Submission to the Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIs for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission\x971729

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

Submission 1729

Before gaining NDIS access, I had for decades been unable to access sufficient mental health support from the mainstream health sector, or adequate psychosocial supports. Because of this, I could not engage with these mainstream/community supports due to inadequate and inappropriate nature, which was near impossible given my social impairments.

When discussing Government plans regarding tightening NDLSI access specifically targeting those suffering psycoshical disability, I shudder knowing how lacking such supports are already among people needing them most urgently; therefore urging immediate building foundational psychosocial supports before expelling current ndis users in need thereof into existing system’s inadequacies;

Since accessing ndis has allowed me better manage physical &mental health& home responsibilities,& increased employment hours up-to-8hours/week depending capacity reduced GP visits frequency fortnightly monthly., reading proposed legislation causes extreme distress rendering incapable keeping myself safe performing basic activities at home thus hospitalised first since using nDis for psychosocial needs under government rhetoric crisis falls solely on main stream mental health responsibility rather than inquiry changes however if passed as is will result loss significant percentages budget regardless actual level of need warning sign other like me facing similar fate should be recognised;

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 1729

• as a potential avenue of future support for my family members who are not currently accessing the NDIS but may one day need it due to chronic health issues;
• and for all Australians.

Concerns regarding proposed NDIS access changes

Access criteria: Functional capacity

Q: How will this legislation account for disabilities with fluctuating functional capacities or impairments across many life activities? ◦ I live with psychosocial disability and neurodevelopmental disorders. The impacts on daily functioning can be dramatic; unclear how NDIS assesses people like me, especially those whose impairment profiles aren’t confined within single domains (mobility etc.). ◦ Current rules preclude significant impairments from being ‘flattened’ profiled rather than limited per domain. This perpetuates discriminatory treatment against such individuals unless they meet severe thresholds under at least key activity areas—unfairly limiting their ability despite comprehensive needs spanning multiple aspects! - For example: an individual might have moderate/severe multi-domain limitations severely impacting functionality yet fail eligibility if lacking in just ONE area! Unrealistic & fragmented view ignores holistic personhood requiring respect beyond six-life-domains.

Q: Proposed changes aim to test ‘functional capacity’ without assistance, excluding environmental/personal circumstances—a massive retreat globally recognized social rights-based definitions of disability. No-one exists independently outside environment/conditions affecting every action performed by disabled/non-disabled alike.

Permanence concerns

Strong objection towards new wording about permanency of disability and requirements that a person has undergone all “appropriate treatments.”

1. When applying for NDIS access due my psychosocial condition I was required extensive evidence including 20+ psychiatric medications over two decades treating diagnoses. But reassessment criteria excludes this vital history crucial for accurate support assessment.

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

Submission 1729

future (as the proposed Bill suggests I will be), will that lengthy and comprehensive history be deemed sufficient? It is possible that the NDIS will turn around and say that for one of to me. is so distressing to me.Surely it is my clinicians(psychiatrists,GP,pyschologists, could reassess me as being ineligible.This is best equipped tocommunity mental health team who assesses the permanency of my impairments and appropriateness make these sorts decisions about an individual should not beof treatments trialled.These sorts of decisions about a distant bureaucrats in Technical Advisory Boards. Under what happens if an individual like myself has very goodproposed legislation, reasons for not consenting treatment/s their condition(s)that NDIsSs deemed requirements meeting permancy requirement? For example have considered to be “treatment-resistant depression”, which failed response over dozen anti-depressants alone or combination with mood-stabilisers other psychoactive medicationsand ECT.Electroconvulsive Therapy never been suggested by any treating psychiatrists they deems appropriate proportionate ifthey did would consent because potential life-long adverse effects including memory impairment.But this Bill passed and apparatus decides ECT evidence-based’for Persistent Depressive Disorder reliably expected improve person’scondition regularly offered Australia refusal consent invasive medical treatment could render no longer eligible access NDIS. This abhorrent breach human rights effectively coercing forcing undergo against will without meaningful consent doing demands I left unable The intends remove consideration applying test permanent assessment whether person exhausted all unjust.In proposed changes there appreciation difficult (if impossible it many people are required among others particularly remote rural areas First Nations People/Indigenous Australians Culturally Linguistically Diverse backgrounds low-socioeconomic status Individuals face barriers accessing treatment economic geographic linguistic cultural It is our fault when effective conditions accessible us should punished failings Government service providers make treatments accessible all yet part of the Bill does condemn lives misery we able access disability supports assist ordinary despite enduring significant functional impairments Little wonder then as details made public disability myself friends included begun contemplating pathways Voluntary Assisted dying Given paucity other disabilities

