National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 123 OFFICIAL
NDIS Legislation and Bill Proposal
To summarise my standpoint, absolutely not!
The lies, the propaganda campaign and the disinformation this government has created and perpetuated are absolutely disgusting! Their justification for “saving the NDIS” is preposterous and deceptive. What they are doing is dismantling the NDIS piece by piece to make it palatable to the ignorant public.
My objections are multifaceted, but the greatest objection is to the grab for power and control by the Minister who has already proven that he is a eugenicist and incompetent, with no education, understanding or lived experience of disability, and worse still, he does not care!
Let’s start from the top:
- The minister’s ability to change the legislation at any time that takes his fancy. Absolutely not. When did we become a fascist state, with no oversight on ministerial decisions? Talk about unconstitutional! As it is, there is no oversight of the unhinged, negligent, and unsafe funding decisions the NDIS makes daily. I know that you have seen them. I have experienced it with my husband’s funding plan. One of which was to state and expect that my fully dependent husband stays at home unattended for 4 hours a day. A decision that directly endangers his life and well-being. I could go on, but we have a lot to get through.
- The minister can make funding decisions for groups at any time. Who died and made him God? To start with, he has no training in disabilities, no experience, and no understanding. The muppet has zero concept that each disability affects each individual differently and therefore requires individualised funding, support and decisions, but no, let’s standardise the process, because that has worked so well in education!
- The minister can withdraw/cut/cap funding at any time. He needs to stop drinking the delulu lemonade. I know that he has no understanding of disability, but come on! Can someone please explain to me when Australia became the USA, or, at worst, adopted the USA’s insurance models? Does this twit even understand that the NDIS is here to support disabled people? It is literally their one job. I know he created the disinformation campaign, but surely he cannot be that ignorant as to not understand that funding allows people to live safe, inclusive lives to the best of their ability. Aside from the fact that, when funding packages are released, the funding is planned to cover the funding period, he just wants to come in and take it away? Absolutely not.
- Suspend and revoke people’s access if they can’t be contacted. Wow! Given that the NDIS completely ignores participants’ preferred communication methods on a daily basis and expects them to acquiesce to its demands, the answer to this is a big fat NO! A prime example is when I had my phone in my hand, it didn’t ring, but a missed call notification came up, and guess what, it was the NDIS. The NDIS and Agency have demonstrated increasingly deceptive tactics since 2023. If they want to take this action, it should not be up to them or the minister, but someone completely independent. There is no timeframe or attempts stated, nor oversight.
- Financial risk for the failure to comply with the information requested. Really? $20,000 for participants who are, as a general rule, on the DSP? How about we reverse uno the Agency and apply fines for failure to comply with KPIs? The money can go to participants affected.
- Functional Capacity – what a perfect way to circumvent medical advice, ignore participant needs, and manipulate what people do and do not qualify for. In no other occupation, department or organisation would it be acceptable to ignore medical advice, allied health reports and assessments and make a contradictory decision of their own construction. That is grounds for prosecution and a
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 123 OFFICIAL
lawsuit. Yet the NDIS is doing this daily, justifying it by cherry-picking evidence from reports and taking it out of context. When questioned, the staff justify it by referencing evidence that is not even taken from experts in the field and is incorrect. Anything to get out of funding. Any wonder they can’t keep staff? They are using standardised assessments to assess an individual’s functional capacity. The writing is on the wall that this is how they are going to “prune” participant numbers from the NDIS. 7. Parental Responsibility: bet! Okay, let’s go! They want to use that, then make them use the developmental norms for everything encountered. Toileting a child and performing personal care up to age 4; beyond that, they FULLY fund support for the family. Managing a teenager, compared to a typical teenager, any differential is FULLY funded! Two can play that game! 8. Accessing the NDIS: You must have explored every available treatment that is likely to alleviate symptoms, regardless of financial burden, proximity, etc. This is called discrimination. Financial discrimination, location discrimination, and functional capacity discrimination. I know this is a futile question because we all know the answer, but have these twits never heard of fluctuating conditions? Also, are they new here? Have they never taken a geography lesson in their life? Are they not receiving data on population distribution and the number of people in rural and remote areas? Are they clueless, or are they really that discriminatory? Just another way to deny funding to people who need it, while having no other options in place, the exact reason that they are in this situation in the first place. Their deceptive practices know no bounds. 9. Community and Social Access funding. Well, isn’t this the perfect way to demonstrate exactly how ableist and ignorant the minister and the government are! This is a eugenics agenda. People who are visually impaired rely on this funding to access the community, so this twit wants to slash their funding by 50%. Really? Can we slash his pay by 50% for being so inefficient? Most people with disabilities use this funding to access medical appointments, engage with family members, and some even go to university or work. The ignorance is astounding. 