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: [31.05.26]

[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 NDIS provider/family member/carer of a NDIS participant 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 me by not allowing the time to further develop alternative

solutions that could amend the bill and make it agreeable to all concerned with bring

the NDIS into sustainability for the future.

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

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 allows for data based on expenditure rather than the basis of the expenditure

being explored in its entirety and the appropriate areas being addressed to bring

sustainability.

It also leaves the NDIS and the people within the NDIS open to changes in

government making hasty and inappropriate decisions which may cause harm to

constituents. This may take on a ripple effect across social areas within our nation,

most importantly vulnerable people and their wider informal communities with greater

impacts and providers suddenly high and dry which could significantly impact the

economy and the stability and integrity of providers within the NDIS. There is a much

bigger ramification than simply trying to bring the budget into alignment.

With no transparency regarding the assessment tool, only ambiguity about a group

that will develop it, does not fill people with confidence. It furthers the in trepidation

and the true thought that the government is rushing this and not drilling deep enough

to ensure it is the nation that develops the solution that works and is sustainable.

Moving people out of the NDIS does make the figures change however it does not

encompass the thought that as a nation and a society – everyone is a constituent within our society- they are not going to magically disappear and be obsolete within society. This is the most fundamental understanding for the parliamentary members to fathom and accept before they move forward on any decisions. These are people and they do not get to be moved like pawns in a game and erased by the

government.

Yes – Defining the NDIS as the entity for significant and permanent disability and what this is both the visible and the invisible is the first step.
Yes – Having a way that measures and assesses these visible and invisible disabilities is also highly sought after. This needs to be something that can encompass the majority of people.

My son will not provide appropriate or contextual answers that show that he understands what is being asked. He will provide answers that he believes but in reality are not what happens and is accomplished by him on a day to day basis.

I know many families in a similar situation, and it is gravely concerning that an unfamiliar and potentially inexperienced assessor will misinterpret and through no fault of their own, inaccurately measure his functional capacity. What then?? When the person is relying on this for their safety and wellbeing, this does make it extremely important to the person with the disability and their loved ones that this tool and the assessors that are forming that person’s future, get it right!!

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.

The original design of the NDIS was based on an Insurance model with the concept that all people with a disability will be building capacity and that a plan will be built each time “fit for purpose” by the relevant planner through the evidence provided. The other concepts were also that a person with a disability will reach a place whereby they have built capacity and the supports will then be reduced -much like a person has had an injury and then once healed they are on their way.

The reality

Sometimes a plan is built fit for purpose however more often than not, planners and

team leaders are at the whim of the government bearing down with inadequate

expertise or willingness to gather the appropriate knowledge to inform the KPIs

which they are demanding. This has meant that targets for the participants have

never truly been met.

Understand Disability

With the support, some with Disability can build capacity and get to a place where

a plan can then be built to help them manage a life of supported independence

Some people with a Disability have fluctuations – although as medically stable as

the health system can provide – the nature of their disability can be at time

incapacitating of all functional capacity and at others at a lot higher level of

functioning requiring less support at this time.

Some people with a Disability have a degenerative disability- this means that a

step down approach is not appropriate – they need a fit for purpose plan that

helps them to manage a life of supported independence and the opportunity to have

it reassessed when they degenerate so they are not open to harm.

The current Bill is not recognising even after 10 years that the model is broken and

needs to change. Changing the model may be more appropriate in fixing the

NDIS and placing the money into training and building fit for purpose plans on

the functional needs is the key.

This will stop billions in the process of RORD and ART which if properly

analysed would result in the NDIS seeing the ridiculous decisions being made to

attempt to reach KPIs developed and pushed down the throats of Team Leaders and

Planners, some of who cannot under the pressure foresee the dangers and harm

that the RORD and ART processes are desperately trying to prevent from nhappening.

An overhaul

of the reasonable and necessary against building a fit for purpose plan

and asking of planners instead- against the evidence provided, have I built a plan

that is fit for purpose?

It is like this Bill that has been presented fails to recognise the constituents and the

Democratic Process. The pressure the government is feeling has made them forget

WHO pays their wage and WHO brought them to the position of privilege that they

hold. When your job is done well, the people will thank you.

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 feel that this must be on a case by case basis and this is where greater scrutiny over what providers are providing in core services and Increased Community Participation need to have greater oversight via shift notes being mandated provision to the NDIS to prove value for money.

Just as we would like greater transparency, this is an area where greater transparency could be requested from Core Services

Recommendation: Require independent review rights before any funding reduction takes effect.

Recommendation: Require a review into the Reasonable and Necessary Criteria, it provided to all involved in the NDIS, inclusive of funding levels within each level, review and overhaul of the current NDIS Model that has a step down and rehabilitative approach versus a social sustainability model. Re-establish the type of disability and the model around these types and the building of fit for purpose plans which will generate the same desired outcome – reduction of expenditure in employment of planners Plan Reassessments, RORD applications and ART.

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 as stated in the reviews of people with disability against abuse, neglect, extploitation, is discriminatory( Disability Discrimination Act 1992) in nature of 7

Page 8

the person in their entirety and is a direct disregarding to the government’s

evidence within their review.

As recommended- functional capacity through the lens of all comorbid and competing disabilities within a person MUST BE considered, especially if we are aiming to support people who have significant and permanent disability. Example – a person who is only Vision Impaired has very different daily life to one who has hearing impairment, vision impairment, ABI and physical impairment. To ask which one is considered primary is futile as each one in different situations presents it’s own challenge.

Exhaust all suitable treatments in accordance with your individual health history and evidence.

This is also discriminatory on the grounds of living situation and financial and economic status

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: 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.

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, CALD people with a

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.

Plans are already being cut at alarming rates and through underhanded tactics with a Russian roulette of the team and delegate you are provided.

Page 10

The delegates themselves are being ruthless with very little common sense in the

decision making at the moment. This leads to an increased risk of harm when

decisions are made under these circumstances.

There needs to be a very transparent and clear directive provided to all members within the NDIS, it needs to be a system that constituents and their families can trust, feel heard, not blind-sided. The only way this happens is with the government, CEO, all employees of the NDIS and participants knowing what will happen when and the NDIS not jumping the gun.

By bulldozing forward it does not build any confidence in any of the systems or the governement

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.

Parent/Carer/ Provider