PWDA Template: Private Submission

to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Progressive

Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au Date: 1 June 2026

We 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 and carer of an NDS 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.

As a primary carer for my husband, who lives with a progressive neurodegenerative condition, I am writing to express my profound concerns regarding the proposed legislative changes to the NDIS.

While the government states these amendments intend to ensure scheme sustainability, our recent experiences demonstrate that top-down fiscal rationing is already occurring at the expense of participant safety, functional capacity, and carer wellbeing. I strongly support the detailed recommendations put forward by People with Disability Australia (PWDA). In particular, I object to the shift of substantive rules to non-disallowable ministerial instruments, the erosion of reassessment and review rights for existing participants, the dangerous expansion of automated and arbitrary funding cuts, and a flawed assessment framework that fails to account for the psychology of neurological trauma.

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 already juggling critical care responsibilities, part-time work (at risk) and ongoing management as adjustment to life changes we are constantly facing given my husband’s progressive neurological condition. This is exacerbated by so many aspects of life, being pushed to digital do- it-yourself channels to access services. My husband’s care needs can fluctuate quite Dramatically at times, and my work is currently at a mentally taxing critical time so this has not given me much time to put to what I see as such a critical task for us.

This adds insult to injury due to already reduced supports and has me very concerned that this is a tokenistic, ticking box exercise rather than genuine seeking of feedback to understand and inform better policy.

Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.

Procedural Flaws: The Erosion of Genuine Co-Design and Rushed Timelines

(Supporting PWDA Recommendations 5 & 42)

As a primary carer juggling employment, intensive physical care, and overwhelming administration, I am deeply concerned by the speed at which these legislative changes are being advanced.

Rushed Consultation vs. Carer Reality:

The compressed timelines for public feedback severely disadvantage families who are already pushed to their absolute limits. This rushed process violates the core tenets of person-centred planning (Rec 42).

Tokenistic Regard for Co-Design:

While the government cites “co-design,” the legislative reality allows the Agency to merely have conceptual “regard” for consultation without binding legal obligations. Our recent planning meeting where my husband’s plan was slashed late last year making no sense given he has a progressive e condition and had to autoextended plans so effectively no agency planning discussion in over 3 years during which time he went from semi ambulant, to needing to use wheelchair full-time. This before framework rules were even finalised demonstrates that the NDIA is using looming shifts to justify immediate cutting rather than engaging in true, transparent consultation safeguard processes (Rec 5).

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.

The structural architecture of this Bill represents a dangerous shift in governance, moving foundational rules out of primary legislation and into the hands of executive discretion.

Erosion of Parliamentary Scrutiny: By leaving critical definitions of eligibility, NDIS supports, and foundational budget rules to ministerial instruments rather than primary law, the Bill strips away essential democratic protections. This directly contradicts PWDA’s Recommendation 4, which demands that all substantive decisions affecting funding levels and participant supports remain subject to full parliamentary debate and disallowance processes.

The Risk of Sudden, Unannounced Policy Shifts:For families like ours who rely on system predictability to survive, allowing the Minister to alter the parameters of the scheme via legislative instruments creates immense instability. Without the mandatory transparency safeguards and advance public release notice periods outlined in Recommendation 5, participants and carers are left entirely unable to prepare for sudden, adverse changes affecting their life-sustaining plans.

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.

(Supporting PWDA Recommendations 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12)

The transition to “New Framework Plans” threatens the stability of long-term participants by narrowing how reasonable and necessary supports are calculated and restricting the legal pathways to fix insufficient plans.

The Danger of Impairment-Specific Testing: Under sections 32K, 32L, and 34, the Bill seeks to restrict supports solely to a primary qualifying impairment. As highlighted by PWDA (Rec 11 & 12), supports must be determined via a holistic assessment of functional impact. My husband’s progressive condition triggers complex, co-occurring psychological trauma and secondary physical impacts. Narrowing the criteria ignores the medical reality that a progressive disease continuously alters a participant’s entire functional ecosystem.

Systemic Redirection to Inadequate Mainstream Caps: Planners are already attempting to push my husband’s specialised neurological counselling onto the mainstream Medicare system (the Better Access initiative), which is capped at just 10 sessions per year. We have attempted to access such services but there are 6 month waitlists, or closed books and most requiring additional contribution of over $150 per session making this unaffordable on part time wage. This attempt to shift fundamentally violates the holistic principles defended in Recommendation 12. A mainstream, short-term mental health cap cannot support a 30-year trajectory of degenerative trauma.

The Stripping of Reassessment Rights and Carer Breakdown: Proposed section 48A

severely limits the capacity to request plan reassessments (Rec 8). This is catastrophic when managing a progressive disease. Over the last three years, my husband suffered severe functional decline, transitioning to full-time wheelchair dependency. Instead of receiving support, his plan was cut, forcing the physical burden onto me. This resulted in a severe back injury when I had to lift him off the floor after a dangerous fall.

The Need for a Risk-Based Safety Net: This is the exact definition of “carer breakdown” addressed in PWDA’s Recommendation 9. The legislation must be amended to mandate immediate, risk-based reassessment pathways and interim supports when there is a documented risk of harm, carer injury, or system failure, allowing new clinical evidence to be formally recognized (Rec 10).

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.