10. They are making it extremely difficult for a reassessment. Excuse me? Again, another blatant statement of ignorance. Talk about a “take what you get and don’t complain about it”. The NDIS has demonstrated time and again that it has no regard for safeguarding participants or ensuring that funding plans don’t place them in harmful situations. Again, there is no oversight for their unhinged, unjustifiable funding decisions. 11. Reasonable and Necessary: Oh, how I love this statement/policy. It is the perfect way for them to justify denying the necessary support for individuals to have their needs met. To a reasonable person, this would seem appropriate and acceptable; to the NDIS/NDIA it is a way to get out of funding in the slimiest way possible while hiding behind the vague and variable “legislation”. In no way does the agency regard participant safety or the risks their decisions pose to them. In short, they don’t give a shit, as long as they “save money”. 12. Funding rollover: The remaining funds are returned to the agency. Another blatant demonstration of a lack of comprehension of life with disability and having to endure the NDIS. Let’s use Capacity Building as an example. The funding has been approved for home modifications. The proposal was used to secure funding, but during a housing crisis, finding a builder willing to deal with the nightmare that is the NDIS is like finding a unicorn. So, time ticks by and the modifications have yet to commence, or may be in the process of being completed, and the funding period ends, but the funding has not been paid. It disappears from your plan, and you can’t appeal the decision because it is no longer part of your plan, but the work has yet to be completed. Is he for real? He is really aiming for a lawsuit, if not a class action, isn’t he? 13. Lack of integrity, transparency and oversight: the minister being able to make decisions and legislative changes when he likes is mind-blowingly deceptive.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 123 OFFICIAL
- The restriction of impairments: only funding specifically for what is funded. How short-sighted, but it was completely predictable after being directed by the Federal Court to regard participants holistically.
- The safety net: 21 days on the old plan. The new proposal is 90 days, and no right to go to the tribunal; you have to wait for them to get their arse into gear and give a decision. As if they are going to meet that timeline. A participant at risk of harm, who cares, one less person we have to fund!
- Autism Spectrum Disorder: They are making judgments on therapy requirements based on studies that don’t apply to Category 3 participants. Why? Because there are no studies involving nonverbal or minimally verbal people that demonstrate the efficacy of intervention.
- Transitional rules: the definition of moving the goal posts! The agency and the minister have clearly demonstrated over the last three years that they engage in deceptive practices and have no regard for the impact of their decisions on participants. This needs to be far tighter and less room for fluid interpretation.
- 25B – they have already tried this with my husband. Physio – limited funding, “other governmental departments” can fund this, no they can’t! Nursing – other governmental departments can fund this, no, they can’t. Medicare won’t fund NDIS recipients. Silverchain won’t change catheters for people under 65 unless they are on My Aged Care. They use this excuse with no valid basis for available resources. I would not be surprised if they attempted to offload my husband to MyAgedCare because he has turned 65, and in no way would they be able to cater to his needs.
- 48A – let’s use us as a case study. We submitted a Change of Circumstance prior to my husband’s reassessment in October 2025. Why? Because he has no funded AT, his functional capacity had declined thanks to many missed diagnoses related to his stroke, which they tried to dismiss as a medical condition, and I had been diagnosed with breast cancer and had to undergo surgery and recovery, then radiation treatment. As I am his primary carer, and he is a 1 x assist at all times, and I was unable to assist or lift him for a minimum of 8 weeks, we required more funding. Under the proposed legislative changes, it would be too bad, as it is a temporary adjustment. You know what the alternative would be? Hospitalisation, for 8 weeks, costing $2200 per day, because in hospital he is a 2x assist (not at home because the NDIS won’t fund that, hell, they won’t even fund enough hours to allow me to go to work). You could red flag this with the Health Minister, but it is the same person! It would also place his health at risk because he has a compromised immune system, so he is likely to get sick from all the bugs that like to reside in hospitals, but that doesn’t matter, does it? If there is any proof required as to how inefficient and ineffective the NDIS is you just need to look at 48 (3).
- End dates for plans, or to put it another way, the way to move the goal posts on participants, change their plans without consultation, place restrictions on them, get them onto the new format and ignore the actual needs of the participant. He seriously is edging for a lawsuit, isn’t he?
- We already know the aim of Albanese, Chalmers and Butler is to dismantle the NDIS, despite their deceptive claims, but to actually state it in the legislation is arrogant and egotistical. The move from “reasonable and necessary supports” in section 3 (1)(d) to “NDIS supports .. consistent with the financial sustainability of the scheme”. This clearly demonstrates that participants’ individual needs and goals are irrelevant; co-design, choice, and control are now obsolete.
