Submission 88 - Supplementary Submission
28 May 2026
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Date: 28th May 2026
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 a 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 states that consultation should occur for at least 30
days, where possible.
The short timeline affects me by shortening the response period and creating accessibility issues, as it
assumes the recipient can review, understand, obtain advice, gather documents, and respond within
the same timeframe as someone without disability-related barriers. Where a person has cognitive,
psychological, physical, communication, administrative, or technology-related impairments, a
compressed timeline can materially reduce their ability to participate effectively and fairly.
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period to the best-practice minimum of 30 days.
Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law
The issue: The Bill allows Ministers to change who receives NDIS support (Schedule 1, Parts 8 and
- and how much funding people receive (Schedule 1, Part 4; Schedule 3) by signing an instrument, without returning to Parliament. The rules that will determine critical eligibility thresholds (Schedule 1
Parts 1, 8 and 9) have not yet been written.
1
Submission 88 - Supplementary Submission
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 that supports or eligibility rules have changed
until their plan is affected.
As a participant with disability-related support needs, this creates serious uncertainty because the
supports I rely on for daily functioning, safety, therapy, and community participation could be restricted
or removed before I have a fair opportunity to understand, challenge, or prepare for the change. This
would make the system harder to navigate and could place me at real risk of losing essential supports
without meaningful notice, consultation, or procedural fairness. It also raises serious concerns for
participants who are experiencing suicidal ideation from the abuse they have received.
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.
As a participant, I would be directly affected because my support needs are not static and can change
over time. If my plan is reduced, automatically renewed, or reassessed under stricter rules without
clear review rights, I may be unable to secure the additional supports needed to remain safe,
independent, and properly supported in the community. With a person with a history of suicidal
ideation and multiple hospitalisations, I am at risk. The online forums of people enquiring about
voluntary assisted dying (VAD).
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 by an
2
Submission 88 - Supplementary Submission
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.
As a participant, this would create serious instability because I may need to conserve funds for
higher-cost disability supports, therapy, equipment, or periods where my support needs
increase. Removing carry-over funds and allowing percentage-based funding cuts without review
rights could leave me without essential supports, even where I have managed my plan responsibly,
and those supports remain necessary. This could put me at significant risk.
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 a disability must exhaust all treatment options before they become eligible
for the Scheme (Schedule 1, Part 8). There will also be the removal of whole-of-person assessment,
which will be 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 be assessed only
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 available to them.
As a participant, this would directly affect me because my disability evidence has already been tested
through multiple independent psychiatric, psychological, medico-legal and statutory assessment
processes, all confirming that my disabilities are permanent, lifelong and treatment
exhausted. Allowing an algorithm or non-medically qualified decision-maker to disregard that
evidence, or to assess me against only one impairment rather than my whole functional disability
profile, risks discriminatory and arbitrary decision-making inconsistent with the Disability
Discrimination Act 1992, including protections against direct and indirect discrimination and
discrimination in the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs, and with Australia’s
obligations under the CRPD to ensure equality, non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation. I
was assessed at 17% WPI by the Commission-appointed medical panel. The WPI assessment is
recognised and relied upon by the Highest Court in Australia.
3
Submission 88 - Supplementary Submission
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. There is no
evidence that the agency could possibly or reasonably dispute this.
An unvalidated functional capacity assessment tool risks misidentifying needs.
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.
Appropriate assessment is critical because my support needs must be assessed by reference to my
whole functional disability profile, not a narrow snapshot taken on a better day or reduced to a
simplified classification score carried out by a person without any medical qualifications, and the
assessment is reliant on what the administrative person inputs into the tool. If I-CAN is not properly
validated for people with complex, fluctuating or psychosocial disabilities, it risks producing an
inaccurate result that could understate my need for therapy, daily supports, safety-related supports
and capacity-building assistance.
The developer’s current I-CAN eligibility material is not open to any ordinary administrative officer. It
identifies eligible assessor backgrounds, including allied health clinicians with tertiary qualifications,
registered and enrolled nurses, and degree-qualified clinicians.
The Whole Person Impairment (WPI) framework is a longstanding, medically governed assessment
system used in workers’ compensation and personal injury law to assess permanent impairment. The
Federal Court and the High Court rely upon and enforce the Whole Person Impairment (WPI)
instrument.
