Submission 1991
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Due to the sensitive and deeply personal nature of parts of this submission, I respectfully request consideration regarding privacy and publication. I ask that my name not be used in this publication but that my words still be published under the pseudonym LN.
I am writing as a disabled person directly affected by the proposed changes in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I live with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, dissociative identity disorder, complex PTSD, social phobia, major depressive disorder, sensory processing disorder, and other impairments. These conditions significantly affect my daily functioning, independence, safety, communication, emotional regulation, social participation, physical health, and ability to navigate systems without support.
I am deeply concerned that the proposed changes will create additional barriers for people with complex, fluctuating, invisible, psychosocial, and multi-system disabilities like mine.
The government states that the bill aims to clarify eligibility, define functional capacity, strengthen fraud prevention, and improve the sustainability of the NDIS. However, I fear these reforms will disproportionately harm vulnerable participants who already struggle to access support and prove disability within rigid systems.
My disabilities are not simple, isolated, or easily measurable through standardized assessments. Ehlers-Danlos syndrome affects my joints, pain levels, fatigue, mobility,
Submission 1991
physical stamina, and physical safety. My psychosocial disabilities affect my memory,
eotional regulation, communication, concentration, trust, executive functioning, ability to
leave the house safely, and ability to advocate for myself consistently.
My conditions also fluctuate significantly. There are periods where I may appear more
functional externally while still experiencing severe impairment internally. This is common
for people with trauma-related and psychosocial disabilities. A heavily standardized or
functional-capacity-only assessment process risks overlooking the true impact of my
disabilities and reducing my supports based on superficial observations rather than lived
reality.
I am especially concerned about proposed changes around “functional capacity” and tighter
definitions of permanence and eligibility.
People with psychosocial disabilities are already frequently disbelieved, under-supported, and
forced to repeatedly prove the legitimacy of their conditions. Requiring participants to
exhaust “all appropriate treatment options” before eligibility may be recognized is
particularly concerning for people like me. Trauma-related conditions and dissociative
disorders are complex, long-term, and often treatment-resistant. Treatment can help manage nsymptoms, but that does not mean disability disappears.
Exhausting all possible treatments prior to NDIS acceptance will also be impossible for many
of the most impoverished and vulnerable people in society, as they often fall through the
cracks of multiple systems or experience years of misdiagnosis, delayed treatment, and
additional trauma. These are experiences I have personally lived through.
Similarly, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome currently has no cure. My conditions are lifelong and
significantly disabling even when I actively engage in treatment and therapy.
Submission 1991
My dissociative identity disorder and complex trauma conditions arose from severe and prolonged physical, emotional, and sexual abuse from childhood through to early adulthood.
The seriousness of that harm was recognized through the criminal justice system, with the offender receiving a lengthy prison sentence.
Despite this, I still struggled to have my disabilities appropriately acknowledged as real and valid within the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Furthermore, to this day, I continue to struggle to access the level of specialized psychological and disability support recommended by multiple trained clinicians for me to live safely and function sustainably in the community.
This is important because it demonstrates that even people with severe, well-documented, lifelong physical and psychosocial disabilities can face major barriers to accessing appropriate support under the current system. I fear reforms that further narrow eligibility, increase reassessment burdens, or prioritize rigid functional assessments may leave people like me even more vulnerable and unsupported.
I am also concerned about increased use of standardized assessments and highly systematized planning approaches.
My disabilities affect my ability to communicate under pressure, advocate for myself consistently, process sensory information, regulate emotions, and safely participate in assessments. A brief assessment conducted by a stranger may fail to capture the complexity of my support needs, particularly where trauma, dissociation, masking, or fluctuating capacity are involved.
For people with severe trauma histories and dissociative disorders, these processes can themselves become destabilizing and retraumatizing.
Submission 1991
I have also experienced prolonged periods of instability while falling between housing,
disability, and social support systems. I have been left effectively unsupported between social and community housing services and the NDIS while still fighting for access to suitable modified housing that accommodates my disabilities safely.
Recently, when I asked Rebecca Pinkstone, the head of Homes NSW, what Homes NSW’s response was regarding the proposed NDIS cuts and what Homes NSW would in turn be doing to meet people with disabilities’ housing needs, I was told that the NDIS was not speaking to social housing services at all and that while she could sympathize with my position, Homes NSW was not designed for people with complex needs and other services would need to be used.
