Submission: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission Number - 1950
Inquiry regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Dear Committee Secretary, Please find below sections/subsections/clauses/bills published explanatory notes I wish comment upon. The government’s bill proposals written blue; my submission comments black: I thank you for your opportunity to provide feedback as part this new NDIS legislation. Hope these will assist committee findings.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1950
out and needs assistance to do so in public places. Will this all be picked up in functionality test carried out solely within an operational testing environment?
Functionality changes occur more significantly among able-bodied individuals when performing complex tasks; these effects become much greater still on those who have disabilities: Fatigue sets early into one’s day while stress accumulates over time upon joints that must work harder than usual compared against what would typically apply toward someone whose body functions normally; This makes it distressing how some activities once easily achievable may now prove challenging if proper aids are unavailable, or if there isn’t full understanding regarding why certain assessments might yield such results rather than simply attributing everything back down through technology usage history alone, which seems fraught with error or misinterpretation at times. If modifications proposed under sections (a) & (b) relate towards a genuine holistic evaluation of individual function relative specifically tied directly onto their respective activity then said alterations should necessitate consideration across varying circumstances surrounding each specific task performed thereby providing accurate insight about person being tested. Proposed new subsection subsection allows NDIS authority to modify functional limits appears designed primarily around aligning budgetary constraints instead focusing appropriately based off actual disability requirements. Part II Limited Plan Unscheduled reassessments. Agreed plan re-assessment requests ought only originate from participants themselves OR authorized representatives thereof.
Item 19 – Subsection (3) Not Agree! Govt proposal: This item amends the period for CEO decision-making concerning participant-initiated reassessment requests extending duration limit from initial twenty-one days up until ninety consecutive calendar days starting immediately after receipt by CEO.
The aforementioned amendment also modifies wording within existing provisions so as clarify that requesters must meet specified conditions prior submitting any formalized application per newly established paragraph (2)(b) End Gov Proposal
Item 19 - Section (3). I suggest triaging process be implemented in order ensure all high-risk and critical needs receive top priority accordingly, based upon necessity criteria. Extending assessment timeframe from original twenty one day window into extended ninetieth-day span is entirely unacceptable especially considering potential risks associated with such delays which could leave individuals without necessary support due changes occurring their care environment. For instance, a participant has lived throughout life alongside parents or relatives who naturally serve primary caregivers role; such situation arises where said carer’s incapacity resulting either through aging health issues even death leaves individual lacking adequate caregiver presence altogether. This can occur unexpectedly leading to catastrophic consequences on behalf of affected person(s). NDIS viewed widely amongst community members primarily providing funding specifically aimed at covering not just current but future healthcare requirements.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1950
but in reserve so that care can be given if the primary carer is no longer there. This is what keeps parent/relative Carers awake at night worrying about their child’s future, whether they are adult or younger after they go. I note from section 48 which states: Plan changes due to emergency situations will not change but does provide an outline as regards reasonable wait times under these circumstances; as per legislation participants contacting NDIC regarding such matters would need assistance up until up-to- days absolutely shocking and unbelievable*. To legislate extraordinary long response time periods in program dealing most vulnerable often fragile human beings incredible; original reassessment period was too slow for such situation inhumane. It noted case where CEO did inform participant application declined just taken no advice meant decline? How any suitable system designed help people with disability many of our society? it realized some requests differing importance included triage system should be introduced could give different assessment based urgency participant’s situation. e.g., loss through ill health/death should legislated immediate response hot line linked authorised decision makers must act! The NDIS this instance able assist gain provider funding same situation also. The need new extended homecare funding transfer accommodation priority scheme cannot longer assist short term permanently? participants asking urgent re-assessments unforeseen loss carer e.g.: upcoming planned hospital admission other important changed circumstance maximum one week depending on the specific circumstances another example mechanical breakdown wheelchair needs repair/replacement means that a participant is unable leave home quickly given especially if their approved plan had funds cover this currently approvals appear have no urgency even though disabled may totally immobile cope without aid?. remaining assessed sliding risk basis max 90 days request extra funds continue nonurgent activities already contained within participants’ plans.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1950
Even so 90 days in an insurance scheme for people who need support to live their lives seems exceptional and seems to meet a cost or staffing need instead of a humane one in the way it is written.
