National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission: Submission 1579
Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 I welcome the opportunity to make a submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I come to this submission wearing a few hats. I am a person with disability, a business manager for an occupational therapy provider, and an advocate for two NDIS participants in my family.
I am very concerned about the direction of this Bill and the impact it could have on people with disability, families, carers and future generations.
Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency
The two-week consultation period was nowhere near enough time. The Bill is over 200 pages long and full of complex legal language. It has taken me considerable amount of time just to work through content understanding what being proposed If found difficult honestly do not know how many people particularly intellectual disability communication difficulties literacy barriers or those needing accessible information expected meaningfully engage with it People need understand they are asked support oppose That happened here With more time would written much detailed instead had focus key concerns Also by lack transparency Governments elected represent community including people particular scheme as important NDIS should rushed limited consultation public scrutiny
Ministerial Powers Reduced Oversight
Do believe decisions who gets support receive made without proper parliamentary oversight The NDIS developed overnight took years planning consultation design recognition that complexity needed strong safeguards accountability This moves significant decision-making power away from Parliament ministerial instruments worries greatly
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1579
It makes me feel less secure about the future of disability supports. It also raises concerns about where this approach might lead. If governments can reduce disability supports through these mechanisms, what stops similar approaches being applied in other systems such as aged care, TAC or WorkCover? People with disability deserve certainty and stability, not ongoing uncertainty about whether their supports may change without proper debate.
Review Rights and Reassessments
Review rights are critical.I have seen firsthand why they matter.During COVID, my son was admitted to hospital with a serious injury.He needed an advocate with him,yet we had to fight through complaints processes and appeal pathways before that support was approved.Without those review mechanisms,hisupport wouldnothave receivedthe he needed.The ideaof reducingreview rightscorries deeply.If aperson’sdisability changes;iftheircircumstanceschange;orfunding isreducedunfairly,teneeds tobewayto challengethat decision.Withouthereviewrightspople riskbeing leftwithoutsupportandwithouthoptions.I amparticularly worriedabout peoplein ruralandreigional communitiesincluding manyAboriginalTorres Strait Islanderpeoplewho alreadyface significant barriersaccessing specialists assessmentsreviews.Thesechanges willonly makethosebarriersworse.
Exhausting Treatment Before EligibilityI strongly oppose any requirementthata person mustexhaust treatment optionsbefore becoming eligible for support.The proposal raises more questions than answers.What exactly countsastreatment?Is it medication Therapy Surgery Alternative therapies How manytreatmentsmust someone trybeforesetheyare consideredeligible?
Many peoplerallystruggle access treatmenbecause of cost waiting lists workforce shortages.Inmy work I regularly hearfrompeoplere cannot afford privateassessments or specialist appointments.Requiring peoples exhausttreatment optionsbeforer receiving supports risksleavingppl without help when they needit most.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1579
People should not have to get worse before they qualify for support.
Whole-of-Person Assessment One of my biggest concerns is the move away from whole-of-person assessment. Many people live with multiple disabilities, health conditions and support needs that overlap and interact with each other.You cannot separate one condition from another and expect to understand how a person’s life is affected.A whole-of-person assessment looks at the reality of someone’s situation. A single impairment assessment risks missing the bigger picture entirely.I also question how this saves money. If someone has multiple conditions requiring separate assessments, that seems likely to create more bureaucracy rather than less.
Functional Capacity Assessments and AutomationI am very concerned about increased automation and the proposed assessment approach.Computers and AI are only as good as the information put into them.They do not understand context. They do not understand human experiences. They do not understand the day-to-day realities of disability.No automated process can replace genuine human understanding and professional judgement.If the information entered into a system is wrong or incomplete, the outcome will be wrong too. The consequences of those mistakes can be life-changing.
Supports Being Reduced Before Alternatives Exist I do not understand how the Government can justify reducing supports before replacement systems are fully in place.If people lose support before Foundational Supports are operating, who fills the gap? Families?
Carers? Hospitals? GPs?
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1579
Most of these systems are already under pressure. One of the positive things the NDIS has achieved is continuity. People have finally built access equipment, therapies and supports that improve their quality of life and allow them to participate in their communities. Taking supports away before alternatives exist risks undoing years of progress.
Human Rights Concerns I believe these reforms weaken the rights of people with disability.The NDIS was created because Australia recognised that people with disability
deserve support inclusion equal opportunitiesThe focus of these reforms appears to be reducing costs rather than protectingrightsPeople with disability should not be blamed for government forecasting errors orpolicy failuresIf mistakes have been made in planning the Scheme, the solution should not be to reduce supports for the people who rely on them.Closing CommentsMy message to decision-makers is simpleThink about how you would feel if it was you Think about what it would be like to need help shower get dressed travelcommunicate or participate your community think about feeling told support no longer available funding cut right challenge decision_people_with_disability_not_budget_figures_they_are_people_the_Government_should_be_looking_for_solutions_that_protect_people_not_creating_reforms_place_at_greater_risk_Please reconsider changes ensure rights dignity wellbeing_of_people_with_disability_remain_centre_NDIS.