National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1344

Hi. I’m a 43yo Autistic woman with Early Onset Arthritis. I have been so thankful for access to NDIS approved earlier this year and while it only covers the psychosocial aspects of my disabilities even those supports are already making a huge diDerence to my life.

CONCERN 1: THERE HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATE CONSULTATION

I am deeply concerned about the Amendment Bill 2026 currently being proposed. One aspect that most concerns me is the failure to inform the people most impacted by these changes, NDIS Participants. While the Explanatory Memorandum states that there was consultation with “people with disability, their families, carers, providers and workers” there did not seem to be any notiﬁcation to participants that feedback was sought. I have been the primary support for my household, three others of whom are currently on NDIS and have been well prior to these amendments being considered. At no point were any of us contacted with even a link to a survey or invitation to a webinar or consultation. Given there are more than 700,000 disabled people and then also their families and carers, the concept of having consulted with less than 20,000 people who may or may not understand the importances of this aid is deeply disturbing and distressing.

PERSONAL IMPACT: NDIS ACCESS SINCE APPROVAL IN FEBRUARY 2026

Thanks to access to NDIS supports for Daily Living my health has been drastically improving with recent blood test results showing normalising levels and weight loss due to having someone manage meal preparation that eases challenges with executive functioning and ensures I am eating regular, healthy meals. These are also having signiﬁcant mood stabilising eDects and have improved my sleep and focus. The addition of some household supports has also eased the burden of challenges with overwhelm and emotional regulation leading to my ﬁnding myself increasing my day-to-day function. While these are not “cures” for my psychosocial disabilities they are contributing to improving quality of life and are allowing me to increasingly return to work in my author business.

CONCERN 2: DEFINING FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY

With regard to a greater deﬁnition of “functional capacity”, this is already clearly deﬁned in medical practice and given that existing application process requires these things to be clearly detailed by qualiﬁed medical practitioners I cannot fathom how a Technical Advisory Group might be better qualiﬁed to deﬁne this. When I was approved for NDIS my medical practitioners provided ample evidence in their reports as to the impact of my lifelong disabilities on my functional capacity.

Despite my having provided clear documentation of the functional impact of my disabilities from my psychiatrist, psychologist, physiotherapist, and GP, I was told that I had not provided enough supporting evidence of functional impact at my ﬁrst LAC appointment. It

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1344

took additional appointments with those medical practitioners over the next few weeks, at additional expense to myself. Even for that appointment I needed a friend to help me and my confusion and distress during that appointment lead to an emotional dysregulation episode. While the LAC patiently waited while my friend and I worked to return to a point where I could function, she was not clear on exactly how I had failed to provide the information needed or what steps I would need to take to provide enough information for the assessment to be made. Thankfully, my friend and my doctors were able to investigate further and while little change was made to the provided documentations, they were somehow then considered suitable. However, the distress of the situation (and the inaccessible nature of their oDices) meant I was unable to return to the LAC’s oDice for the follow up appointment.

I was deeply grateful to the NDIS employee who followed up to discuss my needs and prepare the plan I was being granted. But even then, that appointment conﬁrmed that despite my GP and physiotherapist both conﬁrming that I have arthritis, my inability to provide the diagnostic report I ﬁrst received in 1996 meant I did not quality for any physical or mobility aspects included in my plan. Only my recent Autism diagnosis, and not my Bipolar diagnosis, qualiﬁed me for psychosocial supports. I assure you, medical professionals are the ones most qualiﬁed to deﬁne the impact of functional capacity their patient experiences due to their disability than any “advisory group”.

CONCERN 3: MAKING THE APPLICATION PROCESS EVEN HARDER.

The hurdles already required to apply for NDIS create signiﬁcant barriers to many disabled people. Prior to my own challenges, my adult daughter, required signiﬁcant assistance to gather the required documentation, ﬁll in the application, and attend the appointments that lead to her ﬁnally getting approved for funding. She experiences motor-skill changes that impact her writing as well as executive function challenges that make ﬁlling in forms, following up with contacts, and even managing her own emails signiﬁcantly challenging and frequently impossible. This was not a process she could have managed without signiﬁcant family support. For some reason, her application (and that of my son several years earlier, were much more straight-forward allowing me to be able to support them both through the process. However, my own disabilities and theirs were impacted by months of stress, anguish, deteriorating health, ﬁnancial impacts, etc.

