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

Submission 1763

Submission for the; The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing

the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Inquiry

Hello committee, this is my first time writing a submission but this is a cause that is important to me and many other Australians. I ask that you please consider my lived- experiences as you review this Bill. My name is Sigh, I am a disabled autistic Australian living on the unceded lands of the Yuggera people. I want to share some of my concerns regarding the proposed Bill. While I understand the importance of long-term sustainability for the NDIS, many of the suggested amendments risk harming the rights of disabled Australians. Instead it seems to prioritise cost-cutting and control, undermining our rights to safety, autonomy and a good quality of life.

In particular, I am worried these changes will disproportionately impact participants with fluctuating or complex disabilities (such as psychosocial, cognitive, intellectual, eurological and neurodevelopmental disabilities.) As someone with a dynamic disability, I ask the committee to reconsider or adjust the proposal and especially to allow more time for Australians to share their opinions about the Bill.

I am concerned with the proposal of creating a standardised framework as a way to measure participants “substantially reduced functional capacity” because it ignores that many disabilities, like autism, are not static or easily tracked through objective assessments. It overlooks the invisible struggles, complicated support needs, and reduces us to nothing more than a score on a form. From my experiences I’ve developed survival-based coping strategies to get by, so I can sometimes mask temporarily. Even if I don’t seem impaired all that masking is an unseen demand that exhausts and drains me. The way the proposal is written doesn’t seem to account for someone’s capacity changing, with factors like support, environment (such as sensory overload), stress/burnout or communication needs directly impacting them.

The criteria around ‘permanence’ and needing to show that ‘all appropriate treatment’ has been taken, creates serious implications for applicants. It can lead to situations where people are pressured to do treatments they don’t want or need, with someone else controlling access to support. This will create delays in access while the applicants pursue ineffective interventions. Disabled people shouldn’t have to exhaust themselves with endless treatment attempts to prove they deserve help. For many disabilities, progress isn’t always clear or guaranteed and for many lifelong conditions, a full recovery is never possible. Disability impacts every area of life in vastly interconnected ways, attempting to separate supports into narrow categories ignores the reality of living with a disability.

Reducing funding for supports in regards to social participation, community access, capacity building and daily living supports, frames these supports as optional luxuries. But that is untrue, these are essential supports to build independence, avoid strain on medical services, and overall participation in society. In my plan, I am now finally able to maintain a continuation of care with my psychologist and occupational therapist and with these supports I have vastly improved my quality of life. I’m now less reliant on my informal supports, limiting carers fatigue and burden of care, which will build more autonomy. I’ve made improvements with my emotional regulation, relationship building and social communication. I’ve learned more about how to modify my environment to alleviate sensory demands and use assistive technology to help my wellbeing. Their involvement in my life

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

Submission 1763

wouldn’t have been possible without the NDIS and I know if these supports are reduced, I will once again experience significant skill regression under autistic burnout.

Amendments in relation to unscheduled plan reassessments, allowing plan suspension or revocation due to unsuccessful contact and limit of roll over allowance, are prioritising giving control over to an unchecked authority. Restricting reassessment will cause many participants to be trapped in unsafe or inadequate plans. Allowing plan suspensions after unsuccessful contact attempts worries me as I am unable to answer phone calls. I struggle with executive function and anxiety, I experience shutdowns and have communication impairments. Any correspondence overwhelms me and I am scared at the thought that a lack of response will be interpreted automatically as disengagement. Multiple communication methods, advocacy requirements, and recognition of communication difficulties must be taken into account. Suspending plans with no knowledge of the welfare of the participant will only leave vulnerable people without support, likely when they are struggling the most.

There’s still so many other thoughts I have about the Amendment Bill, but unfortunately not enough time or energy. Things like concern of automation and limiting meaningful human oversight in our plans. Feeling like participants will be treated like fraud risks for simply accessing support, creating more adversary between NDIA and participants. The amount of unresolved processes and the overall lack of transparency. The government needs to genuinely consult disabled people and advocacy organisations.

Scheme sustainability is valid but it ignores the economic benefit that comes from investing in your disabled citizens. The NDIS employs hundreds of thousands of people and indirectly contributes to the employment of ten thousand more. A conservative multiplier effect of the NDIS is around $2.25 making it a strong economic contributor. Many of these amendments are moving away from participant-centred support and instead prioritise restriction/control and saving money. Australian’s living with a disability should not be forced to bear the burden of government cost-cutting measures.

Respecting our rights for inclusion, dignity and safety must remain safeguarded as the primary focus of the NDIS.

And at the moment, I believe this Bill is severely damaging the original intent of the NDIS.

Thank you.