National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 71
SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by: Anonymous NDIS Participant Age: 26 years Status: Current NDIS participant with multiple diagnoses affecting functional capacity Date: May 2026
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
- INTRODUCTION
I am a 26-year-old Australian living with multiple diagnoses that significantly and collectively affect my daily functional capacity. I have been an NDIS participant and the scheme has been fundamental to my ability to participate in everyday life — to leave my home, maintain basic routines, access essential services, and work toward greater independence.
I am making this submission because I am deeply concerned about the proposed changes in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. While I understand that sustainability and integrity of the scheme are important goals, I believe this Bill, as currently drafted, will cause serious harm to people like me — and to many thousands of other Australians with disability who rely on the NDIS not as a luxury, but as a lifeline.
I wish to raise four specific concerns: the inaccessibility of the submission process itself; the failure of the proposed functional capacity framework to account for the combined impact of multiple diagnoses; the inadequacy of alternative supports being offered to those who may lose NDIS access; and the deeply problematic requirement that people must exhaust all appropriate treatments before being considered eligible.
- THE SUBMISSION PROCESS IS INACCESSIBLE
Before addressing the substance of the Bill, I must note that the process by which this legislation is being considered is itself inaccessible and exclusionary — and this is not a minor concern. It is a fundamental flaw that undermines the legitimacy of any consultation that takes place.
The Bill was introduced to Parliament on 14 May 2026 — just two days after the Federal Budget — and the Senate Committee submission deadline is 29 May 2026. This leaves fewer than two weeks for affected Australians, many of whom live with significant cognitive, physical, and psychosocial disabilities, to read and understand a document exceeding 100 pages, seek
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 71
support to interpret its implications for their own circumstances, and prepare a written response.
For me personally, preparing this submission has required considerable effort, time, and support. On many days, my conditions make reading, processing complex information, and writing extremely difficult. The compressed timeline means that people most affected by this legislation — those with disability, chronic illness, and complex support needs — are the least able to engage meaningfully with the process.
This is not an abstract accessibility concern. The principle of “nothing about us without us” requires more than a nominal opportunity to respond. It requires time, accessible formats, supported opportunities to engage, and genuine consideration of the responses received. A fortnight does not meet that standard, particularly for legislation of this scale and consequence.
I urge the Committee to:
• Extend the consultation period to allow genuine participation by people with disability; • Ensure accessible formats including Easy Read, audio, and supported completion options are provided for all consultation materials; and • Require that future NDIS reform legislation include mandatory, adequately resourced co- design processes with people with disability prior to introduction.
- THE FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY FRAMEWORK FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR MULTIPLE AND INTERSECTING DIAGNOSES
I live with multiple diagnoses, each of which affects my functioning independently. Together, they compound my support needs in ways that are greater than any single diagnosis would suggest. This is a well-documented reality for many NDIS participants, and it is one that the proposed functional capacity framework does not adequately address.
Under the proposed changes, the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) will assess eligibility and support budgets based on a standardised functional capacity tool, most likely an algorithmic or rules-based assessment. The Bill does not clearly require that the combined or cumulative impact of multiple diagnoses be taken into account. Analysis of the Bill’s provisions suggests that the NDIA may only be required to consider each impairment individually — meaning a person whose conditions interact and compound one another may be assessed as if those interactions do not exist.
For example: on any given day, my functional capacity is shaped not by one condition in isolation, but by how my diagnoses interact with one another — how fatigue from one condition affects my ability to manage another, how cognitive load from one diagnosis reduces my capacity to cope with the physical demands of a second, and how stress or pain from one impairment escalates symptoms across others. A standardised snapshot assessment cannot capture this. An algorithm cannot capture this.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 71
There are also significant concerns about how fluctuating and episodic conditions will be assessed. Many people with disability do not experience consistent, predictable levels of impairment. A single-point-in-time assessment conducted on a relatively stable day may profoundly underestimate the support a person requires on their worst days — which may be the days on which support is most critical.
Furthermore, the design of the new tool — the I-CAN instrument and the associated eligibility assessment — is still being developed. The thresholds, classification criteria, and weighting of different functional domains have not been finalised. The community is being asked to respond to legislation that encodes a framework whose operationalisation remains unknown. This is an extraordinary position to be placed in.
I urge the Committee to:
• Require that the Bill explicitly mandates consideration of the cumulative and intersecting impact of multiple diagnoses when assessing functional capacity; • Require that assessments account for variability and fluctuation over time, not only functional capacity at a single point in time; • Ensure that trained human assessors with discretion and clinical judgment play a central role, and that algorithms cannot override professional assessment; and • Delay the commencement of new eligibility provisions until the assessment tools have been fully developed, publicly consulted on, and independently evaluated.
- ALTERNATIVE SUPPORTS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO REPLACE WHAT PEOPLE STAND TO LOSE
A central justification for the scale of these reforms is that people who no longer qualify for the NDIS, or who have their budgets reduced, will be supported through alternative systems — principally Foundational Supports and the broader health and community sector.
I want to be direct: this justification is not credible in its current form. The Foundational Supports system does not yet exist in any operational sense. It has not been designed, the service types have not been determined, it is not funded at a level that could absorb the number of people projected to be moved off the NDIS, and it will not be available in any meaningful way before cuts to participation supports begin in October 2026.
