National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1417 NDIS Amendment Bill Submission
My name is
I am a 29 year old disabled person living in VIC, and I have been on NDIS for 3 years.
My concerns about this bill are;
• Administrative and compliance requirements and participant engagement rules.
Why: This has already been an issue, and further requirements is in total contradiction to the average disability presentation (and associated fluctuating health).
For example, I needed to change plan managers last year. I can’t make phone calls easily due to verbal communication issues and poor executive functioning, but NDIS requires verbal authority to endorse a PM, so eventually I was able to gather the energy to do this with the assistance of my support worker. Except, the employee mistakenly endorsed them as a regular provider not a PM, so I was told I had to call back and provide verbal authority once again. But I couldn’t do this as I’d already used all my energy, and I didn’t have a support worker to help anymore either, because, without an endorsed PM, they had not been paid and so I was entirely alone. This took over a month to sort out, and more restrictions will make these issues even worse.
I could likely be kicked off NDIS for experiencing symptoms of the very disability that allowed me on the NDIS in the first place.
• More restrictions and inflexibility around reassessments and plan reviews.
Why: Once again, this is already quite bad.
When I received my first plan, we submitted an internal review request within 90 days. This was ignored ENTIRELY. It was only when my plan finished a year later and an automatic review was triggered, that I was able to submit the requested changes and additional evidence.
I have multiple comorbidities that are still not recognised, but it is ALREADY too difficult to submit what is required for reassessment. A lot of permanent disabilities involve fluctuating symptoms and capacity/ support requirements. More restrictions and less flexibility will be catastrophic, and, once again, goes against the nature of disability in general. Attempting to force the reality of disability into a false rigidity will also cost so much more money in the long run.
• Reductions in Community Access funding.
Why: I am SERIOUSLY concerned about this.
This funding is crucial for me to do anything, AT ALL.
I can’t leave my house whatsoever without this support.
It is how I go to the doctors, take my cat to the vet, see my family, do shopping, take my garbage out, do the laundry.
I deserve to be able to leave my house, cutting this funding will take away my ability to leave my house, and I will lose my life without the ability to leave my house.
• Automation and lack of human input, and changes to capacity assessments.
Why: Plans are already being assessed by under-qualified people without any experience in disability let alone specialist medical experience; I am certain that it would be even worse if there is no human at all (and AI tools based on LLMs are not only less qualified, they are outright dangerous).
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1417 What I want the committee to understand is:
You should not be cutting any more from NDIS, you should be FUNDING it. The amount of tax dollars you are sinking (no-pun intended) into things like AUKUS submarines, or the amount of revenue you are refusing to collect by appropriately taxing fossil fuel giants, big corporations, and landlords with multiple investment properties, is ASTRONOMICAL compared to what you think you are saving by cutting from NDIS.
And ultimately, you are likely not saving anything in the long run anyway.
Disability isn’t static; any person can become disabled at any time, all it takes is an unlucky day. If you leave this many disabled people to die, the ripple effect that’ll have on the economy won’t be insignificant. We will be unable to work AND our carers will be unable to work, poverty will lead to increased crime, the welfare system will be stressed to breaking point.
The “high-yield” supports that you are choosing to keep (like assistive technology, SIL, etc) because you recognise it as the most profitable due to the high cost compared to very low labour requirements, will not offset the economic devastation caused by taking away the “low-yield” supports. Those supposed low- yield supports are what allow us to engage in society, work, and contribute to our economy. As such, they are not low-yield at all, and I urge the committee to plan ahead and not be blinded by fleeting short-term profits.
This bill is not only a cruelty and human rights catastrophe, it’s entirely contradictory and completely ineffective at it’s own goal in the first place.
I do not support this bill.