For disabled people, accessing NDIS is already hard enough. My adult son is not even approved for a Support Coordinator despite being non-speaking and illiterate. He is unable to manage any of his own advocacy and the strain this puts on me, especially giving the limitations of my own disabilities, is a huge burden. Disabled people are actually the most vulnerable and least able to progress through this process. Adding additional hurdles will

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1344

only lead to more disabled people being unable to access supports, contributing to further pressure on the medical system and government services. Not to mention the impact on the mental health and wellness of disabled people and their family, leading to higher rates of mental illness and suicide, and further reducing their ability to make meaningful contributions to society.

CONCERN 4: ADDRESSING FRAUD IN FORMAL BILL CHANGES?

While I appreciate the need to mitigate risks of inappropriate use of funding and fraudulent peoples and businesses taking advantage of the scheme, I would ask, what is the actual percentage of fraudsters to needful participants and providers? Further, are there not existing federal and state laws in place that give full freedom to investigate these allegations via professional legal channels rather than adding further burden to the governance of the NDIS speciﬁcally? The Agency is not a federal oDicer of the law or in any way associated with the existing legal infrastructure involved in processing these kinds of crimes. The existing act already makes clear what appropriate use of the scheme is and any suspected abuse of services should be forwarded to and addressed by appropriate legal authorities, just as every other person or business is required to do.

Do you honestly believe these changes will make it hardest for the people abusing the scheme or for those who desperately need it? Do you believe it will reduce the expense of NDIS governance or increase it? I assure you, the negative impact will aDect those who desperately need access to the services NDIS allows signiﬁcantly more than those who are fully capable of ongoing activities to take advantage of the system. And the additional costs for the NDIA to perform these activities with due and just legal practice will further inﬂate the cost, leading to government assuming the increasing blow out of costs require reductions in funding to participants.

CONCERN 5: SET AND ENFORCE PRICING

The NDIS already frequently updates and publishes the “NDIS pricing arrangements and price limits” document. The most recent is for the 2025-2026 year and was eDective as of November 2025. Is there not internal procedure for the creation, accuracy, and consideration of this guide? From my experience NDIA and Plan Management services regulate the payment of invoices in relation to requiring providers remain below these price limits. Are prior copies of the documents not already archived? This sounds like something that should already be standard business practice in the management of the NDIS and do not appear to need a “legislative pricing mechanism” when the guide is already held as oDicial documentation of what those limits are and the services already ensure they are followed.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1344

CONCERN 6: “AUTOMATED” DECISION MAKING

This one horriﬁes me the most. It sounds like you’re intending to transfer vital human oversight. The only way this could be a feasible practice might be to require participants and providers to use online form submission where details can be distinctly provided in clearly outlined and assessable ﬁelds. Rather than a business submitting an invoice as is current practice, they would submit a claim online. I have nothing against a practice like this, however, understand that the NDIS will ﬁnd providers further claiming on the administrative time this adds for them.

The act as it currently stands in no way denies the use of these kinds of services. In fact, Division 3 45A (3) already states that claims must “be made in the approved form” with the deﬁnition of “approved forms” as those that “The CEO may, in writing, approve”. I might not be a lawyer, but that sounds like there are already provisions in the existing Act for the CEO to decide in what way claims are to be made and if that requires the submission of an online form that would be an acceptable way to submit it. There is already no statement that human staD members will process every form.

The idea of automating “decision making” takes away the ability for the need for nuanced consideration. Many disabled people have complex needs and there aren’t always the appropriate boxes in which to put individuals. Again, automating decision making process will further disadvantage those most in need of these services, creating further barriers to access and assistance.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I feel like I’ve already laid substantial argument as to the reason this bill is both harmful and not required. The existing Act leaves a great deal of leeway to manage all aspects put forth in the Bill and due legal process already accommodates the governance of misrepresentation or fraud. There is no indication that any of these changes will have a positive impact on improving circumstances to either the NDIA or NDIS Participants. In fact, if you carefully examine the perspectives and limitations of this Bill against the existing Act these provisions create additional burden and expense on both.