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

Submission 1729

and inadequacies of mainstream supports in Australia, if we are reassessed and deemed ineligible for NDIS supports, choosing death seems both reasonable and necessary. 4. What will this Bill mean for people with neurodevelopmental disorders, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, which are scientifically considered to be lifelong in nature, rather than medical conditions which can be treated? - I appreciate children diagnosed early might benefit; however others who received diagnoses later may have their traits baked-in now: Is treatment demanded before recognition?

• I am concerned there’s no consideration given on complex interactions when living w/ co-morbidities changing impairments or treatments suitability:
  • Many live wit multiple disabling conditons where isolated evidence-based treatments aren’t always suitable due to significant functional impacts from other condtions causing impairment suffocation is a danger under blanket rules imposed upon everyone.

Planning and removal of ‘Whole Person’ approach

to the Bill I strongly oppose changes that remove “the Whole Person” approach recognized by current legislation & application. The proposal only funds NDIS support directly arising fr qualifying impairment.

• This deeply troubles me as it mismatches my lived reality as person wi disability. Psychosocial disabilities affect every moment aspect life. Impairments associated impact access any kind suppo regardless if NDIS or otherwise, 2 From reading Legislation unclear who makes decisions. Will NDIA planners decide if needs arise dirctly from qualifing impariment? Future NDIS Rules/Guidelines/Operating Procedures delineate between direct indirct need based qualifyng impairment. Treating clinicians/allied health professionals best make these determinations linked conditions for which they gained access to ndis should not be Government decision written into Legislation like this.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill

Submission: Submission-1729

Request for Government Action:

I ask the Government to drop amendments to section s4 (aa) regarding NDIS participant rights.

Loss of Principles Relating To Plans (ss) - Opposed Changes:

The proposed changes will have detrimental effects if passed; eroding NDIsS participant’s rights, choices & control over their individualized support plan designations directed solely at them; as well as underpinning their right to exercise control over his or her own life with inclusion and participation within community goals. These principles should remain intact per current legislation.

Objecting Section 34A

of The Proposed Legislation: This part of bill enables ministerial power without merit review, which I firmly oppose due its potential abuse leading significant harm on participants’ health, welfare & civil liberties. It is imperative this be removed from final draft.

Specific Concerns Regarding Reduction Of Support Determination And Expansion Of Ministerial Power:

• Section a: This would allow ministers to cut plans via instrument without merit reviews.
  • If consolidated in a single Health Department leader’s hands, it could lead similar US Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s actions causing great damage.
    • Call upon government for removal!
  • Such powers are an egregious misuse that must not pass into law.
• Section (b): Enshrining section 34 A allows the reduction funding by percentage category. The proposed legislation lacks clarity about how these reductions will impact participants.
• Section (c): Minster’s intention to reduce all participant Capacity Building Funding by ten percent arbitrarily disregards actual needs; already many limitations exist regarding allocation and usage of such funds. Please do NOT make our lives more difficult with further cuts!

Strongly Opposed To Further Cuts:

I strongly object against any future planned cuts including Social Community Participation beginning October ’26.

