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 a family member of an NDIS person with disability. I am a retired registered Occupational Therapist and Psychologist.

I support the work of placing the NDIS on a sustainable long-term footing however sensible amendments are needed before this Bill is approved to support and protect the current and future participants.

I have done my best in this submission to highlight the areas of my concern using information provided by several sources but particularly the PWDA Template and the Growing Space draft submission.

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 limiting my ability to investigate further the impact of the Bill as it is currently proposed and erodes my trust in the consultation process.

• 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.

Giving such power to Ministers creates a permanent uncertainty and resultant stress for all NDIS participants and their families. Parliamentary oversight and public examination should not be legislated away. The knowledge and intent of future Ministers is unknown and could be devastating.

• 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.

There must always be a way to review decisions made about funding that affects your basic existence. This is one of several parts of this new Bill which strike fear, insecurity and anxiety into the very heart of the person on the NDIS benefits.

• 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).

Observing the process as a family member, I notice the high difficulty in navigating the system and spending funds when and where they should be spent. There are extraordinary delays from the NDIS at every turn. For example, my family member is still waiting for her June 2025 plan assessment for which she has paid for the required reports which are now out of date. She needs a new electric wheelchair and vehicle modifications and was hoping to have that money allocated last year. If it had been, she would be somewhere in the process of getting the wheelchair prescribed, ordering, delivery time and car adaptation (for which I have been told, there is well over 6 months wait).

These are high costs and, as things stand, are unlikely to be achieved within 1 funding cycle.

• 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).

A person’s individual circumstances should be considered, including ability to pay for

treatment, , where they live including can they get to the treatment clinic even in the

same city or whether treatment is actually available to them at all.

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.

Appropriate assessment must always involve a clinician’s judgement. They must have some oversight of the results and input into the final report.

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.

• Under the Bill, NDIS pricing now sits with the Minister, on Agency advice, through legislative instrument (s 45C).

• The Issue: The NDIS Review’s Recommendation 11 was that pricing should be done by the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority (IHACPA) - the same independent body that prices hospital and aged care services. The Bill goes a different way. Less independence and more political “flexibility.”

• I have always been concerned about how providers and equipment suppliers charge for their services and equipment. I sincerely hope that this type of purchase from a person’s plan can be limited to what are reasonable costs.

• Recommendation: Implement NDIS Review Recommendation 11. Amend s 45C so maximum price determinations must be made on the binding advice of IHACPA, not the Agency.