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: 6/7/26

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 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

by the people making these decisions not having enough time and information to properly understand how this will effect the participants currently on the NDIS and as they have many varying needs and by cutting their existing supports or even eliminating them all together you are ultimately making serious changes to their whole way of life and the methods they use to cope with navigating this difficult and sometimes scary world

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.

As someone living with a mental health disability and currently being a NDIS participant I am highly dependant on routine and familiarity in order to feel safe while navigating this scary difficult world and if my supports were removed or altered in any way this would lead to a crisis for myself as I would be left totally unsupported and isolated as I do not have access to any supports outside the ones currently provided by the NDIS and it would lead to myself seriously considering suicide as my only safe option left. I have tried using supports from the medicare system previously and have found this system has greatly let me down and been of little help, With the assistance of the NDIS I have been able to assemble a fantastic team of supports around myself of which I have had choice and control of whom I choose for these

supports and they have helped me start to feel safer and make progress in trying to

make myself more independant and confident which I am hopeful will allow me to

eventually reduce my need for NDIS funding as I build my capacity to cope with all

the things I currently struggle with in my day to day life, So if these supports were

removed I would feel my progress would be stripped away and I would be back to

where I was before I became an NDIS participant, unable to cope with dealing with

the reality of this world we all live in which as I said earlier would make me have to

seriously consider Suicide as safe option

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.

This type of decision would cause myself great harm with the chance that all the
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.
This type of decision would cause me great harm with the chance that all the routine
and stability I currently rely on could be ripped away without notice. As my own
needs and circumstances change constantly, as they do for everyone, these
changes might not be properly considered or appropriately accommodated, and
changes to my funding might not be made to accommodate them. Now, I would have
less chance of appealing these decisions and being able to explain why it’s important
for my funding to be changed or maintained to appropriately accommodate these
changes.

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 routine and stability I currently rely on could be ripped away without notice and as my own needs and circumstances change constantly as they do for everyOne, that these changes may not be properly considered appropriately, and changes to my funding may not be made to accommodate these changes. Now I would have less chance of appealing these decisions and being able to explain why it’s important for my funding to be changed to appropriately accommodate these changes.

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.eal. Participants who save unspent funds across plan periods for high-cost items will lose that ability entirely.

I have recently had most of my capacity building fudnding removed after a review last month when I was unable to have any input into this decision or being able to put my case forward as to why these capacity building therapies are so important in my case, With simply being told that the decisions were made in accordance to legislature, I felt totally unheard and powerless about these decisions as nothing I said was being heard I was just instructed on how to appeal these decisions and it left me without any warning access to psychotherapy and physiotherapy and it has left me in serious crisis, not being able to sleep for days on and having serious suicidal thoughts daily with no one to even talk to about this as my psychotherapy was cut immediently and I do not have confidence in the public health system after trying to navigate it for years and not getting anywhere. So the only thing keeping me going is knowing I am trying to appeal this decision and the hope that this funding will be reinstated If this appeals process was to be removed I would have no hope at all

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.

This will remove the participants choice and power and diminish what they are truly dealing with as I myself have recently had happen, being told by a NDIS representative that the only impairment that they recognise is my anxiety diagnosis, which I found extremely shocking as I have many diagnoses including major anxiety, borderline personality disorder, major depressive disorder, ocd and ptsd and to be reduced to simply one impairment was devastating and insulting as all these impaired effect each other and make my circumstances much harder to navigate and deal with so by trying to put me into a basket to treat only the impairment that is considered is eligible is not considering my individual circumstances and allowing me access to funding to treat my entire disabilty as a whole

Recommendation: Do not proceed with a requirement to exhaust “appropriate” treatment options – there are no safeguarding measures around participant harm

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 thiThis 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.

As my needs constantly change and fluctuate because I am dealing with a mental health disability, I need to be able to have access to have my funding reviewed so it can help me deal with these changes in a way where I have choice and control that allows me to feel safe and my entire circumstances are understood, allowing me access to appropriate supports that I so desperately need.

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
Supports cut before replacement system is ready.

The issueue: 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.

By removing these supports you are leaving participants like myself isolated and dependant on other goverment systems that are either already over worked or not appropiate for the individual like myself, by removing my capacity building supports how can I grow and develop to a place in my life where I no longer need long term support and can become independant of the NDIS system and I just find myself stuck with no growth and just left feeling unsafe and uncared for like I don’t matter

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.