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

Submission 1729

Submission Content

Section A - General Observations on Government Spending Concerns:

Representatives from the Government lamented growth in NDIS spending related to Social and Community Participation Supports over recent years. The government has cited examples such as taking an individual out to coffee shops or movies being wasteful expenditures according to interviews and press statements given during these discussions, as well as commercial media highlighting similar simplistic claims regarding unnecessary expenses like haircuts under this funding category. In most governmental/media debates surrounding changes proposed within legislation allowing reduction percentages via ministerial discretion without recognizing how many individuals utilize their allocated funds nor acknowledging current bureaucratic constraints necessitating such uses.

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

Submission 1729

“Social and Community Participation” funding to attend vital health treatments or should they visit Foodbank?

Experience as an NDIS participant:

The author shares their personal experiences regarding Social and Community Participation Funding.

Lack of Flexibility within Plans:

NDIS plans do not provide sufficient Core Activities of Daily Living funds; instead, social participation is used flexibly on additional ADL supports due to insufficient core activity support needs, such as transport services during medical appointments because impairments prevent safe self-access without assistance; a few instances where social participation was utilized appropriately over a two-year period include recreational activities supported through a worker’s presence when attending otherwise inaccessible events due psychosocial disability impairment.

Criticism from Government Officials:

There seems to be mockery among government officials berating wasteful expenditure related to outings like cafes or movies but simultaneously acknowledging that if someone requires NDLS support in these areas it’s justified given disabilities preventing unaided access necessitating this form of support.

Automation in NDIS processes

The request: The bill must halt proposals introducing automation into producing “NDIS” until the government clearly communicates what information will underpin automated planning systems. This includes concerns about lack transparency around how data would inform decisions for funding allocations, whether tools are suitable across all types of disabilities including Indigenous & CALD backgrounds, appropriateness usage by non-allied health professionals etc., and participant rights regarding submitting evidence from treating professionals/support people demonstrating their specific requirements.

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

Submission 1729

Integrated Assessment Tool in Aged Care is that the involvement of a human in the otherwise automated process is limited to inputting data and pressing a button to approve the plan that the tool spits out. This is not real human involvement. There is no humanity in this. If human staff members are given no power to question or override what the automated system spits out, they may as well not be there at all.

Registration of Providers In theory, requiring registration of NDIS providers is something that I support,

as it could be protective of participants and enable greater scrutiny to prevent exploitative or fraudulent actors abusing the NDISsystem.Howeverytheregistrationprocessmustbe proportionateandnotso burdensome(financially,bureaucratically) as todiscourage smallerprovidersandsoletradersfrom registeringprovidingNDISsupports.

• From my own personal experience accessingmyown NDIs supports,andtheadcountsthatIhaveheard fromotherNDisparticipantswho Isupport,itisoftenthelargerdisability agenciesengaginginunethicalpractices.Inthoseagenciesindividuallstaff sometimes have KPIswhichmeantheyare incentivisedtobillfor“busywork”ortasksthat thenparticipanttheselvesnever requested.Biggeragencyscan bemuchmoredifficultto communicatewithwhenyouispersonliving withpsychosocial disability,intelectual disabilitiyorneurodevelopmental disorders.WenDlSparticipants should havetherighttosupporthous,theGovernmenthasarole inprotectingthatrightbynotinposingoneroussregistration requirements.2.Iwouldliketoseethe Government work peopledisable to co-design ther egistrationrequirements andcollaborativelylookatwhetherthen DISbillingstructure maximumratesforservicemight berevisedbetteraccountfordifferenttypesof support providersdifferent qualifications and different registration requirem ents.For all that Isupport (andrelyupon) the existence of independent disablenessuppor tworkers, it does trouble me see advertisements by workers minimal experienc eore qualific ations demandingmaximumpay rates for their NDISsupp ortw ork.There seemsto be anattitudemonesome workingsector ifsystemallowsit theyshould do. I asktheGover nment please works collaborativel ypeopledisabilityco-des ign changes providerregist ration system.

