National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs date: 28/05/2026*

I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for future generations*) bill.

I am a disability worker supporting seven years experience within provider organisations as well as independently. My work primarily takes place community supports participants access their communities navigate barriers build relationships pursue employment volunteer opportunities exercise choice control over lives.

Support efforts address fraud poor practice and long-term sustainability NDLS however stands this amendment bill risk causing substantial harm people meant serve will outline several key amendments require further scrutiny before it proceeds. The stated objective of the bill is protect futures NDLS many proposed amendments appear achieve tighten eligibility narrow assessments increase reliance unpaid supports impose limitations participant choice instead changes do not directly address causes fraud exploitation or poor practices shift responsibility onto people disabilities families carers frontline support networks already under significant pressure in particular oppose amendments that:

• introduce functional capacity assessment tool risks creating incomplete picture how disability experienced everyday life;
• require needs arise

• tighten the definition of “permanence” and require participants to pursue all available
• treatment options regardless of affordability or location;
• grant ministerial powers to make broad funding reductions across categories of supports; increase reliance on family and informal supports;and progress major reformsbeforeassessmentframeworkshavebeenmeaningfully codedesignedwithpeoplewithdisabilities.

Irecommendthatthecommitteeopposetheseamendmentsandenasurethatanyfuturereformspreserveparticipantchoicecontrolmaintainawholepersonunderstandingofdisabilityrecognisetheroleofofenvironmentalandsocialbarriers,andaredvelopedingenuinepartnership with people with disabilities. ThecentralconcernofmysubmissionisthattheBillmovesawayfromwhole-of-personconsiderationandleasesincreasingresponsibilityonparticipants,families,careersandsupportnetworks.Disabilitynotoccurredinisolatonsupporthneedsareshapednotonlybyimpairmentbutbytheinteractionbetweenaperson,their environment,theirrelationships,anethebarrierstheyencounterineverydaylife.Manyproposed amendmentsfailto recognizethereality.

Moving Away from a Whole-Person Approach of Disability

One of my largest concerns about this Bill is that several amendments collectively move away from a whole-person understanding of disability. I am concerned that the introduction of disabledness, the emphasis on support needs arising “directly” from impairment, together risk narrowing how disabledness will be understood.

Functional Capacity

The issue: The proposed definition introduces significant shift into assessing disabledness. It focuses what person can do without assistance other people or modifications, requires assessments conducted without reference environment and personal conditions (Schedule Part). How participants are affected: Ppl w/ intel & cognitiv disabilitie disproportionately impacted by amendment. I have supported ppl who hold conversations answer questions present though fully comprehend info provided them when reality they confused overwhelmed agree without understand simply attempt navigate situation they don’t grasp Presentation not same comprehension This already creates challenges within current system. Professionals make assumptions participant’s understanding capacity independence based presentation during assessment appointment Yet once professionals leave often becomes clear participant did full understand information expectations placed upon implications decisions being made In some cases assumption competence resulted in underestimated support needs Participant appears capable short assessment but reality experienced families carers workers very different Recommendation: Oppose proposal def functional capacity exclusion environmental per circumstancs assess Do proceed with ICAN as func cap assmnt tool unless demonstrably validated identify all people disabilities including those intellectual cognitive impairments episodic fluctuating disabilities.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1858

• Support Needs Arising “Directly” from Impairment
  • Issue: Repeated emphasis throughout the Bill on support needs arising “directly” from impairment. Schedule Part Schedule 3). How this affects participants: Supports advocating access community safely under this amendment many arise because interaction between impairment inaccessible environment. For example previously supported autistic non-speaking participant asked leave otherwise empty lap lane public pool swimming stroke barrier situation was lack understanding about disability environment prepared accommodate different ways participating much involves advocacy, education helping navigate environments designed mind These cannot be neatly separated social environmental context which occurs Recommendation Oppose amendments requiring support needs to arise directly’from impairment.
  • Multiple Impairments The issue: May prevent multiple impairments being considered together when assessing supports will funded if meets eligibility threshold scheme In practice disabilities rarely operate independently another impact often shaped presence other Autism may interact with anxiety intellectual compounding communication barriers physical challenges mental health people I have do not experience their conditions as separate whole person Assessing in isolation creates incomplete picture of support moves away strengths NDLS.

