Submission 1541

27/07/2026

To Members of Parliament and Senators,

Re: Concerns regarding the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

I am writing as an Australian living with significant disability and as a carer to my 2 children who also live with disabilities, and as a person directly impacted by the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I ask you to carefully consider the practical and human consequences of the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 before supporting its passage.

I understand and support the need to address fraud, strengthen safeguards and ensure the long-term sustainability of the NDIS. Most participants also want a sustainable scheme. However, sustainability should not come at the cost of creating additional barriers for people with disabilities who rely on support to function safely, participate in community life and build greater independence.

The Government states that the purpose of these reforms is to “protect the NDIS for people with permanent and significant disability and for future generations who will rely on it.”

I strongly support that goal. My concern is that some of the proposed changes may unintentionally reduce access and support for the very people the NDIS was designed to protect.

As someone living with a permanent complex psychosocial disability, and as a carer for two children with Autism, I know from personal experience that disability does not always fit neatly into objective measures or standardised frameworks. A person may appear capable one day and experience severe impairment the next. Difficulties are often invisible and can be misunderstood.

The Government has stated that the Bill “establishes the legal framework for determining access to the NDIS based on substantially reduced functional capacity” and that future access decisions will involve “a consistent, objective and evidence-based assessment of functional capacity.”

While consistency is important, I am concerned that an overly standardised approach risks overlooking the lived reality of many disabilities, particularly psychosocial disabilities, autism, and other invisible disabilities.

For people like me, the issue is not simply whether we can complete a task once. The issue is whether we can complete it safely, consistently, repeatedly and without significant consequences.

I am also deeply concerned by proposals that may require people to exhaust “all appropriate” treatment options before being eligible for support.

Submission 1541

Many people with lifelong disabilities spend years, sometimes decades, engaging in treatment. Treatment can improve coping, increase skills and reduce barriers, but improvement does not necessarily mean the disability disappears.

The message this may unintentionally send is that people must continually prove they have tried hard enough, healed enough, or pursued enough treatment before they deserve support.

Support and treatment are not the same thing. It also means that those with limited financial resources are no longer going to be able to receive support. Under these proposals, support will only be afforded to those wealthy enough and close enough to all treatment options. I am also concerned as to who decides that “all appropriate” options have been met, because already people are being rejected on that basis, despite reports from highly qualified medical professionals that other treatment options would potentially kill the patient. Do people now have to risk death to satisfy this government?

I am also deeply concerned by the concentration of decision-making powers proposed within the Bill and the reduction of practical safeguards available to participants. The practical concern is that support budgets could potentially be reduced through broad determinations rather than individual assessment of a person’s circumstances. For participants with complex disabilities, especially those with psychosocial disability, autism and invisible disability, what appears to be a budget adjustment on paper can have serious real-world consequences. I am concerned about how participants would effectively challenge these reductions if they arise from broad policy determinations rather than individual circumstances.

I am particularly concerned about proposed reductions to social and community participation supports. Government materials state:

“Budget allocations for social, civic and community participation supports will be reduced by 50 per cent.”

Social participation funding is not recreational spending. It is not a luxury. Supports allow people to function while living with disability. They allow people to participate in society, build skills and increase independence. I do not have any informal supports and if these cuts occur I will not ever be able to leave my house and further isolation and risk to my wellbeing occurs. It will increase my reliance on the NDIS rather than helping me build capacity and learn to navigate and participate in the community.

For people with psychosocial disability and Autism, community participation can mean:

• preventing isolation
• building confidence
• practising functional skills
• reducing dependence on crisis services
• developing capacity for future independence

Removing these supports risks increasing isolation and reducing capacity rather than building it, therefore increasing further reliance on the NDIS.

My own goal is not dependence. My goal is greater independence and greater contribution. I want to continue building my capacity and reducing disability-related barriers over time. I want the opportunity to participate in society in whatever way I am able.

Submission 1541

The NDI was intended to support people to pursue goals and increase participation. Reducing supports that help people build capacity may create the opposite outcome.

I respectfully ask Parliament to consider:

• Stronger protections for all people with disabilities, but particularly those with psychosocial, autism and invisible disabilities, as it is not always immediately obvious that there are significant functional capacity impacts.
• Trauma-informed and disability-specific assessment processes that recognise variable functioning. Including greater transparency regarding assessment tools and how decisions translate into participant funding.
• Preservation of social and community participation supports as essential supports rather than optional extras.
• Meaningful consultation with people living with disabilities before reforms of this scale proceed.
• Ministerial determinations cannot override individual participant needs without robust safeguards.
• Participants retain accessible review and appeal pathways.

People with disabilities are not budget figures. We are Australians attempting to live safely, participate in our communities and build better futures.

Please ensure reforms protect the integrity of the NDIs without unintentionally reducing the supports that enable people with disabilities to live with dignity and independence.

Thank you for your consideration.