Item 20 – Subsection 48(4)
In this item, the CEO can give notice that a participant will be given a new framework plan as per your notes; In addition several other key changes will be implemented through design development legislative instruments including NDIS rules facilitate mandatory registration providers deliver high risk supports circumstances determining whether individual has undertaken all appropriate treatment purposes determine impairment permanent likely permanent Consultation occur process developing making these instruments End Govt Proposal With registration there ability self-managing participant employ person they trust capable carer lower costs larger provider ABN’s insurance certification screening auditing although zero actual estimate range $3000$-$10k Internet search So prohibitive employed such manner participant Thus leaving large corporate bodies supply carers Is simpler registration with lower attached allow other types suit better still approved by NDIs? Govt proposal ;Item adds three new paragraphs subsection The amendments provide where relevant respect role family carers persons significant life participants recognize relationship between participants families carers communities respond goals needs Purpose incorporate overarching principles section Act into This reflects move away from having only apply plans
Proposed new subsection provides considerations performance CEO functions exercise powers include following: fund supports for participants meet disability support needs arising directly impairments which participants meet requirements early intervention reflect expands application of
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
Submission: [NDIS Amendement Bill] - Securing Future Generations
The amendments made by Part 8 of this Schedule emphasize supporting communities’ ability to respond effectively towards goals set forth in Section 27.
It’s important not just to replace ordinary community services, which play critical roles; strong local networks help individuals achieve their objectives sustainably while fostering inclusivity within society as well! Participants often thrive more so if informal assistance from families, friends or clubs are integrated alongside formal schemes like these ones mentioned above! The financial sustainability is achieved through providing necessary & effective supports at lowest possible cost whilst ensuring safety & appropriateness thereof, as per reports submitted under Chapter 6 Subsection (Part) in accordance with Actuarial findings outlined therein. End Govt Proposal
Government Proposals Continue:
Family etc., support Proposed new subsections (1G), and (H) alongwith (J). guidance provided to CEO regarding whether given support meets requirements laid down in para(34)(e) such that funding for such provision must consider what reasonable expectations should be placed upon family members, carers, informants network and the broader public domain. Under this option, definition around ‘reasonable necessity’ is tightened further including allowing Minister discretion over reducing funds allocated across multiple categories; determining maximum amounts spent on specific types of aid/services offered by workers/individuals relative participants involved thereon. an enhanced assessment process involving identification & consideration towards lower-cost alternatives available coupled lengthier duration wherein participant might require said service(s). Also requires evidence proving effectiveness/benefit derived directly from intervention applied thereto. elevating guidance related specifically about reasonableness/necessity into primary legislation concerning value-for-money considerations; requiring families’ perspectives too while considering informal assistance rendered especially children’s needs! clearly stating only those impairments meeting eligibility criteria will warrant financial backing, as per current rules governing NDIS scheme implementation. The proposed changes may increase reliance on informal supports which could have repercussions impacting both immediate kinship ties as well younger generations alike! This also impacts role played within Australia’s informal care system underpinning its very fabric itself. These clauses recognize respect shown toward relationships with a participant’s family/caregivers etc., presented in sections (1A), 34(2b) alongside (C). suggest commodifying these connections solely for cost-saving purposes rather than recognizing their inherent worthiness? inclusion of such factors should be considered when formulating funding plans for each individual participant. End Govt Proposal
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
Submission: Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026 Submission 1950
