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

Submission 1717

Re: Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Amendment Bill 2026 I am a 49-year-old NDIS participant who has been on the Scheme for 8 years. I am autisticandhave multiple physical and psychosocial disabilities.I livein SDAwith 24/7 On-SiteSupport, at both thatmy otherNDIS supports haverequired megotothe ARTtwice sof ar.

Iam deeply concernedatthewaythisAmendmentBill underminesthefounding principlesoftheschemeand willleadto harmfor disabled peopleinsteadoffocusingon these structuralsystemic failuresthat threatenthesescheme.It is extreme Ministerial overreachandrequires further scrutiny major amendments before it can be passed.with this Amended Bill, theminersterhas proposedalarge number of changes tonedis Act(2013). These hand then person acting asMinister very broad decision-makingpowersover participants,narrowing their review pathwayswithout needing to returntoparliamentfurtherscrutinyreview legislation.Mostchanges actonly restrict accesstondis ndis supportsandndis fundingastightlyas possible Mostconcerningly manythesechange have notbeen made public in speeches websitesor fact sheets.They are only discoverable by readingentire amendment bill sections notetheNDisAct (2013)a daunting proposition.Recommendation: Require future legislative change with full Parliamentary reviewandscrutinity rather than grantingbroad ministerial powersone fell swoopTransparency ScrutinyEven last-minute extension submission deadline June stillleaves a consultation period for the Amendment Bill 2 weeks daysThis manifestly inadequate given sheer size ofthe Amendment Bill and NDIS Act(2013) particular needs target population affecting accessibilitycommunicationinformation processingexecutive function etc Australian Government Guide PolicyImpact Analysis clear minimumofdays’consultation appropriate wherepossible. In order make mysubmission throughincreasing severe pain spasms fatigue I cannot sleep night because am so muchpain working day My hands forearms swollen conditioncannot use them care myselfI gone without drinking eating hours endbecause seriousness risk thisAmendmentBill poses activated autistic ’hyperfocus geta submission done.

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

Submission 1717

Recommendation:

Extend the consultation period to a best practice minimum of 30 days.

False Economy

The Minister has made much of how the NDIS has ‘blown up’ in cost, being undermined by rorts, fraud and noncompliance, making it financially unsustainable. I do not oppose tightening protections against illegal conduct funneling money away from disabled people’s plans but find keeping an “eagle eye” on every single invoice through my plan manager app burdensome due frequent attempts at defrauding me/my budget/NDIS providers.

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

Submission 1717

mental health, housing, justice, aged care. People’s lives do not exist in neat boxes where systems don’t need to communicate or work with each other. Enforcing a greater proportion of plans being Plan Managed is a means to avoid a lot of the ‘rorts, fraud, and non-compliance’ the Minister is so concerned with; however there’s little safeguarding against Self-Managed plans taking advantage too None structural elements are receiving same attention amendment bill applies participant Providers.

Recommendations:

• Review reform NDIA &the NDIS Quality Safeguards Commission
• Invest workforce standards training pay conditions
• Improve handover between Planners Provider levels system
• Improve Planner competence
• Improve integration between NDIA mainstream systems
• Enforce greater proportion Plans managed

Parts of the Amendment Bill Requiring Scrutiny

Defining functional capacity The definition proposed new Section9B real-world assessment tool People whole people tasks isolation might empty dishwasher brush teeth individual contributes overload pain fatigue detracts ability perform other If shut down psychologically physically capable performing but reality totally incapable remembering toilet eat drink many hours It unrealistic fair assesses all without assistance from “other people assistive technology modifications” For these things normal integrated parts daily life even necessarily supports sought NDIS circumstances available use Also impossible separate human beings their environmental personal circumstances particularly if assessor trying conduct single point-in-time rather than evidence longitudinal view My looked very different when homeless mental health crisis before moved into safe stable housing This Part made retrospective reassess existing participants eligibility criteria review rights procedural fairness particular when not yet exist know autistic person often ‘mask’ in situations strangers overperform pushing limits - conscious awareness compared to normal

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

Submission 1717 daily life, giving highly distorted results. This can result in us being assessed as much more functional/less impaired than we really are, taking less support that we need or classifying ineligible for schemes or programs.