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

Submission 1858

Recommendations:

Oppose provisions preventing multiple impairments from being considered together when assessing support needs and eligibility. Require support planning that considers participants holistically.

Permanence and the Requirement to Exhaust Available Treatments

The issue:

The proposed definition of permanence requires a person with disability to exhaust all available treatment options, enregardless of affordability or geographic location,beforebeing eligiblefortheScheme(SchedulePart).

How this affects participants:

This setsan unrealistic threshold forencognisingdisability.Access totreatment is shapedbycostlocationwaitingliststransport specialistavailabilityfamilycircumstancesandaperson’scapacitytoengagewithtreatmment.Thesefactorsarepartofhowdisabilitis experiencedineverydaylifeandsannotsimplybeignored.

Thisthewdefinitionstatesthat animpairmentwillonly beconsidered permanentif further treatmentisinunlikelytomateriallyimprove,reverseoralleviate theeffectsofthetreatment.Theinclusionofofword“ alleviate “isperticularlyconcerning.Many treatmentsdonot reverse adisability.Theymay reducelpain improvecomfort increaseconfidenceormakedaily life moremanageable. Theseoutcomesshouldbecelebratednotusedtosuggesttha apersonsdisableissomewhatless significantorthattheirneed forsupporthasdiminished . Morebroadly,Iquestionwhethera personsentitlementtosupportshoulddependon whether atreatmentcan temporallyreduce some impacts oft heir disablety.Disability isnotsuspended because someoneexperiencesperiodsofinprovedfunctioning.Theunderlying support needs oftenremain. Tightening the definition of permanence does not remove disability.Itdoes notherequirementsupportheads It simply makes suppot harder to access.

Recommendation:

oppose amendments toredefinitionpermanencethatarequiere participants toehaust allavailableoptionstomateria lly improvereseverealeliateithe impactofan impairment.Requiresafeguardings measuresaroundparticipant harmdue toside effects or complications,a participant’sfinancial abilitytopayortheirgeographic capacityto accesstreatmment.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1858

Ministerial Powers to Reduce Categories of Support

The issue:

• The Minister can reduce funding for any support or group of supports by a specific percentage through an instrument that cannot be challenged.
  • This applies across all budget categories, Unspent funds will no longer carry over at plan renewal.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1858

How this affects participants:

Participants may face greater barriers to accessing supports, while families are expected to absorb responsibilities that would previously have been recognised as disability-related support needs. These amendments risk shifting additional responsibility onto families who are already operating beyond sustainable limits. reducing supports does not remove the need for support.It simply transfers that responsibility elsewhere. Working alongside people with disabilities and their families,Ihave witnessed extraordinary levels of unpaid care ,advocacy,coordination,supervision,e… tion management,and administrative work.Many carers haveshapedtheir entire lives around supportinga loved one.Somethat they do not become stronger.They burn out.The supporthe questionis whether familiestheir physical health mentalhealth relationshipsand financialsecurity .Thequestionisthethertheyhave anythingleft togive.When familieare pushedbeyond theirlimitsconsequences often more severecostlymore difficultaddress.Recommendation: Opposeamendmentsthat increase reliance onunpaid familyinformalsupp…

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

Submission 1858

Recommendation: Delay implementation of new assessment, eligibility, and planning frameworks until they have been meaningfully co-designed with people with disabilities, families,

carers, advocates, and frontline workers. Conclusion I support efforts to strengthen the long-term sustainability of the NDIS and address fraud, extortionation, exploitation, poor practice within the scheme However do not believe amendment proposed bill as stands achieve those objectives adequately protect peoples ndis created serve Throughout my experience disability worker consistently seen greatest barriers faced persons impairments They barrier inaccessible systems community attitudes inadequate support lack genuine inclusion Many amendmets propose in risk placing increasing responsibility person family carer front line while doing little broader barriers The people already everything their families also already everything Their carers networks already everything Sustainability does look creating additional barriers meet needs before people reach crisis point recognising burnout before collapse under weight responsibility building communities genuinely equipped include people reforms should be developed genuine partnership weaken principles choice control individualised continuity relationships community that sit heart scheme urge Committee oppose amendments throughout submission ensure future guided lived experiences rely ndis every day.