Submission 1954

Submission: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for future generations) Bill 2026

Name:

Introduction: My Background

I am a person who has had a life-long disability caused by contracting polio as an eleven month old infant. The onset of the disease left me with a loss of 80% muscle capacity and has had a dramatic impact on my life since childhood.

Over the last few decades I have experienced PPS (post-polio syndrome) with further reduction in physical capacity, and as this condition is degenerative, my future independence and quality of life are severely threatened.

Currently, I am a self managed NDIS participant and since I joined the Scheme in 2018, have had the level of support that I have needed for a long time prior. The support has been life-changing, I have been able to increase my activities at home safely and the NDIS supports have also helped me to access the community, work, therapies light recreation and attend medical treatments or hospital stays.

My Main NDIS Goals:

• I want support to manage my safety, independene and self-care tasks such as showering, dressing, grooming and toileting
• I want to maintain my physical capacity in my home environment, in the community and in my work

The Proposed NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

I have grave concerns about this Bill overall as it seems pitched to withdraw supports for many people with disabilities and remove the guardrails around self determination, choice and control.

The following address my concerns:

• Loss or Reduction of Supports Reduction of supports will be the cause of extreme hardship for people like myself who rely on support for the very basics of daily living – self care, preparation of meals, domestic support
• Community Access and Participation1 Support for participation in the community is not simply a matter of joining in recreational persuits. In my case it is also:
  • vital life-sustaining connections to medical practitioners
  • support for trips to and from hospital stays
  • accessing buildings and events related to work activities

Submission 1954

4. accessing allied health premises for therapies

5. accessing commercial premises for basic shopping

Support for these fundamental activities is essential and without it we would be threatened with health complications and unable to sustain basic needs in health, work and general well-being.

Also it would be harsh and damaging to remove Community Participation for recreational or social activities for people with disabilities, many of whom are already isolated and limited to their home base.

• Eligibility and Assessment Changes Changes to the assessment and eligibility procedures at NDIS are potentially very worrying. Introducing a criteria “of where there is no further medical solution to a person’s condition” 2is problematic for many reasons:

  1. Who will decide whether "all medical avenues have been exhausted"?
  2. What extensive proof will participants be expected to provide?
  3. How will it affect participants’ physical therapies to develop capacity but is not a cure?
  4. Will automated assessments be well enough designed to provide for the variable nature of individuals’ disabilities?
  

It is my experience that automated assessment tools are highly inefficient in collecting relevant information which may mean the difference between a participant receiving the right level of support, or not.3

For example, use of automative assessment tools’ questionnaires “tick the box” method is reductive and inaccurate as many questions require “Yes/No” responses, when there may be variants in how a question as simple as “Can you walk?”. The answer to this question might be “No”, however it could be “Only with assistance” or “With the aid of a mobility device”. Whilst some of these variants may be included in the assessment tool, they may not include more granular information essential to the participant’s capacity: ground surface, distance, weather, slope/gradient etc can all affect walking capacity.

Further the automative process is to be put through an algorithm. No professional human responsibility will be ensured which is deeply disturbing for disabled people.

Additionally the clause “having exhausted all medical treatments” as criterion for elegibility is likely to be extremely hard for people with disabilities to provide exact evidence. Also it could exclude participants from obtaining necessary therapeutic treatments essential for sustaining basic health and capacity.

Another change to the legislation in this Bill is handing too much power to the parliamentary minister4 without scrutiny or consultation. This could be disastrous in

Submission 1954

the wrong hands with no comeback legally available. A whole program of supports could be discontinued at the whim of one individual minister. This would be contradictory to the purpose of the Scheme which originally was intended to help peole with disabilies have co-design in decision-making and self determination in how we are supported.

Conclusion In conclusion I expect the committee fully understands the very real challenges that people with disabilities live with every day. This Ammendments Bill which includes removing a large cohort of participants and cutting supports to others, will cause further hardship, distress and trauma.

We hope to have support for the essential necessities of daily life as other able-bods. I believe the Bill requires urgent and thorough scrutiny with amendments to do no harm, before it proceeds.

“We have a vision of a socially just, accessible and inclusive community in which the contribution, potential and diversity of people with disability are not only recognised and respected but also celebrated.”

People With Disabilities Australia, 2026

I would like to think that people with disabilities like myself, are valued for our social and cultural contribution to Australian society in general.

Thank you for considering my submission.

NDIS Participant