Submission 1488

28 May 2026

Submission to Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Inquiry into National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

deeply disturbing and highly disrespectful of people with disabilities and their families.

I consider it critical that all Australians currently on the NDIS are able to access the supports that they need to live dignified lives. Overall, this Bill includes clauses which prioritise cutting costs and so-called administrative efficiency at the expense of the safety and dignity of people with disability in Australia.

Test for functional capacity (section 9b)

I do not support the proposed definition of functional capacity which assesses people without assistance, assistive technology, modifications, or environmental supports. This does not assess the way people are able to function in the real world.

I also consider that the definition of functional impairment should be protected in legislation to allow for Parliamentary scrutiny

Plan suspensions (section 40A)

I am deeply concerned about the proposed changes to Plan suspensions. The provisions do not require the NDIA to consider whether a suspension or revocation of a Plan would propose a risk to the participant. I consider this an unacceptable lack of oversight or care on the part of the Government towards vulnerable Australians.

Submission 1488

Changed principles (proposed removal of section 31 and amendments to section 17A and B)

I fundamentally disagree that planning decisions should be informed by considerations of ‘financial sustainability’. This moves the scheme away from assessing the actual impact of disability on the person and creates a system in which support can be restricted to what Government considers it is able to fund regardless of what this means for the person’s safety and dignity.

What is reasonable to expect of families and carers (proposed subsections 34 (1G-1H))

I have seen first hand the impact of disability on family dynamics, parents’ relationship and siblings. These sections in the Bill should include whether the child’s care needs are greater than a child without a disability. It should also lower the threshold for which formal supports are funded. It is unacceptable to expect that family members or those providing informal supports to mitigate risks associated with those supports not being provided. This places immense strain on family members and can affect their relationships, lives and futures.

Registered providers (73B)

My family members live in a regional area and choose their providers, including those who provide showering and other personal care. Requiring providers to be registered will reduce their choice and control. This will force them to use larger providers who have engaged in inaccurate billing and who send different carers for every shift. This means my family member has no continuity with the people providing that very personal care.

Claims and bills (Schedule 2 Part 5)

The proposed reduction from 2 years to 90 days places significant burden on disabled people and families already managing complex disability. It should be retained at 2 years or reduced to not less than 1 year.

I have seen first hand the additional work required of my family member to manage her own medical appointments and those of her son as well as arrange their NDIS supports. This on top of usual demands on her as a parent. I cannot see a clear rationale for compressing the time for her to make claims to 90 days, giving her less flexibility in an already complex array of tasks and demands on her.

Conclusion

Submission 1488

I urge the Committee to recommend changes to this Bill in line with the issues I raised above to ensure the NDIS continues to provide safety, dignity, independence and choice to NDIS participants.

3