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

Submission: [1576]

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 - Submission to Senate Enquiry

I am an NDIS participant and person with a disability.

I welcome the opportunity to provide this submission regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) amendment bill titled “Securing the NDIS for Future Generations” from Bill No.*[2026]**

Like many people living in Australia’s society today I recognize there are areas within our current system which require reform; however these reforms must not come at any cost or risk moving away further towards its original purpose of supporting individuals across all walks life regardless if it is their age, gender identity etc., but also ensuring greater transparency & accountability throughout every step involved when applying for services under such scheme as well as providing stronger safeguards against abuse/misuse thereof, My experience both personally being partake alongside others who have gone through similar journey has taught me that meaningful consultation takes time especially those involving complex matters like ours where everyone needs adequate opportunities understand what exactly they’re dealing w/ consider impacts & provide informed feedback accordingly; as well as balancing support needs appointments employment advocacy everyday life amongst other things can be quite challenging sometimes even more so during times economic crisis hit hard hitting communities harder than ever before thus making short consultations period disproportionately disadvantageous those most affected by legislation itself. If government truly committed co-design genuine engagement disabled community then consultation processes should always remain accessible realistic enough allow sufficient amount meaningfully participate.

Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency

The proposed consultation period insufficient scale required to bring about necessary changes needed this type matter requires much longer timeframe given complexity nature concerned with respect public interest best interests individual persons involved hence why shorter periods often prove detrimental particularly disadvantaged people living disability themselves. Meaningful consultation process involves giving everybody opportunity fully comprehend proposal weigh up consequences properly inform decision makers thereby enabling better outcomes overall society at large benefitting from improved quality service delivery system which ultimately leads towards achieving long term sustainability goals set out within original purpose NDIS was established upon originally designed for all Australians regardless their age gender identity etc., involving many stakeholders including families carers advocates organizations providers must ensure accessibility feasibility practicality ensuring every single person has equal chance voice heard valued respected equally irrespective background circumstances whatsoever, such matters require careful consideration time consuming effort cannot simply rushed through without proper deliberation discussion debate taking place beforehand; as such if Government really wants make sure everyone gets fair shot in terms access support services provided under auspices of NDIS scheme they need commit resources provide adequate funding infrastructure accordingly so that each participant can enjoy maximum benefits possible while minimizing risk associated misuse thereof. \[10pt]

Key Decisions Left Ministerial Instruments Not Law

One major concern mine is increasing use ministerial instruments making decisions directly affecting eligibility supports & funding received by participants enrolled into said program; good public policy relies transparency accountability scrutiny decisions who able to receive assistance what kind exactly should debated Parliament rather than being left primarily discretion ministers alone.

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

Submission 1576

Recent public commentary about the NDIS highlights what appears as an increasing disconnect between policy discussions on sustainability and lived realities faced by individuals living with disabilities.

Fraud and misuse must absolutely be addressed; however, fraud does not represent solely or definitively all challenges facing the scheme nor do they define its crisis state alone;

Participants consistently raise concerns regarding inconsistent decision-making practices, delay in workforce shortages, inaccessible systems delays efforts to access support services expanding ministerial powers will likely not address these issues directly.

I am also concerned over increased automation within planning assessment processes elements reforms resemble aspects previously rejected independent assessments proposals while language may change many continue seeing similarities direction travel.

Australia has more than two million people disability The NDIS supports around approximately six hundred thousand among them.

The question should no longer focus why people accessing a disability support program but rather governments adequately invested into: supports health system mental healthcare housing community service so that can live dignity participate society.

Existing Participants Face Narrower Criteria Fewer Rights Challenge Decisions

Concern deeply raised about proposals limiting review pathways reducing opportunities participants challenge decisions. My own experience navigating through review process difficult times traumatic.

Pursued section 100 review later challenged decisions affecting my supports While far from perfect mechanism available questioning decisions seeking different outcome. One greatest strengths current system participant rights even exercising those challenging.

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

Submission 1576

Nothing about the current system is perfect. However, an imperfect review process is still better than having no meaningful review process at all.

As planning and assessment processes become increasingly automated, independent review mechanisms become even more important. Systems make mistakes. Decision-makers make mistakes. Participants need pathways to challenge decisions that affect their lives. The removal or weakening of those safeguards risks creating a system where participants are expected to simply accept decisions regardless of whether those decisions are correct.

Unreviewable Ministerial Power to Cut Funding Across Support Categories

I am concerned about proposals that would allow funding reductions across support categories without meaningful review rights. Personally, the supports I would be most concerned about losing are my support worker and support coordination. I have only recently gained access to a support worker, and that support has made a significant difference to my participation and wellbeing. Likewise, support coordination has been critical in helping me navigate a complex system and make meaningful use of my plan. Without those supports, I would struggle to fully utilise my plan in a way that respectsmy capacity, goals and support needs.I also concern myself with removing flexibility around unspent funds. I previously had funding carried over into future plans through legitimate means. That flexibility allowed supports to be used effectively and responsibly. Removing this may unintentionally encourage short-term spending rather than thoughtful planning.