Recommendations:

do not implement Part of this bill as written; maintain review rights; incorporate ‘no harm’ safeguard so no current participant removed or loses supports through reassessment until equivalent accessible supports elsewhere.

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

Submission 1717

90 day delay would have meant I got no help at all.

Recommendation: Do not implement this Part as it stands.

Strengthen link between an impairment and need for support Yet again the NDIA is attempting to turn real-world living human beings into hypothetical creatures made up of separate boxes labelled with their disabilities and medical conditions. This is not how anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, etc., work in the real world. The real biological world is made up of systems that interact, synergise and antagonize and are chaotic. It is impossible to separate different processes affecting a person’s functional capacity and label some or certain parts ‘direct’ from listed disabilities’ ‘and some “not”‘to determine if supports should get NDIS funding.’ No assessor or assessment tool can do this; we cannot do so either because they’re whole people.“ If supports denied due to one disability being impacted another where participant doesn’t meet requirements“ what will happen? Logical consequence: our impairments deteriorate,“functional capacities decrease.” We’ll require increased funded supports fromNDIATo compensate! False economy!”The NDIA has refused many years Psychology my plan As result Providers Workers trained me struggled assemble maintain Care Team roster support had serious impact health wellbeing including all my listed impairments Change rules retrospectively applied existing participants narrowing eligibility without review rights procedural fairness Restricting supports forcing participants off Scheme simply false economy

Recommendations: Do not implement Part as it stands. Maintain review rights Incorporate no harm safeguard current participant removed loses through reassessment until equivalent accessible supports place elsewhere

Commonwealth Minister make determinations reduce funding for groups Supports This insertion Section 34A presented goal enabling Ministerial determination reset participant budgets social civic community participation daily activities immediate cost-saving measure But publicized way legislation

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission: Submission-1717

written, it actually gives the Minister broad-ranging powers to cut any part of all NDIS participants’ budgets at any time into the future without any safeguarding or oversight! All the Minister has to do is claim ‘this is for the purpose of financial sustainability’. This change to the NDIS Act (2013) gives the Minister incredible power to cut the plans of all NDIS participants while being far removed from the vulnerable people involved and from taking any genuine responsibility when these decisions result in tragedy. It is also ridiculous to assert that safeguarding is assured by Subsection (3): “In making the determination, the Minister must have regard to the safety of participants”when a decision is being taken at an NDIS-wide level rather than at an individual levelandSubsection (5) goes on to ‘clarify’that such determinations take effect even if plan funds end up being cut below the costs of their reasonable and necessary supports. The decisions, which are misdirectedfromtheoffset,willhavedevastating impactsonparticipants.ThisdecisionisTheMinistertellingdisabledpeoplethathewouldratherwego backtotheadolddaysofevidencepresenteda t he Disability Royal Commission Hearings where weareShut Inandsout. Thiss isthe oppositeo fwhatthen DIS wassetuptodo.Facilitatingparticipants participatingin society,economy,andcommunityismeansto beoneoutcome measuresfor then DIS! If I lose my supported access tom edicalappointments what happens Then?IfIbecomecutofffrommychosenfamily thentomyremaining tendrils offormal supportdryup ,an d TheNDISendsupa greaterburdenina otherareas.A“simpleshaveoffothetop”ofsocial communityorcivic participationmaylooklikeaschemelevel interventionwithoutseriousconsequencesbut forindividuals itlooks like isolation,mental healthdeterioration,collapseofday routine,reductionorloss ofemployment/education/training,l ossofaccesshealth carecarerburn outand increasedriskcrises.Asusual,thelegislationhasbeen setupsos thatthes e decisions to cut our funding - at any time without warning- ar enotreviewable violatingprocedural fairness. Recommendations: do not implement this Part asitstands Maintain review rights Incorporate a ‘no harm’ safeguard so no participant loses supports until equivalent accessiblesupports are in place elsewhere 5.Plan Renewal Under the proposed new Section (4)(b) “the making ofthene woplan doesnot involve themakingofanyre viewabledecision”, i.e. we do n ot have righto f re viewto therenewalofo urplansunderthisPart.Unspent funds will nos longercarryoverat

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

Submission 1717

plan renewal, so if we are saving across plan periods for high-cost items that ability vanishes entirely. This can be very tricky for certain categories of funds where the costs fluctuate a lot instead of being regular across funding periods, e.g., purchasing in bulk as significant cost-saving measure.

