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

Submission 1640

About Me

My name is Todd Winther. I am an academic based in Brisbane, a commentator specializing politically in Australia; also a specialist disability policy. My background includes academic leadership politics party and teaching subjects such as multiple universities; as well as being an NDIS participant who has severe Cerebral Palsy. Thank you parliament opportunity present my many concerns regarding proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Securing NDIs future generations) Bill 2026.

Putting Proposed Bill Its Proper Context

As both participants professional sector believe reforms fail not meet needs workforce likely practical effects will be highly detrimental bill lacks support universally criticized individuals expertise experience disability sector disregards Schemes foundational principles intended empower people disabilities actively participate communities line goals aspirations although occasional instances fraud abuse minority within scheme these do justify severe measures proposed this bill If enacted, people with disabilities compelled remain home some cases placed at risk due governments arbitrary reduction of without consideration consequences inequitable policy change Should attempt engage their communities encounter limited opportunities develop capacity maintain independence which central aim original Scheme and disregard by this bill Instead appears promote segregation dependence alienation people disabilities if passed significant amendments the NDIS reduced to framework devoid its outcomes effectively returning marginalisation experienced mid late century when often excluded public life The original legislation introduced under significant political pressure accelerated timeline align then government electoral objectives At time expressed concerns implementation ABCs now defunct portal RampUp While Government enjoyed considerable praise media community large there was recognition potential economic political ramifications rushing implementing NDIS current represents poor attempt address initial mistakes employing overly simplistic measures that account complexities inherent developing effective public policies for people disabilities far too late put toothpaste back in tube

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission: [1640]

Successive governments of both political persuasions have consistently made policy decisions that further deteriorated the NDIS throughout its lifespan. The proposed Bill continues this trend but focuses solely on costs without acknowledging economic or social benefits.

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

Submission 1640

Change of Circumstances Restrictions

Section Heading: Submission 1640

There are multiple concerns about new restrictions on when and how participants can seek can seek. changes to their plans. It is a crude attempt to reduce ‘Intraplan Inflation’. While this is necessary, in some instances these proposed changes are like lighting a match to set the whole process ablaze. The Bill needs to be amended to address the following:

• Eliminating the ability to appeal decisions that participants consider unsatisfactory leaves individuals without recourse This may lead reliance outdated plans up to 90 days. days.
• The “unanticipated” test excludes cases in which certain aspects circumstances were anticipatefundedbutthe situati subsequent deteriorationFor examplethiscouldoccurifatennantendsunexpectedlyorifainformalsupporteraposoperative recoveryisprolonged.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 1640

• Requiring non-medical changes as “ongoing” imposes an excessive evidential burden.

The proposed bill fails recognizing life circumstances can shift rapidly due unforeseen events.

Fix ‘improve’ Clause Designated Limit Access NDLS

The Bill proposes disqualification if any treatment improves someone’s condition until tried it. This test sets bar too high, denying access even modest improvement overall still needing support. For example includes psychosocial disability whose symptoms improve temporarily because electroconvulsive ketamine therapy treats their impairment short fixed period. This clause overlooks scheme original severity test determine whether disabling enough warrant NDIS instead creates uncertainty fear leaving people mainstream services so-called foundational supports yet developed exhausted every aspect fully stabilised. Eligibility should be amended asking try treatments plausibly lift all affected areas above threshold need rather than just improving one area genuine eliminate entire need NDIS altogether. Bill would deny NDIS basis they have not tried particular expensive (not covered through public health system) rare or geographically inaccessible disproportionately harms regional remote low-income participants face real-world barriers accessing healthcare city-based wealthier applicants do not intent clear: find lawful way reduce number existing without developing safe secure policy alternative. Return to Concept of Whole Person. The Bill introduces requirement that needs directly arise from person’s qualifying impairment fundamental change undermines purpose will cause serious harm two reasons.

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

Submission 1640

First, it imposes arbitrary distinctions with no practical basis. A person’s disability needs are shaped by who they are as individuals and how they live. This can include their environment, finances, support network, employment, and social preferences. Attempting to separate what is “directly” caused by impairment from an individual’s life circumstances results in unfair,inconsistent decisions. Second, this test disadvantages participants who are already vulnerable, especially participantswith complex, chronic conditions or multiple disabilities.These groups of participants often needthe NDIS the most.They are less likely to have detailed medical evidence to prove eligibility.This creates a two-tiered system where people succeed based on more evidence rather than onebasedon supportneeds.TheNDIS was designedto supportapersonbasingindividualneeds:it should considerthewholeof aperson’slifeandreality,because thatiswhereoutcomescanbeachieved.Supportplansthat ignore housing,support networksorfinancial stress will not work,nomattertheirdesign.In its early development,the NDIswasdesignedtococonsiderseveral elements o faparticipant’ s lifethes included their healthsocial context,andcircumstancesinsuppor t planning.Removal theseas proposedinthis Billmeanscomplex clients receive generic plans that don’t match theirsituations won’t deliverresultsThis cookie-cutter approach completelydisregards individualexperience.If then DIS framework isnot based capacity buildinglimits attempts strive for independence Scheme face repeated cycles cost-cutting all wrong places asBill does.ConclusionEnsuringparticipantshave authentic power visibility and voiceproposedBil is non-negotiable.We experts in our own livesour expertise must drive this process. Independent oversight transparent data public reporting also essential compulsory element policy making disability sector When used effectively measures would help government address problems poorly-designed Bill aims fix If the proposed Bill passes without significant amendments real input frompeople with disabilities we be forced continually repair NDIS legislation well beyond government’s term decades to come This makeNDIS biggestpolicy failure Australian democracy.