Requirement to Exhaust Treatment Options Before Eligibility

I significantly concerns people being required exhaust treatment options before becoming eligible for support.

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

Submission 1576

While this may appear reasonable on paper, it does not reflect the realities faced by\nmany communities.

People experiencing homelessness, First Nations communities, rural and regional
communities and many others already face substantial barriers to diagnosis, treatment and specialist services.

For many people, the challenge is not refusing treatment. The challenge is accessing it.

I am also concerned about the broader narrative underpinning these reforms.

People with disability did not create the NDIS. We fought for it because previous systems were failing us. When governments argue that participant numbers are unsustainable, they should
also be asking difficult questions about where implementation has failed, where mainstream systems have failed & why so many people continue to require supportthatshouldbeavailableelsewhere. The responsibilityfor system design shoulnotbeshiftedontopeoplewithdisability.

Supports Must Arise Directly from an Impairment This proposal reflects one of my deepest concernsaboutthe directionofthereforms.Disabilitydoesnotexistinneatcategories.Iamautistic,ADHDandhaveanintellectualdisabilitylealsoexperience anxietyande depression.However,theNDISprimarilyrecognisemethroughmy autismdiagnosis.Thatdoestoreflect therealityofoylifeorsupportneeds.My disabilities interactwitchoaneanother.Theycannotbeseparatedinto neat administrativeboxes.Throught autism-specific therapy funded by then DIS,Ilearnskills thate improvedm y ability tore gulate emotions ,communicateeffectively andparticip ate in m y community.

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

Submission 1576

Those supports have already been removed from my plan. I worry that the proposed reforms will continue narrowing how disability is understood until people with complex or intersecting support needs no longer fit within the system. As someone who participates in policy discussions and advocacy, I am often perceived as highly capable. What is not always visible is the effort required to maintain that participation. After periods of intensive work, meetings, advocacy and social engagement, I often need time in a quiet environment to regulate and recover. Those realities are not always visible, but they are no less real. Policy should reflect how disability operates in people’s lives, not simply how it appears on paper.

Functional Capacity Assessments and the I-CAN Tool

I have significant concerns about the proposed use of the I-CAN assessment tool.The current system already struggles to adequately account for dual diagnoses, co-existing conditions and fluctuating disabilities.Moving towards a more standardised assessment framework risks further reducing the ability to understand the whole person.Research and participant feedback have already raised concerns about the suitability of I-CAN across different disability cohorts.There are particular concerns regarding psychosocial disability, neurodivergence, acquired brain injury and people whose support needs fluctuate over time.Assessment processes should be accurate, evidence-based and non-traumatising.Many people with disability have spent years seeking diagnoses, gathering evidence and explaining their circumstances. Assessment processes should not create additional trauma or require people to repeatedly justify their existence.A checklist cannot always capture exhaustion, masking, trauma, burnout, fluctuating needs and the complexity of lived experience.

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

Submission 1576

The consequences of getting assessments wrong are significant because evaluations determine access to support.

Supports Cut Before Replacement Systems Are Ready

I do not have confidence that Foundational Supports will be ready to replace supports removed from the NDIS. We have been hearing discussions about Foundational Supports for nearly three years yet there remains little clarity regarding implementation service availability or long-term funding commitments At some point announcements need to be matched by delivery Participants are being asked to accept changes today based on promises of future systems that do not yet exist If I lost access to the NDIS i do not know what system would replace it.I suspect many participants would say the same thing.Governments should not remove existing supports until replacement systems are fully operational and demonstrably capable of meeting peoples needs.

Human Rights and Australia’s UNCRPD Obligations From a human rights perspective, I believe many aspects of this Bill raise concerns under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.Australia has committed to principles participation inclusion independent living equality before law self-determination Many proposed reforms appear move in opposite direction Reduced review rights narrower eligibility pathways increased automation greater administrative control may make systems easier manage but they also risk creating additional barriers people disability Disability rights humans Policy decisions assessed financial lens through Australian’s human obligations.

Final Comments

At the closing ceremony of the Disability Royal Commission, Andy Jackson spoke about what it means to keep going when systems fail to listen, when people are reduced to diagnoses instead of being seen as whole human beings, and when the burden of proving our worth never seems to end. His words resonated with me because they reflect what many people with disability continue to experience today. The disability community has spent decades advocating, educating, consulting and sharing our experiences. We fought for the NDIS because the systems before it were failing us.We did not ask for charity. We asked for the support needed to live ordinary lives, participate in our communities and have the same opportunities as everyone else.The question should not be whether people with disability are sustainable.Australia has more than two million people with disability. The NDIS supports around 600,000 of us.Rather than asking why people are relying on the Scheme, governments should be asking why so many people still struggle to access the support they need and where implementation, administration and policy have fallen short.People with disability did not create the problems facing the NDIS.If governments believe the Scheme is no longer working as intended, they should first look in the mirror and ask where they got it wrong before asking people with disability to carry the consequences.As Andy Jackson reminded us, we have always been speaking.The question is whether government is finally prepared to listen.- William Ward-Boas NDIS Participant and Founder of William Ward-Boas Consulting