These gaps between systems are not theoretical. They have had direct impacts on my safety, health, stability, and ability to participate in the community.
Previous reductions to my support hours significantly increased my vulnerability and isolation, and during a period of inadequate support in 2023 I experienced sexual assault. This experience also reinforced how critical appropriate disability supports are for my safety and wellbeing.
Yet, I have recently had my funding reduced again and am currently fearful about the impact this will have on my safety, stability, and ability to remain adequately supported in the community.
I am concerned that tighter reassessment rules and increased administrative burdens may further disadvantage people with executive functioning difficulties, mental illness, cognitive overload, and chronic illness.
Submission 1991
Managing paperwork, gathering reports, attending appointments, understanding changing legislation, and advocating within the NDS already requires enormous amounts of energy.
Many disabled people rely heavily on support coordinators, psychosocial supports, carers, advoates, or trusted provides to navigate these systems safely.
Many of these supports I either do not currently have access to or am not adequately funded to acess.
Without adequate flexibility and human oversight, these reforms risk pushing me and other vulnerable participants into crisis, isolation, homelessness, hospitalization, institutionalization, exploitation, or complete disengagement from support systems.
After my NDIS funding was critically reduced following the original announcement of these reforms, I came dangerously close to disengaging from the scheme altogether. It was only through significant intervention and support from trained clinicians that I remained connected to services and support systems.
I am deeply concerned that other vulnerable participants facing similar circumstances may not receive that same level of intervention or support.
I fully support efforts to address fraud, exploration, and unsafe providers within the NDIs. Fraud harms participants and damages trust in the scheme. However, fraud prevention measures should target exploitative providers and systemic misuse rather than creating additional suspicion and barriers for disabled people themselves.
I am also concemed about the speed and scope of these reformes and the limited consultation period available for disabled people to respond. Many participants with complex disabilities
Submission 1991
require additional time, support, advocacy, and accessibility accommodations to
meaningfully engage with legislation of this scale.
I also want the committee to understand the emotional and psychological toll involved in making submissions like this for people with severe psychosocial disabilities and trauma histories.
Writing this submission has been extremely difficult for me. Fear, trauma symptoms, dissociation, anxiety, and exhaustion very nearly prevented me from participating at all.
Having to repeatedly explain and justify deeply personal experiences in order to access or protect essential supports can itself be retraumatizing.
I am still making this submission because I am afraid of what these reforms may mean for my safety, stability, and future if vulnerable participants continue to lose supports or face increasing barriers to accessing them.
Many people with disabilities more severe than mine, fewer supports, greater fear, or less capacity to advocate for themselves may not be able to participate in processes like this at all. Their absence should not be mistaken for lack of impact.
I would also like to acknowledge that I used artificial intelligence assistance to help structure and draft parts of this submission.
I believe it is important to disclose this transparently, particularly because accessibility barriers can affect how disabled people participate in consultation and policy processes.
The words, experiences, concerns, and perspectives contained within this submission are my own. However, due to the short consultation timeframe, the complexity of the legislation, and the impacts of my disabilities, including dissociation, trauma symptoms, executive
Submission 1991
functioning difficulties, cognitive overload, fatigue, anxiety, and communication challenges, I
required assistance to organize and express my thoughts in a coherent written format so as
not to make this submission overly traumatic to write or lose sight of its original purpose.
Without this support, I may not have been able to participate in this process at all.
I ask that the use of accessibility tools or AI assistance not be viewed as diminishing the
legitimacy, authenticity, or seriousness of my experiences. Disabled people often require
supports, accommodations, adaptive technologies, and assistance to participate meaningfully
in systems that are not designed with our access needs in mind.
In many ways, the need for this assistance reflects the very barriers and support gaps that this
submission discusses.
The NDIS was created to support disabled people to live with dignity, autonomy, safety, and
participation in the community. I fear these reforms risk narrowing access in ways that
particularly harm people with complex, invisible, psychosocial, and fluctuating disabilities
whose needs may not fit neatly into standardized frameworks.
I ask the committee to carefully consider the impact these changes may have on participants
with trauma-related, psychosocial, connective tissue, and multi-system disabilities and to
ensure that sustainability reforms do not come at the cost of safety, dignity, and essential
support for those who rely on the NDS to survive and participate in society.
Thank you for considering my submission.
LN