Submission 983
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: 27 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 both an NDIS participant and a speech pathologist.
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 both professionally and personally. As a speech pathologist, I work with people with disability who require additional time, communication supports and advocacy to understand and respond to legislative changes. As an NDIS participant, I am concerned that people directly impacted by these reforms have not been given meaningful opportunity to contribute to decisions that may fundamentally affect their access to supports and independence.
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.
Submission 983
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 both a clinician and participant, I am deeply concerned about the uncertainty this creates. Disability support needs stability and predictability. Allowing eligibility and funding rules to be changed without parliamentary scrutiny risks inconsistent decision-making and creates significant anxiety for participants already navigating complex systems.
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.
As an NDIS participant, I am concerned that supports essential for maintaining function, participation and wellbeing could be reduced without meaningful review rights. As a speech pathologist, I also see the significant harm that occurs when participants cannot access timely reassessment or challenge decisions that do not accurately reflect their needs.
Recommendation: Require a “no harm†safeguard ensuring no current participant loses access to supports unless equivalent supports are in place, with
Submission 983
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.
As both a participant and clinician, I am concerned this approach ignores how people practically use their plans. Many participants intentionally save funds for high-cost assistive technology, intensive therapy blocks or periods of increased need. Removing flexibility and review rights risks destabilising supports that are essential to maintaining independence and participation.
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.
Submission 983
As both a speech pathologist and NDIS participant, I hold serious concerns about the proposal requiring participants to exhaust “available treatments†before accessing supports. Disability supports are not interchangeable with medical treatment, and participants must retain the right to refuse medical procedures, surgeries, medications or therapies without fear of losing access to essential supports.
There are many legitimate reasons a person may decline treatment, including risk of side effects, trauma histories, financial burden, previous adverse experiences, limited evidence of effectiveness, or concerns about quality of life. This Bill contains no clear safeguards protecting participants from coercive pressure to undertake treatments simply to prove eligibility.
I am also deeply concerned about how this would disproportionately impact regional and rural Australians. A treatment may technically exist somewhere in Australia but still be inaccessible due to workforce shortages, long waitlists, travel requirements, accommodation costs or lack of local specialists. The Bill does not adequately define what constitutes an “available treatment†or where the line is drawn regarding acceptable risk, financial burden or likelihood of harm.
From a clinical perspective, delaying functional supports until every treatment pathway has been attempted risks worsening disability impacts, increasing distress and reducing long-term outcomes. Early supports often prevent deterioration and improve participation, independence and community connection.
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, geographic capacity to access treatments, or a participant’s fundamental right to refuse medical treatment without penalty.
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.
Submission 983
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.
As a speech pathologist, I know that disability cannot always be accurately represented through a single assessment snapshot or impairment category. Communication difficulties, sensory needs, fatigue, psychosocial impacts and environmental barriers interact in complex ways. A narrow assessment model risks failing to capture the lived reality of disability and may lead to inappropriate funding decisions.
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.
As both a participant and clinician, I am concerned these cuts fail to recognise the preventative value of capacity-building and community participation supports. These supports reduce isolation, maintain functional skills and prevent escalation of support needs. Removing them prematurely risks greater long-term costs and poorer outcomes for people with disability.
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.
With regards,
Submission 983