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

Submission 1505

To whom it may concern I am a social worker and support coordinator, and I can attest to the incredible difference the NDIS has made to many participants. Increasing their autonomy, independence  and social interactionshas saved changed livesforthe better. The current narrative saddens measitportraysof peoplewith adisabilityasa burden on society anda cohortto be punishedexcluded insteadof being supported included.The government settheprice guidesandofofcourse all providers charge themaximum rate because theycan The enormous blow out in budget is primarily causedby dodgyproviders seeingparticipants as cash cowsnot providing servicebut just taking participantsfunds.I totally understandthattheschememust besustainablebuto publicly shameaccusepeople disabilitybeing problemfeeding this narratives wider public so turnon people disabledincorrect must not continue.There such segregation alreadyin our society cannot allowthis discourse widen gap do further harm want societwhere vulnerable disabledelderly feelsupported treated equals.Below are some concerns suggested alternate proposals -The Minister cut your plan by instrument with no review(s34A). A percentage of funding removed fromsupport category legislativeinstrument firstcut locked insocial community participation phased 1 October26 plans renew same power apply any supportcategory level future EM confirms Changes result of support determinations subject meritsreview(¶). Forparticipant social andcommunity participation fund keeps interacting world outside front door including assistance medical appointments grocery shopping, support visiting family friends engaging activities change devastating.Alternate idea: Amend s to require thatany reduction preceded mandatory co design or at very least consultationwith thedisability community published impact statement affected participants retain individual rights where production harmful changes theirplan. This particular concern for participants high needs Where continuous supervision profound behavioural complex health risks tracheostomy care swallowing absconding risk other intensive needs a based reduction does magically reduce need it simply leaves periods day safe arrangement exists foreseeable include serious neglect preventable hospitalisation increased restrictive practices carer breakdown placement collapse emergency service involvement in circumstances life threatening harm choking airway difficulties self-harm.The Bill its associated public commentary framing supports discretionary lifestyle expenditure. That recognition many participants complex disability these inseparable core safety, supervision communication regulation inclusion safeguardingneeds. Alternate idea: Amend sothatpercentage cannotapply to participants whose plan reflects highcomplex support needs -including but not limited requiring supervisio withprofoundbehavioural

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 1505

support needs, participants with complex health support needs (including tracheostomy, swallowing risk or airway management), and participants with intensive 1:1 support requirements. Provide an automatic exemption mechanism so that a uniform percentage reduction cannot produce unsafe gaps in supervision or support. The Minister can also cap any support, for any cohort, at any time (€33€EA)). By legislative instrument, the Minister can specify: a maximum amount, an intensity (

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission: Submission 1505

Alternate Idea: Retain the 21-day decision timeframe, restore “deemed decision” to missed deadlines; remove unanticipated qualifier on informal-supports changes. There is no emergency reassessment path under this Bill—treat all unscheduled assessments equally despite risks like collapsed arrangements, housing threats, escalated needs, immediate safety issues within 90 days where harm occurs but lacks statutory fast-track pathways. The current scheme has none such as those proposed here should have:

Insert into Section (S) [specific section number] a separate emergency re-assessment process with an enforceable [statutory] day deadline available if participants or nominees confirm urgent safety/housing/behavioural/support-breakdown risk. A missed deadline would be deemed favourable pending final determination of participant’s case.

Plan Suspension and Revocation Without Notice (Sections S-SS)

The CEO can suspend plans after reasonable attempts at contact—but neither definition nor minimum period before exhaustion are defined in law. Participants could find their plan suspended for up-to-nine months due to being overseas two weeks, hospitalized, experiencing mental health crises, family bereavements, changed phone numbers without notice. This allows direct revocation even when reasonable efforts were made, lacking protected circumstances expected by participants: hospital admission, mental health crisis, bereavement, short-term travel abroad, communication breakdown. Agency discretion alone isn’t sufficient safeguarding against abuse.

Alternate Idea: Define “reasonable attempts” per Sections 40A &30(1A), requiring documented evidence across all channels provided—phone/email/post/emergency contacts/nominees/suppo…