NDIA Accountability Project

Carer concerned about impact on supports and eligibility criteria for NDIS participant

‹ PrevPage 1 of 6 · Source p. 1Next ›

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

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 carer of 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.

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.

  • Unexpected changes to support funding, and being provided with supports that are not suitable or are insufficient, has a devastating impact on people’s lives and their basic human rights. The mental and physical health outcomes for people with disability are determined by their access to what they need. Decisions about the scheme must be scrutinised and consulted on properly.

  • 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 parƟcipants 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 NDIA makes mistakes that can be significantly detrimental to people’s daily life.

  • There must be a review process available for when the incorrect decision is made

  • about people’s plans. I’ve been through the review process before for my daughter’s

  • funding and there were glaring mistakes that were addressed as a result, an option

  • to review needs to be available. This is especially the case, when there are not

  • support alternatives available outside of the NDIA.

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.

This makes me sick to the stomach. It is one of the most vulnerable groups of people in our society that we are talking about here. Their individual needs must be considered.

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.

Who determines that an impairment cannot be treated before they access the NDIS? How many treatment options must they try, for how long? It can be never ending, which is the case for my friend who has been rejected for the NDIS despite not being able to leave her home without support for the last two years because she is not able to walk or use a wheelchair without assistance. She is wasting away and running out of her own money that she uses for bare minimum assistance of 3 hours a week. That three hours is her only interaction with another human. I’m disgusted that she has not been able to get assistance from the NDIA. They keep saying she needs to keep trying other treatments, which she has done for years but it is never enough.

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

graphic capacity to access treatments.

Unvalidated funcƟonal capacity assessment tool risks misidenƟfying 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.

How can a standard assessment tool fit everyone? And to limit it to one disability is not going to accurately assess what is happening for the many people who have multiple disabilities. There needs to be a human element involved in the assessment, persons who have treated the participant and understand their individual circumstances.

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 6

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.

Parents and carers already operate on the edge of burnout without removing assistance and adding to their load.

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.