Date: 1/06/2026
Thank you for 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 an NDIS participant and an employed adult with a disability.
I am deeply concerned about the harm this Bill could cause if it passes in its current form. For people like me, this is not an abstract policy change. It is about whether I can remain safe, well and able to participate in everyday life. The Bill is too broad and too significant to proceed without further scrutiny and amendment.
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.
How this affects me:
As a disabled person, my capacity to read, process and respond to complex material varies from day to day. When consultation is rushed, people like me are effectively shut out of decisions that will shape our lives. A longer consultation period would give me a genuine opportunity to engage properly and be heard.
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 Me
The Minister has said the NDIS needs more oversight and accountability. If that is true, then decisions of this scale should not sit beyond scrutiny. The uncertainty this creates is one of my greatest concerns. Living with the fear that my supports could change at any time, without warning and without proper scrutiny, would worsen my condition and make it much harder to plan my life with any stability or dignity.
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 Me:
I have been able to maintain my health because my current supports are relatively stable. When my plan has not met my needs, my health and capacity have declined sharply. At present, that risk is reduced because I can ask for a review. If I lose that ability, I will be left trying to manage serious consequences without any meaningful way to protect myself. That is frightening, and it would make it much harder for me to advocate for my own safety and wellbeing.
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 me:
My needs and capacity fluctuate, and I have managed this partly because my funding has some flexibility, including the rollover of unspent funds. If my funding is cut without warning, I will have no backup and no time to prepare. That would place my health, my independence and my employment at immediate risk. In the worst case, it could become a medical crisis that might have been avoided.
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 me:
At times I have been unable to access treatment because of cost and because my disability limits my capacity to earn. Under this approach, I could be shut out of treatment and shut out of support at the same time. That would leave me trapped in a gap where I am too unwell to manage without help, but unable to access the very support I need.
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 proposed assessment tool is the Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN). Before it is used, it should be validated to ensure it can accurately identify the needs of all people with disability, including those with fluctuating or episodic conditions, and that it is culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
How this affects me: Disability can affect people in very different and fluctuating ways. Using an unvalidated tool creates real anxiety for me about whether my needs will be properly recognised, especially if there is no right of review. It is distressing to think that a flawed assessment could override the medical evidence and lived experience that more fully reflect my reality.
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
How this affects me: Social, civic and community participation supports make up a large part of the help I rely on, alongside therapies. They have improved my mental health, helped me find and keep work, and enabled me to attend essential appointments, including medical care, victim support and grocery shopping. If I lose these supports, even briefly, the impact could be serious and long-lasting. I may struggle to work, attend appointments or stay well enough to avoid hospital. What worries me most is how quickly this kind of instability can undo the progress I have fought hard to make.
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.
I ask the Committee to consider carefully both the proposed changes in this Bill and the recommendations above. The lack of safeguards is deeply concerning, especially for people like me who are already vulnerable. These changes would not simply alter administrative processes. They could destabilise lives, damage health and leave people without the support they rely on to live with safety, dignity and independence.
I also encourage the Committee to speak directly with people who use the NDIS. Many of us believe the scheme can be improved, and we have practical ideas that could strengthen it for everyone. Most importantly, we know what is at stake when support is reduced, delayed or taken away.