Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
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 a mother and carer for an adult NDIS participant. I want to provide a personal perspective on the negative impacts this Amendment Bill would have in relation to our family if it passes Parliament. I understand the need to review the NDIS to prevent fraud and waste but believe that these amendments do not focus on the wellbeing, dignity and inclusion of NDIS participants and their families. (I marked this submission confidential as it includes personal information about my son.) 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
Issue:
The consultation period for the Amendment Bill is two weeks, which is insufficient to allow for appropriate consultation, considering accessibility and communication needs.
How this affects us:
This submission is rushed as I only recently became aware of the process for making a submission and I know other families that will be negatively affected that have not had time to make a submission in this short timeframe. The proposed Amendment Bill is a complex document that takes significant time to for families to understand and consider how it will impact them. Those people who it affects most, need greater opportunity to engage.
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 us:
I am concerned that the Bill allows Ministers to change NDIS eligibility and funding without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny. I am also concerned that the rules relating to eligibility and funding may be standardised, automated and further constrain decision-making processing within the NDIS.
This creates stress for our family as carers. It makes it difficult to plan for our son’s future without us. We cannot have confidence that the NDIS will continue to provide the supports our son needs when we are unable to. Blanket systemic changes made without consideration for how they will impact on the life of participants such as my son are likely to leave them vulnerable. If funding is cut without a support plan in place, it leaves individuals and families such as hours scrambling to find solutions to ensure quality of life their person with a disability. I fear for those that do not have existing family supports and for my son in the future.
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 us:
Already under the current scheme we have experienced long delays in a response to a request for a review to major life changes within our family – including our son turning 18, gaining an intellectual impairment diagnosis, and myself as his primary carer having to return to part-time work. Despite our request for a review his plan was automatically renewed and it took numerous requests to gain an interview and a long wait for a response.
The Bill’s further restrictions on requests for reassessment or review make me anxious as the primary carer of an NDIS participant. As distressing as our previous experience was, I am concerned the future experiences dealing with the NDIS will only be more difficult as NDIS decision-makers will be further restricted in the ability to respond to the needs of participants.
As our son is in early adulthood, he still has dreams, and we still have hopes, that he can grow as a person, live independently and contribute to his community in the future. This requires the NDIS to be able to support him to respond to new possibilities and new challenges. Automatic renewal of plans without consultation does not provide this opportunity for him.
I also worry that if his funding is cut without a support plan, that I will have to give up my permanent position to return to being a full-time carer. This has a financial impact on our family and personal security in the future. Until we were able to gain support hours for our son as an adult, I gave up my full-time professional position to become a casual in a lesser role for nearly 18 years. This has affected my career, able to save for retirement and limited my superannuation.
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 us:
If our son’s community participation, capacity building funding were cut without warning and without any right to appeal I would have to give up my permanent position to become a full-time carer. It would also reduce opportunities for him to grow and build a place in the community. I fear that formulaic decision-making without engaging with evidence of individual needs does not enable the NDIS to fulfill its intention of providing reasonable and necessary supports to people with a disability to live an ordinary life.
Recommendation: 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 Us:
Whilst we feel we have exhausted treatment options for our son, it has been a very difficult and emotional journey. If we were told that we needed to force him to participate in additional “treatments” to gain financial supports it would be a distressing and difficult decision. I also know other families that did not have the funds to pursue treatments or were on long wait lists for treatments. There needs to be safeguards in place to support these families and to prevent participant harm.
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.
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 Us:
We have filled out many assessment forms over the years and often feel that the way they are structured do not always accurately capture the complexity of our son’s challenges and needs. Our son’s support needs arise from multiple disabilities, including intellectual impairment and ASD level 2. It is concerning that the assessment tool is not sufficiently validated to appropriately identify the needs of people with complex disability.
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.
Page 7
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 us: Our son utilises funding for social civic and community participation to develop communication skills, self-care, problem solving skills and basic work skills that we hope will enable him to live independently (with support). This funding also allows him to build connections in the community which we hope can support him when we are not able to. If this support is cut without consideration of the harm it will cause, I will be forced to give up work to become a full-time carer. It would also make it difficult to plan an independent future for our son.
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.