Recommendations:

• Do not implement Part as stands; Maintain review rights;

Reasonable and necessary supports

a The Amendment Bill alters Section Objects Act substituting new Paragraph(3)(d), replacing simple statement provision reasonable-and-necessary-supports with “reasonableandnecessary” consistent financial sustainability scheme Making change central Object runs counter foundation system support most vulnerable Instead leaving provision reasonable-and-necessary-supports whole point NDIS Financial-sustainability-always-covered legislatively separate clauses inserting here distorts itself NDIS core b Department Minister snuck changes to NDIS Act fundamentally changing participants entitlements supports Changes General principles guiding actions under this Act Subsections45 and Hereby substituting“NDIS”for reasonabledeserting definitions reasonable-and-necessary-so-that-we-can-no-longer claim entitlement-certainsupports-or-levelsofsupport c NewSubsection Principles relating participation plans adds only some-clauses proposed-to-be-repealed list 17ASectionPrinciples preparationplans DivisionPartChapter-leaving-principles-missing entirely d In-newSubsection Principles relating scheme sustainability elsewhere legislative-changes-point made-financialdesirability-of supporting-communities-responsibility-goals-needs-participants Presumably-reference-program-government-wishes-establish-community-take-place-NDIS-supports-status-it revokes-applications-reject Buzzwords like ‘Thriving Kids’ or Foundational Supports come mind Yet again false economy If people excluded from the NDIS must-have somewhere exist reality Not hypothetically And those supports-exist-programs-equitable-themselves-not

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

Submission 1717 starved for funds and resources and can only provide supports to a tiny proportion of people who need help. Or once again we run into false economy problems where people end up in other crisis systems. Putting into the legislation that funding “should be used efficiently” sounds very much like a statement of austerity measures being imposed on all participants and encoded into legislation. As already mentioned, the current issues with fraud compliance etc., which are not relevant here because they stem from system & structure design – therefore irrelevant as per Section X Y Z of the Act aimed at plans’ correct usage.

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

Submission 1717

says on the box – sets out how a plan budget is constructed with categories and funding periods. Yet the Minister and the Department are trying to sneak in further control from on high on every little detail of how participants receive supports by adding Ministerial control at any time of the funding, intensity, and worker ratio of any support for any and all participants!

g) The Amendment Bill adds into subsection 34(1) explanatory details for “Value for money considerations”, “Effective and beneficial considerations”, “Family etc. support—children”, and “Family etc. support—other matters“ rather than relying on Rules or Guidelines. To an extent this is sensible as it provides clarity for all parties, but the proposed legislation goes off track from the beginning with the requirements to satisfy the criteria for Effective and beneficial. In s 34*(EF)** \a hierarchyof evidenceis provided butanyoralloftthislistcanbeignoredbytheNDIAatwill! Thereisa clear minimisation ofttherole lived experienceevidenceplaysin substantiatingsupportsas effectiveandbeneficialbothforindividualsandgroups Thisfliesinthefaceofagrowingmovementwithinresearchanda cademia Withsubsection**34 (GHJ)hispartoftheproposedlegislationdoesheavy liftingoffthemassiveshiftingofsupportfromthenDISonto families.Yetagainthisishappeningwhen thenon- NDISsupportssupportsystemstalkedabout intheory arenotreality Thetypes ofs upport listed thatfamiliesaremeanttobe responsible for might be perfectly manageable incase, buttoanother totally beyond capacity of family to cope withoutsuppor Withoutthat sup portfamilywould crisis.Withoutthesupporthchild’sdevelopment would sufferWithouttha tsupportparent/carer/s could not function Australia’s economy Andsoon Familiesalreadyoverburdenedorstretched evenwith support theymightreceivefromN DIS soeither reducing their child’ ssu p or revokingtheir statusentirely when there is nowhereto go replacement services will result tragedies massive suffering. With subsection 34(1K) the NDIA looking for any waythey can deny supportsadult participants Nowinsteadsimplytakingaccountwhat “is reasonableexpect fam ies carers informal networks and community provide” ye moving default position where this assumed unless material risk harm abuse neglect cannot mitigated throughinformalor lower costsupports Once again we backin dreadful Disability Royal Commission Hearing territory standard care disabled people life Australian government decided accept us one just above outright harmabuseandneglect I have spent time living homelessness.Ihavespenttimelivingawful SRSs. Ihaveseenfriendsdoingittougher Thisstandardisanotacceptable ButthisAmendment Bill has goals supporting maintaining strengthening informalsupportscommunitynetworksin preference fundedsupport“.

