have developed a rapport. My other worker is a CODA (child of deaf adult). She knows Auslan and that gives me a second form of communication that I will lose.
My family live hours away from my home. They cannot travel back here every time I need support. Without them, I have no informal support at all. I would be confined to my home without the ability to go out into the community to do shopping or even to meet a friend for a chat. I cannot rely on my friends. They all have responsibilities of their own to work and family. Nor do they fully understand the extent of my isolation.
Recommendation:
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.
That communication and community access support needs are recognised as fundamental to the NDIS’ success as a program, and are critical to keeping people on the NDIS connected to their community which have benefits that extend beyond the support offered, and that they are recognised as such and kept as an important part of the NDIS.
Unvalidated functional capacity assessment tool risks misidentifying need
Without whole-of-person consideration and assessment, participants will face unacceptable risk in their everyday lives from a substandard level of care.
My son has a form of epilepsy that causes brain damage. He continues to have multiple absence seizures each day, so constant support is necessary to keep him safe. Because of the damage caused to his brain, he now has behavioural problems and speech hesitancy. Yet, despite the amount of intellectual delay he has, there is a measure of intelligence, so he has a very good understanding of what is happening to him and around him.
My son has lived in supported accommodation for over thirty years. He does best in a small unit (where he shares the support with another person next door), but he needs to be moved to another provider for his safety.
We find ourselves bogged down in red tape and administrative requirements to look at other providers. His funding is insufficient to move him, but it is imperative he is moved as soon as practicable for his safety and wellbeing.
Staffing at the present accommodation is ill-trained and unqualified. There is little to no understanding of my son’s needs for safety. He can have a major seizure without any notice at all. Yet, he is often left alone while staff go out to have a smoke.
I had to remind team leaders on many occasions of his epilepsy, and while he is couraged to do activities such as swimming, full supervision is required. The day program is little more than glorified babysitting. There is no attempt to provide a program to suit varying levels of intellect.
The proposed changes to the NDIS will place both my son and I in precarious positions. We will both lose quality of life, choice and control. My son’s safety will be impaired, as will mine.
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 a disability.