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

From: Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Date: [01/06/2026]

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 person with a disability who is an NDIS 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 I am a person with disabilities including severe

cronic exhaustion, impaired cognition, physical disabilities and other conditions to

numerous dimension. Over the last month I have had a severe kidney infection followed by a severe cold and that makes what would already be a difficult task impossible; people with disabilities cannot jump when you say so; actually I can’t jump at all. Such a short timeframe severely impacts the number of people who can participate.

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 is a frightening prospect, my ability to access essential services could be changed without notice by a faceless bureaucrat who knows nothing about me.I am really confused as by the decision-making processes of the NDIS; one theory is that they throw all the files up in the air and the ones that land on top get access? I have been a participant for 4 1/2 years and I’ve only just gained some understanding. Now it is all changing; support that I could have a year ago I can no longer have.

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.

My experience is that decisions of being made by people who just have administration skills, can’t read a medical report and have no understanding of this specific disabilities; for that to happen with no recourse to change the decision is terrifying.

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.

It is already happening that people are suddenly having their funds cut without notice. You cannot plan for the future if you never know what your support will be from one day to the other. People should not be punished for being economic with the spending of their plan’s funding.

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,

4

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.

It is impossible to prove that all possible treatments have been tried. In my own condition there are many treatments with limited effectiveness, scientific basis and great costs. To insist that I would have to try all of them before being granted access is impossible and since none are of great efficacy I would not have any less disability than when I started. I would just be a lot poorer.

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.

This makes no sense. I have a major disability with complicating other disabilities which makes my ability to cope much less, so to consider one disability without other conditions that affect is nonsensical.

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.

It is senseless to cut this across the board. I have had my major disability for 40 years and it’s only in the last 4 1/2 years that I have had access to support beyond basic survival. I had been like that for so long that I actually no longer knew there was anything beyond that; receiving funding for community access has been transformative and I am doing many things that I thought I would never do again.

• 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 NDS supports.