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

Submission 1717

Once again they see them desperate move many away from the NDIS into community relying on non-NDIS funded where support does exist building scratch around country scattered micro form case false economy.

Recommendations: Do not implement this part stand. Maintain foundational principles ndis participant planning Avoid Ministerial overreach Incorporate no harm safeguard so current participants removed or loses until equivalent accessible elsewhere.

Plan suspensions revocations The proposed insertion Section deals contactable It is when get CEO has written notice plan suspension Everything under s completely vague up ceo’s discretion! Who defines reasonable attempts “contact” participant and participant **not contactable?” Naturally NDIA all power decides definitions ridiculous dealing disabled people sensory impairments cognitive executive functioning psychosocial … list goes ways disabilities affect communication Then language barriers various intersections particularly vulnerable disabled may experience e.g., homelessness exposure family violence settings admission health mental health care setting also necessarily going accurate records every piece of information single participant time attempt communicate us then revoke status if do answer according criteria but group least capacity answer highest risk supports cut off If depths crisis am interested answering phone calls best times often forget mailbox. Recommendation: Do not implement Part as it stands.

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

Submission 1717

Tightening meaning of permanence

This wording of subsection 25(1B) change to disability requirements represents an extensive misuse of powers either not grasping reality regarding disabled individuals’ needs or aiming to revoke as many participants’ status regardless their functional condition while jeopardizing life safety. Many people living permanently impaired need significant support through NDIS services just to survive; let alone manage other daily necessities too! Yet they’ll receive treatments aimed merely ‘improving’, ‘alleviating’, but won’t eliminate permanent disabilities nor diminish their reliance on substantial supports every day—yet might technically improve situations so what would be done about them? Section25A, again gives full authority defining terms solely toNDIA.Who decides if treatment meets “evidence-based”? Who determines whether it reliably…materially improves/reverses/alleviates impairments? Or if regularly undertaken/performed in Australia?” Most cruel is deliberately excluding numerous from access due common constraints like finance/geography, denying health care even urban areas involve long waiting lists and fully booked practices. Disabled are most economically disadvantaged Australians with limited medical specialists off-limits due gap fees & trauma/family violence history makes finding practitioners challenging. How can the Department/Minister cut multiply marginalized Aussies out of accessing NDIS support entrenching disadvantage? Will NDIS force mass disablement undergo pointless med/treats risking harmful side effects simply ticking boxes? The NDIA fails taking whole-of-person approach treating us separately little impairment boxes.I’ve already given evidence for all my listed impairments undergone all possible treatments – will require re-prove this each time new specialist’s evidence needed? This section allows vague conclusions allowing circumstances/rules any kind regarding types participants determine appropriate treatment taken.Deliberate vagueness leaves power entirelywiththeNDIADepartment Minister exclude participant/group atwill.The Amendment Bill carefully specifies existing participants fall under criteria.

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

Submission 1717

Recommendations:

*Do not implement this Part as it stands. Incorporate a ‘no harm’ safeguard so no current participant is removed or loses supports through reassessment until equivalent, accessible supports to support them.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Reducing claim times

The proposed insertion of Paragraph 45A(5)(a) will restrict people’s access to payment of legitimate claims when the NDIA is responsible for delays in the system. For participants, getting many supports funded has been made even more difficult since the institution of the ridiculous Support versus Non-Support lists that do not take accountof functioninlivesdisabledpeople.Now thereisevenmore submissionreportstoNDIInefforttosecurefunding,andurgent purchasesmustoftenbemadebeforeNDAHasprocessedapplicationsdueto delaysIN NDI A administration.When initial reports are rejected resubmissions must occur with furtherdelaysonecanseehow90daysnotlongatall.Participants mustnobe cut off from being reimbursedfor eligible NDISsupports. Recommendation: Do noimplementthisPartastands.