- 17B “prioritising the scheme sustainability” by funding only supports those that arise directly from impairments that meet access criteria. Oh, the ignorance! The courts have ruled in favour of participants because they recognise that, although the NDIS may not deem it fundable, it in fact deliberately restricts access for comorbidities and can recognise the interrelated effects of said conditions. It is Disability Studies 101, but of course, none of the government agency that are
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 123 OFFICIAL
supposedly there to support the disabled have any education or clue about that. Instead, the outraged Disability Minister has changed the legislation, blaming the courts and tribunals for the Scheme’s growth. Once again, he has proven himself ignorant, as the community of disabled people is forever growing and changing. The twit does not understand that at any time, anyone can join the disabled community through an acquired disability. The point of “ensuring funding is distributed fairly and consistently across participants with similar needs” is interesting and open to manipulation. Butler has already floated in interviews the idea of a pool that participants will “share”. Given that my husband’s stroke occurs in 3% of strokes and the majority of those people die, I would like to know who they will be claiming have “similar needs”. Can you name any other participant who is paralysed down one side, has a permanently damaged vestibular nerve, thereby giving him no sense of balance, can vomit prolific volumes of food/fluid, at least a litre at a time, and has to sleep at 30 degrees, otherwise he will vomit prolifically, has a PEG, a catheter, a strict drug regime to suppress vomiting and I could go on. 23. 34A – reducing funding regardless of whether it meets the participants’ needs, too bad, you can’t appeal the decision because it is scheme-wide, deemed necessary by the great and powerful, self- appointed Minister. What a great excuse to dismantle the scheme and the principle of supporting participants’ individual needs. Has anyone reminded Butler that the DDA applies to the government, and hiding behind legislation does not excuse them? 24. 33 (2EA) and 33 (2EB) – restricting the set caps on supports that a participant can get. From a person who has no education, knowledge or lived experience with disability? This includes participant ratios for specific supports or classes of supports. They claim that caps will be supported by published, peer-reviewed evidence about what level of support is” appropriate and beneficial” for participants. Let’s rewind to the internal review for my husband, the peer-reviewed evidence that they referenced to deny weekly physio sessions for him, instead giving him the equivalent of 6 weekly physio sessions, because “their evidence” showed that my husband did not provide “value for money” as he was in the chronic phase of stroke recovery. It will come as no surprise that the Stroke Foundation directly contradicts their claims. It is also the perfect way for them to deceptively introduce institutions. They have made it abundantly clear that the rights and goals of individuals are of no concern to them; it is only about the money, and how dare the courts rule in favour of people? The chances of them abolishing 1:1 support are high, even though they claim not to be targeting it; history has proven them to be deceptive liars. 25. 34 n(1K)(a) and 34 (1k)(b) The Bill would change how any risks to a participant or carer are weighted. Such risk would only lead to funding a formal support where the risk ‘cannot be mitigated through informal or lower cost supports’ (proposed subsection 34(1K)(a)). This sets a very high bar and may result in support being unreasonably denied. A similarly high bar is proposed by the Bill, directing that informal supports are prioritised over funding formal supports, except where formal supports are ‘necessary’. Well, it is good to see that they have made it known precisely and formalised how little regard they give to the disabled community and their families. Overwhelmed, doesn’t matter, burnt out, who cares? Injured? So what? Not our problem. Of course, with their abandonment of the disabled community and their families, it will mean that they have no choice but to leave the workforce. It will also mean that the people whose profession it is to work in the disability community will now be unemployed, existing on the benefits that they claim will decrease, yeah right, and the loss of skilled and educated workers. In my case, a highly specialised teacher. Remind me again, where are the shortages in skilled staff? But as long as the egotist can make the numbers look good. He is so arrogant that he has ignored the fact that his other portfolio, which is failing even more than the NDIS, is the Health portfolio. I can’t wait for the fallout in that sector.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 123 OFFICIAL
- Automation – remind me again, how did the Robodebt automation work out? The architects of that scam have now brought you the new and shiny iCan, which has already failed miserably in the aged care sector (guess who is the minister for that portfolio – can you see a common theme here?).
Meanwhile, nothing has been done to address the inadequacies, inefficiencies or failures of the administration of the NDIS. The extension of the rulings to 90 days says it all. I am so glad to see that they have omitted the UNCRPD. It is all out in the open now; they haven’t been following it for years now anyway! It is about time to call the Governor General; we need to rewind the clock to 1975.
Please do all you can to decimate this Bill, it is the biggest load of discriminatory legislation known to man. Since when did we rewind the clock to the 1960s?
Kind Regards
Alyce Budz