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

Submission 1819

I am the mother of an NDIS Participant. My young person has Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 3 and Severe Intellectual Impairment. I do not support most aspects of this Bill; I don’t believe it’s been presented clearly enough; it definitely hasn’t provided sufficient time for responses, specifically addressing these areas:

• Giving Minister power without transparency or appeal: The system lacks clarity on funding levels determination which moves towards impersonal algorithms making appeals often necessary but traumatic processes with no guarantee against drastic cuts in specific categories due to perceived cost increases.

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

Submission 1819

sounds an awful lot like having your cake and eating it too. If people have to prove so much to access the system, then they shouldn’t need to be reassessed, as their condition should't (not change). But if regular re-assessments are commenced then it shouldn’t be problem admit people whose conditions don’t meet unreasonably strict criteria because may remain on scheme if their condition improves. Plan suspension after “reasonable attempts” contact Plan Suspension is very serious matter what poorly quantified reason I had multiple occasions past where unable answer calls all day seminars medical therapy appointments etc one occasion cancelled appointment assured that been cancelled later found out written up was no show would see reasonable attempts quantify made via every channel participant provided thorough documentation attempted spread over defined period time less than three months Changing language focus primarily financial sustainability rather individualised, choice-ledparticipant directed completely contrary original focus frames with disability burdens needs only reasonable necessary when cost does not exceed The Scheme remains financially sustainable but cost must considered alongside choice control participation direction; not in lieu of them. Without Participants ability state preferences those actively considered decision-making process whole Scheme risk devolving paternalism Language important especially legislated removing Participant-focused replacing financially focused essentially strips participants Choice Control I ask Committee reject this Bill until issues listed above discussed lived experience Disability amended according advice NDIS Participants also support being financially Sustainable at Cost Quality Life or choice and control how use supports Many thanks for reading considering my submission.