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

Submission 1594

My Serious Concerns Regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment: Securing Long-Term Sustainability While Undermining Core Principles

While I acknowledge the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, my deep concern is regarding how this bill undermines its core principles—individualized support, choice and control, procedural fairness—and people’s rights to participate fully in community life. My main points include:

Restrictive Definitions of “NDIS Supports”

The proposed definitions move away from a reasonable-and-necessary approach towards narrower prescriptive ones which may exclude essential supports needed daily functioning, social participation independence safety. These categories appear overly restrictive; they fail account highly individual nature disability support needs; supports considered another system responsibility even those inaccessible inadequate participants with psychosocial fluctuating chronic pain-related or less visible disabilities disproportionately disadvantaged legislation creates uncertainty future eligibility maintains stability avoid crisis The intended person-centred flexible framework risk replaced rigid exclusionary one.

Excessive Reliance on Future Rules Delegated Legislation

The extensive powers granted by rules instruments operational guidelines after law passed create significant parliamentary oversight substantial policy changes occur without adequate scrutiny consultation matters such as assessment methodologies budgeting processes functional capacity thresholds classifications planning mechanisms should be clearly defined primary rather than deferred rule level delegated authority weakens creating legitimate fears about misuse power.

Concern About Functional Capacity Assessments Standardised Planning

I am deeply concerned standard assessments frameworks raised concerns independent previous attempts these same apply here accurately captured through over-standardized tools short interviews algorithmic process particularly at risk misunderstood under-assessed treating professionals long-term providers often have most accurate understanding their functional capacity and need diminish role existing professional evidence risks causing serious harm.

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

Submission 1594

Concerns about the bill’s impact:

• Insufficient transparency regarding how assessment outcomes translate into funding decisions;
• Potential use of automated planning tools based solely on algorithms without adequate safeguards;
• Lack of procedural fairness in reviews leading participants losing meaningful opportunities to challenge incorrect decisions. The devastating consequences from poorly designed decision-making processes have already been seen across Australia—NDIS must not repeat these mistakes!

Erosion of Choice Control & Human Rights Principles

Based upon principles consistent within UNCRPD including autonomy, dignity participation self-determination many aspects appear shifting scheme towards administrative convenience rather than participant rights. I am concerned: * Participants may lose control over their plans and supports.* People with disability increasingly treated administratively risks citizens’ rights* Proposed framework prioritises standardisation individual circumstances.Reforms should strengthen trust between participants government, not further erode it! Inadequate Consultation Timeframes Extremely limited consultation timeframe associated inquiry disproportionately disadvantages those most affected proposed changes.Major reforms significant as NDIs involve extensive accessible genuinely co-designed consultations. Recommendations I respectfully urge Committee recommend that:* The Bill proceed current form* Restrictive definitions NDIS be removed or substantially amended* Key safeguarding participant rights written directly primary legislation* Participants retain right submit rely evidence treating professionals* Any assessments systems independently tested transparent reviewable subject strong human oversight* Review appeal rights explicitly protected* Consultation process extended allow proper community engagement design.Sustainability important but cannot come expense fairness dignity safety people’s disabilities.Thank you for your consideration on this matter If proceeds worse robodebt We such wealthy country strip away this safety net folly highest order.Yours sincerely,