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

Submission 20

To Whom It May Concern,

I write in opposition to aspects of the proposed NDIS legislation amendments due to serious contcerns regarding human rights, procedural fairness, participant autonomy, and Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities(CRPD). While I acknowledge the importance of maintaining the long term sustainability and integrityoftheNDIS,thismustnotcomeatthexpenseoffundamentalrightsdignityandsafetyofofpeoplewithdisability. TheproposedamendmentssignificantlyshiftbalancepowerawayfromparticipantsandtowardthenDiaMinisterial discretion.Thisraisessubstantialconcernderingtransparencyaccountabilityparticipantchoicecontrolwhichwereintendedtobefoundationalprinciplesofschemespecific concerns include: The introduction restrictive definitions around what constitutesan NDIsupport createsuncertaintyincreasesriskthatparticipantswillloseaccesstosupporttheycurrentlyrelyuponparticipatesafelymeaningfullyindailylife.Thebillappearsnarroweligibilityforsupportsthroughlegislative instrumentsdelegated rules rather than primarylegislationlimitingparliamentaryscrutiny reducing safeguards participants.Increased use rulemaking powers broad discretionary authority particularly concerning significantaspects participanteligibilitysupportaccess may effectively be determined outside Parliament through futureNDAIrules Ministerialinstrumentsthisiscreatesinstabilitymakesdifficult for participants understand their rightschallenge decisions fairly.Proposed changes also risk undermining Section 34 principles regarding reasonable necessary supports shift toward lists approved excluded support risks creating rigid system cannot adequately respond individual circumstances functional impairment fluctuatingsupport needs.Movement towardsimpairment notices categorisation systems reduce participantstoadministrativelabelsratherthan recognising complexityindividuality disabilityDisability not static and many do not fit neatly predefined categories.Legislation appears increase barriers review appeals processes particularithose intellectualdisability psychosocial disabilty cognitive impairments limited advocacy support increased administrativecomplexity directly impacts access justice procedural fairness.Furtherconcernarise information gathering monitoring compliancepowers contained amendments While fraud prevention important oversight mechanisms must remain proportionate shouldnot create environment where disabled people treated suspicion simply accessing support.

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

Submission 20 The bill also raises concerns under Australia’s obligations pursuant to the CRPD, including but not limited to:

• Article 3 – Respect for individual autonomy and freedom to make one’s own choices • Article 5 – Equality and non-discrimination • Article 19 – Living independently and being included in the community • Article 21 – Freedom of expression and access to information • Article 28 – Adequate standard of living and social protection Legislation affecting disabled people should strengthen rights, inclusion, and certainty. Instead, many participants experience these reforms as creating fear, confusion, instability, and reduced trust in the system. The NDIS was intended to move Australia away from paternalistic systems that controlled disabled people’s lives. These amendments risk moving backwards toward a system where participants must constantly justify their existence, defend essential supports, and navigate increasingly restrictive bureaucratic processes. I urge the government to reconsider provisions that expand discretionary powers, reduce:flexibility, weaken participant safeguards, and allow critical operational details to be:determined through subordinate legislation rather than full parliamentary scrutiny.Any reform to the NDIS must remain grounded in human rights, co design with people with:disability, procedural fairness, and the original intent of the scheme: genuine choice, control:,inclusion, and dignity.Sincerely, Phillippa Smoker