is one the most blatant misunderstanding of the relationship between a participant and t heirfamilyandothers.The lifelong care givenbyamajorityofparentstoaparticipant needs torelievedbyschemenotlenton.Not askingformoreassistancefromthem. The Government has saved millions just fora single person over alifetimefoparticipants that gaincare fromtheir familycomparedtoa persongiftheyhadbeeninformalcare.Manywellintotheirmatureadultlife. Your bill states thathaving regardtoreportthelschemes actuarythenthesecosts mustbe providedatthelowest costbyinferringincreaseduseofi nformalsupportssuchasatheparticipant’s fami ly.This totally shows adisdainforthoriginal purposeofofscheme.Tosay thatadisabledperson shouldhave funding set,reducedormodelledaroundtfhe familyor othersfillingin isnotattached totherealityofteserelationshipsthatalreadyoccur.Where in fact tfhesbillshould beprovidingsuppor tforan independent lifeoff choiceando fgoals ofa participantands howsan attitude or arrogance ora lack off understanding towards tt he tremendous amount oft support alreadygiven by amajorty офamilies anothers. The NDIS originally informed family carers and the like that it would relieve themorgive t hem somereleioffsomeof their long ongoingresponsibilitiesallowingt hemandcarertobeabletot focuson some of their own goals, interestsand even travel.Respite was always talked about but now anythingabout tehparticpant carer relationship has been lost anda nythingtheseschemetallows fortehsanityandyphysiological needs of a caring relationshipshasbeenlost.Many carersare seniorsomeseveninthreightiesorelder.The participants theyaresupp orting areoftenintf40’s50’sor60’evenbuttheschemesee no reasonto alleviate thethoughts ofcarers intthe quietlate atnight oftenastheylayinbedbywhat happenswhen Iamno longer here!Theparticipants havethe samethoughtsa m sure. Nowthecommunity participationthat allowsa partici panttosocialiseisbeing slowly defunded an dhaving strictures put in place.If lookingat $200 millionfor creationo fcommunity-based schemes fors omet sortoff“ communitybased activitiesor otherford efabled”.T he Community participati on allowsthe disabledpersontosocializeasagroupwiththeir peers with assistance fo ractivities oreventstheywish to go too astheywouldif the ywere notdisabled.( The pointofthenDISIn firstplace.) T h ecommunitycnnecti ont hat participantsareabletousealsoprovidesashortperiodoftespitefort hemselfsand their carers. MoneywellspentI would say iflookedatincontext.E speciallyifyouarereally as statedinhisislegislationyou wish tore specttftehfamily, carer sand othersasyousay.Adult participantsandfamilies areentitled t ohaveseparateliveswhetherliving together ornot andtheschememustcontinuetorecognizet his reality.Youhave said that when relatingto a participant beingfunctionally testedtot enterorstayingon the scheme th attheir personalan de xternal factors will now be n ot takeninto account.But whendeciding funding fora partici pantthat isexactly whatthesescheme wishes todoing regradsto familypeers an dcommunity theyaret actuallytheparticipantsexternalfac tors!
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1950
Govt Proposal; Proposed new subsections 34(1A), (1B) and (1C)
Proposed new subsections provide guidance to the CEO considering whether a support meets requirements, ensuring it represents value-for-money relative costs. The sections do not limit matters considered under paragraph End Govt Proposal. These sub-sections require more holistic approach regarding what’s reasonable, necessary & valuable: supporting choices, independence with daily tasks, attending appointments, or participating socially important to each individual in scheme. NDIS was based on Participant choice allowing partial/full respite while supporting life goals. It aims at giving control over lives setting independent interests like non-disabled people have freedom to pursue. I note reasonableness can vary per participant of different needs within this system.
Govt proposal: A $200m Inclusive Communities Fund will also be established…
Australian Government invests $200 million into an inclusive communities fund rebuilding capability among community organisations providing genuine opportunities for inclusion and connection for participants encouraging participation through funded group activities.[End Govt Proposal] Investment encourages community groups/clubs having facilities/events including disabled individuals successfully if not minority automatically sets them apart from general population requiring assistance by many support workers still needed as low-cost option funding may not best starting point supplying genuinely wanted accepted meeting their needs.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1950
Final Comment
After reading the 224 pages of the bill it appears to me to set out a new regime where the Minister and CEO can now just deem that the rates paid or the plan funds can be reduced to to meet budgetary need it seems. With it appears little regard on the actual effect on the participant nor provider.The ability to ever change the reasonable,necessaryand cost- effective ruling of approved supports makes gaining supportsfor aparticipantsplan no longerbasedon theneedof somethingbeing necessaryfordisabledperson.ButtheCEO insteadcan rule anythingnotcost effectiveleavingtheparticipantwithout therequiredsupport.Thereministercannowalsorulethatplancostscanbecutby percentages withoutregardto any real reference tot he ongoing needs this may affect participantbyparticipant? So, participants oft his scheme now appear th at they will never know thats upport oreven ifaproviderwillbeavailable long term anda not abletoplant heir lives basedona nyongoing approval in future plans even fore base supportneeds. This is notasuitable arrangementandskewsthe purposeoft h escheme awayfromthedisabledp articipants tow hatappearstosometypeoff benevolence handedout yearly baseda uponbudgetaryneed.