Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submitted by a carer and NDIS participant family member

Introduction and Personal Context

The NDIS, as it stands today, is essential to our survival. For my husband, who lives w ith confirmed psychosocial disability and autism t has b een nothing short o f an alifeline . Before accessing t he ND IS , his m ental h ealth was unmanagedandhe w as deeply depressed.He would n ot leave th e house fo r weeks ata time.Every day felt hopeless,and there wa s no meaningful su pport availableto us. Atthattime,Iwasshi s full-timecar er.Iwas navigating complex systems alone,tryingt keep him safe while also trying tow hold ou rlives together.The strainwa sr elentless.T helackofsupport,c onbinedwiththeconstantpressurean dfearresultedinmedevelopingPTSD.Thisistherealityformanyfamilieswhenadequate supportsarenotinplace. TheNDIS changed that trajectory.With accesstosupport workers anda ppropriate therapies,m yhusbandisnowabletol eavethehouse,e ngage with them c omunity,a ndbuildcapacityandreliance inwaysthatwerepreviouslyunimagin able. Thesesupports are not luxuries—they a re the foundation ofhis stability andre gress.Becauseo this,i am now ab le tol workfull-timeto supportus.That shiftalone demonstrates then broader economicandsocia lvalue of properly funded disability suppor ts.

Concerns About the Proposed Bill

Iamdeeplyconcernedabout t he proposed changes tothen ND IS Act.They reflect apattern o f decision-makingtha tprioritisesbudgetconsiderationsandpolitical agendasoverhumanwellbeing.Atatimeofacute cost-of-living pressure, th egovernment continuestoallocate significant fundingtoo ther priorities ,including defence,w hiletighteningaccessto su pportsthatares essential for peoplew ith disabilities tow live w ithedignity and safety . Thechangeshave n ot beenexplainedclear ly.Participantsanda familiesar eleft uncertain aboutwhat will betaken away,h ow decisionswill be made,andhowthey wil ls urviveif supportsarereduced.Th isuncertaintyisanotabstract—itdirectl impactsmentalhealthan d stabilit y.

SpecificConcernswitheBill’sProvisions

Schedule 1, Part NewDefinitionFunctionalCapacity

TheBillin trod uctsa legaldefinitionoffunctionalcapacity thatassessesaperson’ sabilityton undertakeactivitieswithout assistancefromsupportworkers,a ssistiv e

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

Submission 151 technology, or consideration of their environmental or personal circumstances. For my husband, this approach is deeply problematic. His current level of function exists because of his NDIS supports. Stripped of those supports, his baseline capacity would reflect the crisis state we were in before the NDIS—unable to leave the house, disengaged from life, in acute distress. Assessing functional capability in isolation of the supports that enable it does not reflect the reality of psychosocial disability. It risks penalising participants for the very progress the Scheme has helped them make.

Schedule 1, Part 2: Restrictions on Plan Reassessments The Bill will restrict unscheduled plan reassessments, allowing them only where there is a “significant, ongoing change” in support needs. Only participants, plan nominees, or children’s representatives will be able to request reassessments—not support coordinators.

While I understand the intent to reduce unnecessary reassessments, this rigidity is dangerous for people with psychosocial disability, whose support needs can fluctuate significantly and unpredictably. A change that does not meet the threshold of“ significantandongoing ” may nonetheless represent agenuineurgent shiftin need.Removaltheabilityto respondflexiblytoseachange riskslastingparticipantswithoutadequatesuppor duringperiodsof vulnerability .

Schedule 1 ,Part3:Narrowingof‘ReasonableNecessary’SupportsTheBillrequiresthatsupportsmustnow directlyarisefromaneligibleimpairment—a contributoryorindirectlinkwillno longerbesufficient.Formyhusbandwho liveswithbothpsychosocialdisabilitya ndautism,theinteractionbetweenthese conditionsiscomplex.Hissocialanda communityparticipationsupportsa reessential tom anaging both,anditisanotalways clinicallystraightforwardtotraituteaspecific needitone impairmentisin isolation.

Thischange riske xcluding supportsthataregenuinelynecessaryforhistr stabili ty anda wellbeing,simplybecause theydonotmapneatlyonto asingle “ eligible” impair ment.The resultwouldbe areductioninfundedsupporth noclinical justification.

Schedule 1 Part4:MinisterialPower to Reduce Support Funding The Bill introduces a mechanism allowing theministerto reduce funding across entire categories offupportsb yasetpercentage, via legislative instrument without requiring individual review of how that reduction affects specific participants. This is asignificantandtroublingpower.Appliedto my husband’ssituation,ablanket percentagereducti ontocommunity participationorc apacity-building supportscouldstripawaytheveryfundingth at enableshimtofunction.This istonatheoreticalrisk—itisaforeseeableoutcome.Thereares clear and troubling parallels t o the Robodebt scheme ,wherearigid administrative systemcausedwidespreadmeasurable harm because itfailed toe count forindividualcircumstances.When governmentsimplementblunt policy tools th atignorelivedexperience,theconsequencesarer eal.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 151

Schedule 1, Part 8: Changes to the Definition of Permanence

The proposed changes to the definition of “permanence” introduce the concept of “all appropriate treatment.” Under this framework, a person’s impairment may not be considered permanent unless they have tried all treatments deemed appropriate. Critically, what constitutes ‘‘all appropriate treatment’ will be defined through NDIS Rules, which have not yet been developed. The fact remains undefined means Parliament is being asked to approve this mechanism without knowing how it will be applied.” This lack transparency legislation significant consequences for vulnerable people.

Schedule 1, Part 9: Eligibility Restricted Where Other Service Systems Exist

The Bill would allow eligibility restricted where potentially access supports another service system For people psychosocial disability raises fundamental concern: mains mental health system failed husband before NDIS did provide adequate support It prevented his deterioration absence meaningful in led crisis—and my own Many community-based services dismantled when introduced on promise that Scheme replaced them Restricting NDIs access pointing back toward those same depleted systems alternatives place solution abandonment The Human Consequences These Changes If husband social and community reduced removed he likely return isolation disengaging life experiencing rapid decline mental health Isolation minor issue with psychosocial disability known pathway crisis suicide capacity-building were reduced or progress made simply pause reverse Without ongoing resilience skills built deteriorate long-term outcome increased reliance crisis services independence There already serious concerns about distress suicides linked reductions disability mental health supports warnings must taken seriously proposed changes automated decision-making (Schedule) compound these introduction of processes within a system struggles consistency equity combined narrowed criteria outlined

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 151

above—creates serious risk that individual circumstances like my husband’s will not be adequately considered.

#Conclusion At its core, this issue is about whether people with disabilities are treated as full citizens within Australian society. Removing support options without viable replacements, or setting overly stringent eligibility requirements, conveys an implicit belief: that individuals’ well-being holds little value compared to other societal priorities.