(Supporting PWDA Recommendations 13, 14, 15, 19 & 20)

The introduction of section 34A grants the Minister unprecedented, sweeping powers

to reduce funding for entire groups of supports, threatening to override baseline

participant safety with macro-fiscal targets.

The Danger of Class-Wide Budget Slicing: I strongly support PWDA’s call to remove

section 34A entirely (Rec 13). Granting the power to cut funding across entire nsupport categories removes individual consideration. If retained, it must require

absolute statutory satisfaction that cuts will not cause a material risk of harm, social nisolation, or a forced reliance on broken informal care networks (Rec 14).

Forced Group Ratios and Inaccessible Environments: Our recent experience proves

how destructive arbitrary funding caps are. My husband’s 1:1 community access nhours were forcibly reduced to a 3:1 group ratio. The physical world is not safe for an unassisted, full-time wheelchair user; my husband has repeatedly toppled due to non-compliant, steep street curb cutouts. Reducing his 1:1 support hour funding ndoes not make the physical environment safer—it simply forces him into absolute, insecure social isolation.

Safety Must Trump Sustainability: Financial sustainability metrics must never be permitted to override basic human safety, dignity, and independence (Rec 19). Any ministerial determination setting maximum funding intensities or staffing ratios must include mandatory statutory exceptions where its application would directly result in physical trauma or reduced community participation (Rec 20).

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.

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.

(Supporting PWDA Recommendations 6, 7, 38 & 39)

The legislative mechanism under Section 36 to determine global budgets via mandated, standardized Needs Assessment Reports introduces a deeply flawed methodology that ignores human psychology and trauma.

The Psychology of Masking and Denial:

My husband understandably finds his 30- year progressive physical decline deeply re-traumatising. His instinctual coping mechanism when interacting with external assessors or strangers is to shut down, mask his symptoms, and insist he is “fine.”

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.

(Supporting PWDA Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 16)

The current legislative trajectory seeks to implement immediate cuts to individual NDIS plans under the assumption that state-funded “Foundational Supports” will fill the gaps, despite these supports being non-existent in the current market.

The Foundational Support Mirage: The NDIA cut my husband’s vital exercise physiology funding under the false premise that it was “maintenance, not therapy”— violating their own operational guidelines for degenerative diseases. These cuts are being enforced before any commensurate mainstream or Foundational Supports are active.

Mandating the Order of Operations: I strongly support PWDA’s insistence that no cuts to supports occur until commensurate Foundational Supports are fully funded, established, and operational across all states and territories (Rec 1, 2 & 16). Slicing preventative health funding before an alternative framework exists creates a catastrophic safety vacuum for vulnerable families.

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.

The Economic Fallacy of Rushed Budget Slicing: A Macro

Cost-Benefit Analysis

(Supporting PWDA Recommendation 3)

The driving rhetoric behind these amendments is fiscal sustainability. However, the

Government has failed to publish the detailed, transparent economic modelling

required to substantiate their projected cost savings (Rec 3).

An analysis of the real-world economic outcomes demonstrates that the Agency’s

short-term balance-sheet savings create massive, compounding long-term liabilities

for the Australian taxpayer:

e-The Local Micro-Cut: The recent cuts imposed on my husband’s plan (halving his exercise physiology and forcing his community access into a 3:1 ratio) save the NDIA $15,987.40 per annum.

e-The Macro-Taxpayer Collapse: To absorb these cuts and protect my husband from further physical harm, I have already been forced to drop from full-time to part-time professional work, severely reducing my income tax contributions and crippling my superannuation growth. I have had to self fund so many modifications to our home to make kitchen and sleeping, storage accessible to him.

e-The Ultimate Trajectory: If this legislation passes without structural safety nets, I will be forced to leave the workforce entirely and who knows when I may face the decision of moving my husband into full-time residential care, as his condition changes and if I just cannot do it without adequate support. The Commonwealth will then lose all my income tax revenue and be legally required to fund the Disability Support Pension, Carer Payments, and the astronomical cost of full-time institutional care.

e-Slicing minor preventative funding from an individual plan only to trigger a systemic collapse that forces an entire family onto total welfare dependency is an

Conclusion and Recommendations

The NDIS cannot be run solely as a fiscal balancing exercise without accounting for human and clinical consequences. I urge the committee to adopt the full suite of PWDA amendments, ensuring the legislation explicitly incorporates:

A Legal “No Disadvantage” Safety Net (Rec 9 & 19): Protecting participants with documented, progressive neurological conditions from funding cuts when their functional capacity is actively declining.
Holistic Definition of Supports (Rec 11 & 12): Explicitly recognising that for progressive diseases, the maintenance of current function is a critical therapeutic outcome, and that secondary impacts (such as trauma) belong firmly within the NDIS remit.
Mandatory Human Review and Proportionality (Rec 38 & 39): Prohibiting automated decision-making and ensuring that carer impact statements are legally

integrated into assessments to account for participant “masking” and prevent carer
breakdown.

Enforceable Foundational Support Guarantees (Rec 1 & 16): Legally prohibiting

any reduction to individual plan boundaries until equivalent Foundational Supports

are fully operational in the participant’s local community.

I implore the government to take meaningful look at the root causes of some of the

problems these changes are aiming to avert. If cuts are done purely as a cost saving

measure the results could be catastrophic. This cannot be knee jerk policy and

legislation.

This, on top of the last 6 years of growing cost of living pressures could just break

us.

Thank you for considering this submission.