National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1349
To Whom it may concern
I am writing a short reply to the draft amendment to the NDIS. As a parent of a new NDIS participant I have recently been thrown into the world of NDIS. I spend time in NDIS Facebook groups (at the encouragement of the NDIS early childhood partners and local providers) talking with other parents of children in the NDIS and dealing with NDIS affiliated support service providers.
My concerns around the new amendments are significant. There is no doubt that the growth of the NDIS has been unsustainable, and that significant reforms are needed. However the changes within this amendment completely miss the mark.
It is clear from the experiences of myself and others I know, the issue with the NDIS is not the number of participants. It is not the usage of the NDIS by these participants. It is absolutely being caused by providers who overcharge, with no way for participants to challenge these costs. And most importantly by the NDIS processes themselves wasting money, again and again with no way for the participants to challenge this.
Repeatedly, I hear from families about the vital equipment they need being rejected by the NDIS for a small purchase cost, but the same equipment then being rented to the same family over a number of years for exponentially larger fees. Eg. $900 purchase price, vs $4500 for rentals plus a $2000 report to explain the need. I have spoken with participants who use taxis for transport, who again and again suffer taxi drivers who take “the long way around” and the only option is to “complain” about the individual driver to the taxi company. While the participants funding is wasted.
We ourselves are quite lucky, our experiences so far have been positive, and we are seeing some benefits. But the things which could help us most to support our family long term - as in “outside of an hour weekly appointment “ - are deemed “regular family purchases” . Like when my child begun experiencing severe headbanging during meltdowns, but safety mats which would prevent her from immediate injury are considered a standard family purchase because others use them for sport. That’s fine, my partner and I will continue to both not go to work, because one of us needs to have eyes on her every hour of the day to prevent harm. I’m sure that’s cheaper to the NDIS in the long run.
My main points of concern to address are these -
1) Introducing a power for the Minister to reduce funding for specified groups of supports.
Would that be groups of supports like specific Allied health professionals, or purchases? Or Groups of supports like the “mildly Autistic” (the Government’s wording - certainly not mine) women and girls who have recently found relief in the diagnosis denied to them for generations?
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1349
In the case of “groups of supports” being specific funding items, it seems absurd that a minister would have the understanding or expertise to know what an individual disabled person needs or would find useful, more than the disabled person themselves or their direct care team. As we are well aware that every individual disabled person is unique, as are their needs. In the case of “groups of supports” being groups of people seeking support, let’s be clear. The NDIS was fine with funding for Autistic individuals (as an example) when the diagnosis process specifically excluded women and girls. This sudden surge in diagnosis is not due to unworthy people seeking support for the money. This sudden surge in Autism Diagnosis is due to an entire group of people finally being included in a diagnosis which has been previously denied them. Instead living in suffering and misdiagnosis and serious harm. And it speaks volumes that the government is now seeking to exclude us again.
2) Limiting participant-requested plan reassessments.
This is incredibly offensive. I am horrified by the idea that our representatives would believe this is humane. Disabled people are not “set and forget”. Needs change. Medical situations change. Many disabilities have sudden changes which require new supports quickly. How are participants to be able to voice their needs, if there are limits on reassessments? And following on to my next point, who is to decide what each participant needs to support them?
3) Permitting automated decision making
This is robodebt 2.0. Robodebt NDIS. This must not be allowed to happen. Ever. A human must always have the ability to decide and edit the supports available to Disabled people. The issue we have now is that unqualified and uneducated (on disability or specific disabilities) persons are making decisions on funding which harm participants. The fix for that is not removing humans. The fix for that is hiring qualified persons. Or allowing those in the decision making space the ability to simply read the reports being provided by the qualified allied health professionals and then fund accordingly.
I am disappointed in our government. Disabled people and their advocates are exhausted. We are starting to believe that this is by design. The more tired we are, the less we are able to oppose changes such as these which will cause harm. The NDIS as it is written now, already causes harm, but removing access to it entirely, will take lives.