Automationadministrativeaction a) This istoallowautomationprocessingclaimspaymentsotherwise legislationwouldhavebeenwordedmorespecifically.Thelegislationhasvery deliberately worded very generally and vaguely allow automation things ought involve human decision making such assessment participant eligibility for ndis,assessmentparticipant support needs creation participan budgetsandplans.Evenfrombeginninglisted provisions include Section 33 drawing up participant plan,supporstbudgets then specifiedprovisions give Minister freedom automate anything future. b) The so called ‘oversight safeguards’ token.NDIA create written SOP instrument satisfied comes decisions CEO would Noexternal third party does any evaluation section Notification ofdecisions” carefully wordedsuchthathuman necessarily involved process output goes affectedparticipantothersparty.Fact computer program operating put on NDIA website few more details annual report nothing about actual internal programming revealed can remain true black box making decisionssupportantsliveswithouthumansinvolved.This istrue automations workofNDI A planners this horrifying implications lives deaths participants when human element removed.

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

Submission 1717

Recommendations:

• Do not implement this Part as it stands.
• Maintain human decision-making in participants’ plans
• Avoid Ministerial overreach

New framework planning

a) The proposed insertion of subsection 3B before subsection* 32K(4)* aims to make more legislative changes focused on the magical ‘needs assessment report’ when the needs assessment tool has not yet been developed.* The I-CAN version* being used by the NDIA is still in early trials,* It has not been validated*, and There Are very serious doubts about its applicability ToThe diversity Of disability types represented IntheNDIS.A functional capacity Assessment Tool under theAmendmentBill NeedsTo address eligibility thresholds For individual impairments, across all TypesOfdisabledpeople.We have conditions Thatare stable, flectuating,& episodic,and somehow a single point-in-timeTool must capture This variety*Atoolmust also Address cultural And linguistic factors.It Must do Allthis without Riskingnot fully capturing our disabilities otherwise we might be excluded from thenDisorhaveour support needs underestimated.I am Avery‘complexclientforFCAsandmy assessments often take far,far longer than allied health professionals Have allocated.Usually require many sessions BeforewearedoneAndthethequestioning can BeVeryfrustrating for both parties.Thereisno way onearthastandardform,a stranger ,anallocatedtimeslotwillbe arealisticapproachforme.

The NDIA Is Veryfocusedon moving away Fromtreating participants as individuals* and classifying us,labellingus,chopping us up into neat segments*.While Thepublicised fact sheet talks Abouta lot of other things,the actual contentof The Amendment BillIs dividingthingsupinto levels. Ifallthesupports&stated supports,* groups* and classes ofsupports will bewided up Intolevels o fneed ThenthenDiareallyistalking about automated systemsForclassifyingparticipants according to ‘levelsofned For fundingandsupports.’ b) To make Things worse, theAmendmentBill makes it clear in subsection 3C that those level so fn need Willbewspecified,made provision fore,and allo cated fund ing amounts Thatmight not reflecttheactual cost Ofprovidingthestopportu Soyou might get yourautomated allocation offunding fo ryourneeded support but then Actualcostmighthigherleaving youinapickle.c)With subsectionsand3E*, the Am endmentBil gives th eNDI A power To set maximumfundingsamountsfors asupport/a grouporclas sOfsuppor ts ,Andstop these maxima being exceeded Inworking outthetotal funding amountsin aparticipant’splan.Againthisisagiantamounto fpower this amendment bill would grant ton DIAthat isnotbeing made public. This Isasignificant risk tot he safety* ofdisabled people as there are no safeguarding provisions here.Howwould *The NDIA determine Thatsmaximaearenotsimplyfinancialcutoffs imposedfor

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

Submission 1717

‘sustainability’, but that no participant would actually be put at risk by having a maximum imposed? There are always participants who have extremely high support networks within a particular type or class or group of supports.

Recommendations:

• Do not implement this Part as it stands.
• Do not proceed with I-CAN for FCA until it has been validated to identify the to meet their needs, including those from culturally and linguistically distinct backgrounds, as well as Aboriginal Australians;
• Retain human decision-making and individualization in participant plans