Submission to the National

Disability Insurance Scheme

Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

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

Date: 09/07/2026

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 friend of someone with Level 2 autism and psychosocial disability, and will be negatively affected by this amendment to the NDIS.

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.

Page 2

The short timeline impacts me by reducing the time available for appropriate consultation, including understanding how the Amendment Bill affects those around me and how to respond to this.

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 will directly affect my friend applying for the NDIS, since the eligibility criteria and amount of funding could change without adequate forewarning. The NDIS application process is already arduous, especially for people with disability. For example, the NDIS portal is inaccessible to the point of heavily recommending finding an NDIS partner in-person, which is a challenge for many with disability. This amendment will only make it more difficult for my friend to lodge an NDIS application. He is currently reliant on private support work, funded by his foster father, and caretaking from his girlfriend, which is not sustainable long-term. He would also benefit occupational therapy, speech pathology, and sensory aids/noise-cancelling headphones which cannot be supplied without the NDIS.

Without the NDIS and its supports he cannot have a functional life—this includes maintaining a successful education, fostering independence, and attaining a career to contribute to the economy.

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 will harm my friend who possesses invisible disabilities and moderate support needs since he is more susceptible to the changes proposed in the Bill, because reassessment under stricter criteria will more easily reduce support and funding from individuals that are not visibly disabled (especially when given adequate supports at the time of reassessment).

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.

My friend would have been unable to graduate Year 12 without the support work he received. He also requires occupational therapy, speech pathology, and sensory aids/noise-cancelling headphones to maintain a successful education and help with life management. The removal of any of these supports would reduce his ability to live a functional life and attain employment in future, lowering his self-sufficiency which goes against the purpose of the NDIS.

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.

My friend was homeless for a large portion of teenagehood and lacked the financial resources to pay for treatment or exhaust treatment options, which is in of itself vague, preventing his eligibility for NDIS under this Bill despite requiring support to function. He also has several complex mental illnesses alongside autism, so the replacement of whole-of-person assessment with single eligible impairment consideration will only reduce the seeming severity of his condition because it fails to account for environmental factors and other ineligible impairments which affect support needs. The necessity of a support need cannot be fully encapsulated by a single impairment consideration.

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.

My friend has psychosocial disabilities which are episodic in nature, and this assessment tool could render him ineligible for NDIS or undercount his support requirements, especially considering how the single eligible impairment consideration already disregards how different environmental factors and impairments could impact support requirements of a disability like autism.

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.

• The cut to capacity building daily activities includes cuts to occupational therapy and

• Speech therapy, which my friend requires to improve social and civic engagement

• While having autism and psychosocial disabilities.

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.