Submission 1873
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I am a NDIS participant who has a physical disability. I am a close relative of a NDIS participant who has a physical disability. I am also a close friend of a family with a NDIS participant who has an intellectual and communication disability.
This submission reflects my personal views from the point of view as a NDIS participant who self manages a plan and self directs my own support.
I support the need to make the NDIS sustainable long-term, but I do not support this Bill in its current form. This Bill will impact essential disability supports for participants and has the potential to exclude severely impaired people from the scheme. I have included items that are personally relevant to me and potential consequences to myself and my family, and also general issues that will affect all disabled people. As the consultation time has been so short, I have decided to summarize the problems with the Bill in its current form and provide suggested amendments (highlighted). I have no doubt that the items I list here will be repeated in many other submissions.
The Minister can cut plans with no review (s34A)
The Minister can cap any support for any group of participants (s33(2EA))
This first cut already noted as being social and community participation funding by 50%. These cuts could apply to any support category to any level, to any group of participants in the future without review. No one person should have this much power!
My social and community participation funding (one day per week) is what I need to attend medical and therapy appointments, do my grocery shopping, visit the chemist, and occasionally visit my father. This is the funding that allows me to leave my house. The media presents Social and Community Participation funding as being for discretionary outings. This is not the case. This is the funding that allows participants to work. It is also funding that allows carers to work.
Submission 1873
Amend s34A and s33(2EA) to require mandatory co-design with the Independent Advisory Council (IAC) before any reductions.
If this section cannot be amended, the NDIS Support list must include delivery fees for groceries and medications to be an allowable claim.
The new functional capacity test Section 9B will require all current participants to be reassessed from January 1 2028. Current participants have already proven substantially reduced functional capacity. This was a requirement for access. Participants have also been required to produce evidence of this reduced capacity at every plan reassessment prior to funding allocation. Adult NDIS participants do not lose their disability or impairments over time. I can’t even begin to explain the stress and anxiety the prospect of going through this process again is having on myself and my family members. Current participants should not have to endure the indignity and stress of reproving what the agency has already accepted. One of the core principles of the NDIS is Certainty of Care: Participants and their families are provided the certainty that they will receive lifelong care and support as their needs evolve. Section 9B contradicts this guiding principle.
Exempt current participants from the s9B functional capacity tests and reassessment.
If this section remains unaltered.
Delay the start of the s9B until the assessment tool has been co-designed and fully tested.
Delay the start of s9B until Foundation supports have been fully implemented and tested.
Section 9 ‘appropriate treatment’ S24(5) for determining permanence. I have great fear that this section will have severe consequences for those who acquire their impairments due to medical conditions rather than at birth. Degenerative medical conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Motor Neuron Disease etc that require many years of trialing and changing medications to limit disease progress. My own experience was 18 months to achieve a safe and effective mix of medications, not to improve impairments, only to slow disease progression. That’s an awfully long time to be without appropriate support. Although the Bill addresses this issue, there needs to be some
Submission 1873
mechanism to list these conditions, so there can be no need for interpretation or at least to allow access for early intervention. The Bill does not address how new treatment options will be addressed if these become available. The NDIA nor the Minister should be able to direct or override medical professional intervention or force participants to change their medication regimes or have plans suspended while doing so? I don’t know the answer, but I think this section has the potential to be dangerous.
S25A requires all appropriate treatments to be tried regardless of financial or geographical situation. Seriously? It is astounding that this was even considered let alone put in writing. This will disproportionately impact those on low incomes, First Nations people, remote and regional residents and any number of access barriers related to disability. This will favor the wealthy. Definitions in line with the current Social Security Guide could be used “treatment that is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person at a reasonable cost Explanation: It would not be reasonable to expect a person to undergo prohibitively expensive treatment, or travel long distances to seek treatment, in order to satisfy the qualification criteria.”
Remove s25A.
S25B blocks access if there is a compensation scheme involved. Compensation schemes do not cover all support needs. I believe CTP insurance and Workcover only cover income support, medical expenses, and rehabilitation. The NDIS has never covered these supports. CTP or Workcover do not cover all disability support needs, so where will these supports come from if not the NDIS? I would also hate to think that Veterans may also be captured by this section.
Amend s25B to excluded duplicated supports only rather than access.
S20(2) Changes access decisions from 21 days to 90 days. The agency has managed with the 21 day timeframe to date. I fail to see the purpose of increasing this. This will have no impact on sustainability.
Retain the current 21 day timeframe for access decisions.