Submission on the NDIS Amendment Bill

Introduction/my connection to this issue

I am a disabled person with a recent NDIS plan. I am in my early 30’s and have a relatively rare, complex set of disabilities that have a genetic component that is only recently being studied in the medical and scientific literature. The management of my disabilities has meant I have been unable to work in a stable or consistent manner. Before my condition deteriorated, I worked my way through university gaining a double degree and graduating top of my class. I am highly educated, creative and driven. I have a background in the tech startup world as well as extensive experience in community services.The NDIS has been my life-line and it was my hope that with support I could return to my career. I am deeply concerned with this Bill and the proposed changes, particularly the harm they will cause myself and the disability community as a whole. My overall position on this Bill

My concerns about supporting this bill:

• The proposed changes largely do not solve main issues: Instead focus more cost-cutting which would result harmful for me other disabled individuals. There are ways make scheme sustainable if primary goal is sustainability better deal within NDIA itself without punishing participants. The proposed changes remove both individualised care choice control participant causing real harms breaking promises initial creation.NDIA new powers investigate fine people terrifying agency already incompetent training lived experience understanding disability incapable tribunal excessive punitive power hands Disabled people harmed lack sustainability schemes.

• The Minister being able to decide to provide less funding than needed to support someone, in blocks, will leave those few left in the scheme vulnerable and struggling.
• Powers granted in this Bill to the Minister to make changes without going through Parliament are dangerous
• This Bill seems ill-advised created by for people without any understanding lived experience disability
• The Bill itself is inaccessible as was inquiry submission timeline

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

Submission 1566

Planning

• Plans should be individualised. No person with disability is the same, even if they diagnosed with the same condition treatment must be tailored to an individual. This has been true my entire medical journey speaking every specialist so why different?
• Limitation on when changes can made reduced flexibility around changing circumstances prevent participant from accessing timely intervention & support Disabilities dynamic unpredictable Personally I experience dramatic reduction functioning seemingly out blue had sudden onset symptoms needed managed seeing several specialists allied health things do not work neat schedule confining change such mean people conditions worsen while wait may more expenses scheme long-term rather making sustainable.

Contacting Participants & Punitive Powers

• Punitive measures Participant being uncontactable will cause harm Stopping pausing reassess plans someone does respond within “required” timeframe ignores reality how NDIA currently contacts participants punish disabled unnecessarily There many reasons a participant unable to response certain time frame hospitalisations family emergencies housing instability obvious disability-related communication issues times non-verbal repeated calls at NDIA ignore email-communication preference file.
• Will specific disabilities allowances altered communication provisions extenuating personal circumstances appeal process any cut stopped because lack of communication? What kind training staff have search homes issuing fines extremely dangerous overly punitive. Again assumption that participants rorting system punished despite evidence issue main culprit sustainability NDIS.

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

Submission 1566

Loss of choice and control

• Large-scale registered providers are some of the worst offenders for providing inadequate or dangerous care. Limiting a participant’s choice and control over who supports them goes against the principles the scheme was originally set up under and takes us back several steps in terms of disability care. Being able to directly employ, vet, and/or let go of workers like independent support workers empowers disabled people to determine what supports their needs best. Being able to choose the right plan manager or support coordinator means they are working in the participant’s best interest. Different people need different things from these workers; there is many reason why someone picks one worker over another Non-disabled people get to pick their accountants tradies based on whatever reasons they want We all get to choose our GP s systems that limit this choice create inequality Disabled people should be allowed to choose those works with them.

Lack of oversight decision making powers Minister

The minister must not have power cap prices nor make sweeping changes without parliamentary supervision The minister cannot dictate how we run the system rather than Governmental self-interest. The lack of parliamentarian oversight will give too much power to one person This can lead to extreme danger No single individual has authority to change legislation What informs decisions made by ministers? Do any of your members live experience? as seen Bill shows clear deficit understanding NDIS NDIA themselves Mental health impact alone proposed changes tremendous me my community I fathom impact unchecked except it devastatingly unsafe unfairly targeted vulnerable population suggest worse.

The NDIA administration ndis

My personal experiences staff affiliated Local Area Coordinators extremely eye opening Many interact do adequate disability knowledge vast number redacted

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill

Submission: Submission-1566

administrative errors and incompetence are high as evidenced by cases taken up but lost on appeal within tribunals. Several individuals from our community have endured endless battles against staff who do not or will never understand their needs, disabilities being addressed through outdated stereotypes instead.

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

Submission 1566

Capacity Assessment at the request of my planner. Essentially - despite already being granted access, spending most limited resources pursuing further proof needed to prove funding needs; cyclical process causing overspending issues; teams reviewed application had been paid multiple times. Despite minuscule core funds received having changed lives significantly, hope capacity building also does so eventually.

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

Submission 1566

the burden on my informal supports and lessening their risk of burnout. Before I became a participant, our household tasks fell solely upon me; however, through sheer luck, my partner was there as well. If funding were reduced or removed altogether: it would directly impact both your own wellbeing AND your community’s overall health. I am terrified about returning once more to a similar situation where survival seems impossible; you are aware how many disabled individuals within YOUR OWN COMMUNITY feel similarly anxious.

What does the committee need to know?

The bill offers little support specifically designed with disabled people’s needs at heart—therefore resulting severe negative consequences across communities—from those who may never receive necessary assistance again—to others whose existing aid is diminished or capped entirely.Diversity among disabilities means no one-size-fits-all approach works effectively without genuine lived experience being considered evident in this legislation. This bill primarily serves cost-saving purposes while portraying disability recipients as easy targets.Social services like NDLS should not have been profit-driven entities but rather focused towards equitable distribution ensuring all parties involved benefit equally from such programs.The corporations behind these service providers appear guilty of exploiting loopholes for personal gain which only exacerbates issues already present before enactment.This bill further compounds problems by punishing precisely whom it aims protect initially—a clear step toward eugenics practices.

Final Statement

Despite limited energy and resources I’ve strived my best effort making submission concise yet comprehensive under tight deadlines.I will face adverse repercussions due short notice required. Having access to education & research background allowed me participate; however, close friends found process inaccessible altogether. Pleasantly consider MY LIVED EXPERIENCE when reviewing this Bill and understand real harm caused thereby.Bill must NOT be passed Parliament.