National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1353
Committee Secretary Community Affairs Legislation Committee Department of the Senate Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600
To the Secretary
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I write to submit my concerns regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – the Bill.
My daughter is a NDIS participant. She is 28 years old but is functionally a 3-year-old, as she has a serious intellectual disability, autism, a generalized anxiety disorder, and mobility problems. She requires 1:1 supervision at all times due to her low functional capacity, behavioural problems and risks of self-harm. She is a person with a permanent and significant disability, exactly the type of person that the NDIS originally intended to support. She lives in supported independent living (SIL) housing and attends day options programs five days a week. She has 1:1 support 24/7, because of her severe disabilities, limited functional capacity and risks of self-harm and absconding.
There are provisions within the Bill that I support. Increasing provider registration requirements is welcome as are the provisions to reduce fraud and increase the financial integrity of the NDIS.
However, this Bill includes some provisions that will put my daughter at risk of neglect.
Section 34A: This provision is especially concerning for my daughter. If her social and community participation funding for day options was cut by a percentage with no other alteration to her in-home supports, then she would have to be left alone for periods. She would be at high risk of accidental harm, self-harm and absconding. This would be neglect.
Section 33: This provision could be used in a way that fails to address different support needs within a “class” of people. For example, if this was used to place all people with an intellectual disability into one “class”, it risks my daughter not getting the supports she needs to live a dignified life consistent with basic human rights.
Section 34: I am concerned that the practical application of the changes in this section may mean that any support needs that my daughter has that are due to her complex interaction of different disabilities may not be funded. She is not just a person with an intellectual disability but also has unique
1of 2
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1353
problems because of her autism, mental health disorder and mobility problems and how all these problems interact.
Section 50A: Any alterations to plans must be reviewable decisions. My experience with the NDIA is that there are decisions made about my daughter’s plans that are inconsistent with the evidence provided, and then those decisions are defended without foundation. Giving the Minister unfettered power that will be opaque in its operation, will only worsen the current problems.
Section 24 and 25: The proposed changes to the definition of the permanence of impairments will still require considerable expert judgement on the part of the NDIA. My experience with NDIA staff is that there is a high degree of variability in expertise. On more than one occasion I have been informed by NDIA staff that my daughter’s functional capacity will improve dramatically with a few months of therapy. This is at odds with all the professional advice I have received over her lifetime, and my own observations.
I have little faith in the Agency having sufficient widespread expertise to make evidence-based judgements on what constitutes “appropriate treatment” or how treatments will “materially improve” persons functional capacity.
Consequentially, any decision by the Agency regarding assessments of permanence of impairments must be reviewable.
2of 2