4
Submission 88 - Supplementary Submission
Unlike general administrative classification tools, WPI assessments are carried out by appropriately
qualified medical assessors under prescribed guidelines, including specific psychiatric impairment
guidelines when psychological injury is involved. Psychiatric impairment assessment requires a
medical examination and must be conducted by a psychiatrist trained in the relevant assessment
method.
Those assessments were not casual opinions or algorithmic classifications; they were formal medico
legal assessments by qualified professionals, and the qualified psychiatric assessors have
determined that my disabilities are permanent, lifelong, and that available treatment options have
been exhausted.
Accordingly, any NDIS assessment process should not permit an algorithmic tool, administrative
delegate, or non-medically qualified assessor to disregard or override that body of expert evidence. If
I-CAN or any other assessment tool is used, it must be applied consistently with existing medical
evidence, the participant’s whole functional disability profile, and legal protections against arbitrary or
discriminatory decision-making.
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 disabilities. There has been no information provided on how this tool is programmed and how it arrives at the decisions it will. The wheel has already been invented and stands within the Highest Court of Australia as a reliable instrument. The tool cannot replace instruments that have been in place for decades.
Supports cut before the replacement system is ready
As a participant with no informal supports available, I rely on funded supports to remain visible, connected, safe and able to participate in ordinary community life. Cutting these supports before any replacement system is operational would shift an unreasonable burden onto participants who do not have family or carers available, and could leave me isolated, unsupported and at increased risk of functional decline and risk of suicide.
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.
Additional concerns: uncertainty about Administrative Appeals Tribunal (ART) review rights
A further concern is the uncertainty about which decisions under the proposed framework will remain capable of internal review and external merits review by the Administrative Review Tribunal. Under the current NDIS Act, participants can seek internal review of specified reviewable decisions and, after that, external review by the ART. The ART presently states that it can review most internal review decisions made by the NDIA under the NDIS Act.
5
Submission 88 - Supplementary Submission
However, the proposed reforms appear to shift key outcomes away from individualised, merits reviewable plan decisions and into ministerial instruments, automated or tool-generated assessment outcomes, plan renewal mechanisms and funding calculations. This creates serious uncertainty about whether participants will be able to challenge the actual decision that affects them, particularly where their funding is reduced, their plan is renewed without proper reassessment, or their support amount is generated through the new assessment process.
This uncertainty has not been adequately resolved despite repeated scrutiny from disability advocacy organisations, participants and parliamentary questioning. Public reporting indicates that, under the proposed new model, the ART may no longer be able to substitute or vary a participant’s funding amount and may instead be limited to referring the matter back to the NDIA for reassessment. If correct, that would significantly weaken the practical value of external merits review.
A review right is only meaningful if the decision causing the harm is reviewable and if the review body has the power to correct the outcome. Participants should not be left in a position where funding is reduced, or supports are lost, but the relevant mechanism is characterised as an instrument, renewal, assessment output or automated calculation that cannot be directly challenged before the ART.
The Bill should clearly disclose which decisions will remain reviewable, which decisions will not, what powers the ART will retain, and whether the ART will be able to vary or substitute funding and support decisions. Without that clarity, participants are being asked to accept major changes to access, planning and funding without knowing whether they will retain effective review rights.
It would be unfair and potentially discriminatory if people with disabilities were left with weaker external review rights than people affected by other Commonwealth decision-making schemes.
The Administrative Review Tribunal reviews decisions across many areas, including migration and protection visa matters, citizenship-related disputes, Centrelink and social security decisions, taxation decisions, veterans’ entitlements, workers’ compensation and existing NDIS decisions.
If a non-citizen facing a protection visa refusal or cancellation, a taxpayer disputing an ATO decision, a person challenging Centrelink, or a veteran disputing an entitlement can access independent merits review, it is difficult to justify excluding or limiting effective ART review for people with disability whose essential supports, safety, independence and community participation are at stake.
Such an exclusion may raise serious concerns under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, particularly in relation to discrimination in the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs and may also be inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including equality before the law, non-discrimination and effective access to justice.
The CRPD expressly requires effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, and Article 5 recognises equality before and under the law and equal legal protection against discrimination.
6
Submission 88 - Supplementary Submission
Recommendations: The Bill must be independently reviewed and amended to ensure full compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In particular, the Bill should preserve equality before the law, non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation, effective access to justice, independent living, community participation and safeguards against administrative decision-making that disproportionately disadvantages people with disabilities.
Sincerely
7