The health system is similarly not equipped to fill this gap. As someone who relies on both the NDIS and the health system, I can say with certainty that these are not interchangeable. The health system is focused on diagnosis and treatment. The NDIS is focused on the functional support needs that remain after treatment — the daily living supports, community participation, assistive technology, and capacity building that enable a person to live with dignity and independence. Redirecting people from one to the other does not address the same needs.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 71
Medicare and public hospital systems are already under significant pressure. Bulk billing availability, waiting times for specialist appointments, access to allied health under chronic disease management plans, and availability of mental health services are all insufficient for the current demand. Asking these systems to absorb people with complex disability-related support needs — without additional investment specifically designed for that purpose — is not a plan. It is a transfer of risk from the federal government to individuals, families, and an already overstretched health system.
For people in regional and remote areas, the problem is more acute. Access to specialist services, allied health professionals, and disability-specific supports is already significantly limited outside major metropolitan centres. The assumption that adequate alternatives exist or can be made available in time is not supported by evidence.
I urge the Committee to:
• Legislate a clear safeguard that no person may be removed from the NDIS or have essential supports reduced until adequate, funded, and operational alternative supports are demonstrably available in their location; • Commission and publish an independent assessment of the capacity of the health and community sector to meet the support needs of people projected to leave the NDIS; and • Ensure Foundational Supports are fully designed, funded, and operational before any budget reductions or eligibility changes take effect.
- THE REQUIREMENT TO EXHAUST ALL APPROPRIATE TREATMENTS IS UNJUST AND UNSAFE
Of all the provisions in this Bill, the requirement that an applicant must have “undertaken all appropriate treatment” before being considered eligible for the NDIS is among the most troubling. I urge the Committee to scrutinise this provision carefully, because in practice it will create serious harm.
First, the term “all appropriate treatment” is undefined in the Bill in a way that provides meaningful guidance. Treatment is listed in the most general terms, leaving wide discretion for the NDIA to interpret what counts as appropriate — and therefore what a person must have tried before they can access support. This creates enormous scope for inconsistent decision- making and places an unfair burden of proof on people with disability to demonstrate they have done enough.
Second, the provision assumes that treatment is accessible. It does not account for the reality that in Australia in 2026, access to treatment is profoundly unequal. Treatments that might be “commonly available” in a capital city may require months-long waitlists, significant out-of- pocket costs, or travel that is simply not possible for many people with disability. A person who
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 71
has not accessed a particular treatment because they cannot afford it, cannot physically access it, or because no provider is available within a reasonable distance should not be penalised for that reality.
Third, this provision could actively harm people with disability by incentivising or requiring them to pursue treatments that carry risk, that conflict with their values or identity, or that are inappropriate for their specific circumstances, simply to satisfy an eligibility gate. For conditions where “treatment” carries significant side effects, or where evidence for efficacy is limited or contested, requiring a person to exhaust those options before accessing disability support is ethically indefensible.
Fourth, the new definition of permanence — that an impairment will only be considered permanent if treatment is unlikely to “alleviate” its impact — sets an extremely low threshold. Alleviation, not cure or substantial improvement, would be sufficient to deny permanence. This means a treatment that produces even a small or temporary improvement in one aspect of functioning could be used to argue that a person’s disability is not permanent, and therefore that they should not qualify for the NDIS. This is not a principled definition of permanence. It is a mechanism for exclusion.
As someone with multiple diagnoses, I am acutely aware that “trying all available treatments” is not a simple or costless exercise. It involves time, energy, financial outlay, potential side effects, and emotional labour — all of which are already significant burdens for people living with disability. To place this as a precondition for accessing support is to ask some of the most vulnerable Australians to bear more, not less, before they can receive help.
I urge the Committee to:
• Remove or substantially redraft the treatment exhaustion requirement so that it cannot be used to deny access to people whose conditions are genuine but whose access to treatment has been limited by cost, geography, or other systemic barriers; • Replace the word “alleviate” in the permanence definition with a standard requiring that treatment is unlikely to materially and substantially improve the impact of the impairment, with clear guidance on what that means in practice; • Require decision-makers to take into account the accessibility, affordability, and availability of treatments when assessing whether a person has met the treatment requirement; and • Provide a clear, legislated definition of “appropriate treatment” that is developed in consultation with people with disability and the medical community.
- CONCLUSION
I do not oppose reform of the NDIS. I want a scheme that is sustainable, that delivers quality supports, and that protects people with disability from exploitation and harm. I believe most people with disability want the same.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 71
What I oppose — what I urge this Committee to oppose — is reform that is rushed, that removes safeguards before alternatives exist, that defines people’s eligibility using tools and thresholds that have not yet been designed in genuine partnership with the people they will affect, and that places impossible conditions on some of the most vulnerable Australians as the price of access to essential support.
The NDIS was built on a promise: that Australians with permanent and significant disability would be supported to live with dignity, independence, and genuine participation in community life. That promise is worth keeping. This Bill, in its current form, puts it at risk.
I ask the Committee to listen carefully to the many voices of people with disability who are finding, under significant difficulty, the capacity to make themselves heard in this process. We are doing so because the stakes are that high. Please act accordingly.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Anonymous NDIS Participant | Submission to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee | May 2026