Proposed reforms Support Coordination

I object proposal put forward Explanatory Memorandum accompanies this Bill reformSupportCoordination.Opposes Options 34 which would seegovernment “commissioningsupport coordination services” The nature my psychosocial disability such find extremely difficult trust others am frequently unable communicate socially expected ways Would not have capability engage with any NDIs supportsallifnotforthesupporthemyNDISSuppo rtCoordinator Theywork small company very experienced supporting peopl espsychosocial impairments neurodevelopmental profiles like mine If Government proceedswithOptionsor4 Sup portCoordinations agencieslikethatsupportsme will likely cease exist These

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

Submission 1729

smaller companies or individual providers will not be able to compete with bigger businesses when the Government is commissioning support coordination services. This would be a tragic loss as it would cause harm to participants like myself, who have profound social and relational impairments.

This legislation unfairly makes people with disability bear the costs of the Government’s\neconomic choices

There are some points that Government representatives have made in the press or that are touched upon \nin the Explanatory Memorandum for this proposed Bill which to some extent I agree with. Namely:

• The NDIS does need to be sustainable and protected for current and future generations of Australians.* It would be a tragedy if the ndis was abandoned entirely.`*

Fraud within the ‘ndis’ system does need to be prevented from occurring and penalisedwhen it does occurin acriminal nature`

There isto improve efficiencieswithinthe nds administrative sys tem itself `

Therestfor greater consistencyand transparencyinhow accessplanning decisionsaremade`.

The NDIS shouldnot (inpacticeor perception)be themetaphorical“only lifeboatinthesea”fop eoplewithdisability,and thereisthurgentneedforgovernmentinvestmentina comprehensivearrayofdisableysupportprogramsoutsideonheNDSI .But insayingthatit is my beliefthata lot has been misrepresented, lost, obfuscatedorminismedingovernmentrepresentatives’discussionsof thproposedBill ,an din t he proposaledlegislationitself. Namely:1.ThePrimeMinisterandothers in then Governmenthave justifiedthis propesedBil on\nbasis thatthesociallicenceforthedisiss underthreatandsocuts arenecessaryto preserveexistenceofthenDIsWhatthey leaveoutisthat governmentitselfhasavery fundamentalroleinsgrantingsocial licence.2.WhenNDISrepeatedlyframedbygovernmentasbeingabudgetaryburdenn the nation, andasystemthatis riddled with fraud and wasteful expenditure,theGovernmentiseitseroding sociallicencethenDis TheGovermentishaping public opinion, an ddoingsoinawaythat encouragesthe generalpublictoviewthe NDs Withhostilityandcontempt.3.If Gove mentwas trulyconcernedconsolidatingsocial licenced of ndis wouldbe activelypromoting to publ icvery real benefitsndis offered individual participants their families friends communities Itwould concentrate improved rates employment NDIS enabledparticipantsThe Gover nmentbalance focus budgetary expenseNDS equal greaterfocus economicbenefits offers Australia wholeaddingmoneybackinto economy through creationemploymentimproved health other outcomes NDI Sparticipant s.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission: [1729]

Submission Content:

Section A - Sustainability Framework

The sustainability framework outlined within legislation focuses solely on expenditure extraction (­.e., dollar amounts allocated towards NDIS spending), without considering broader economic impacts or other budgetary elements. The government could explore more holistic approaches in funding areas such as health systems, age care services etc if it were committed to revenue reform measures like increasing taxes on mining/resource extraction/gas exports; imposing higher personal tax rates; or eliminating grandfathering clauses under capital gains/ negative gearing laws. However, these proposals lack adequate consideration of how drastic cuts might affect public expenditures elsewhere.

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

Submission 1729

• This legislation will leave millions of people with disabilities falling through gaps, left without any means to receive necessary assistance.

Closing

The NDIS must continue both currently and moving forward. -I am against this bill; please stop it from progressing.