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

Submission 2004

I am a disabled participant on the NDIS and a tertiary educator. I recently completed my PhD in History at the University of Sydney. I am very concerned about the content of this bill, the broad overreach of ministerial powers, and the impact it will have on disabled Australians.

The planned cuts are arbitrary and extremely cruel. Australia spends less on disability supports than many OECD countries. When disability supports are withdrawn, they don’t go away; instead, they just get pushed onto hospitals, families, employers, and crisis services. The NDIS creates jobs and allows disabled people to live full lives. When the scheme was first introduced, we were told the goal was to get disabled people out of institutions and back into the community. Now we are being told that is too expensive.

This legislation will make it harder for many participants to choose their own support workers and live independently with accommodation choices limited due to group homes costing more rather than less annually ($400,000 per resident). If necessary supports aren’t provided when needed by individuals who deteriorate without them leaving workforce participation or becoming trapped homebound leading increased burden health system budget areas cutting doesn’t save money costs lives.

There certainly structural problems exist within NDIs but none addressed here legislation issues fraud also not covered targeting providers while this bill targets participants regarding some key interventions:

• Automated decision making cannot account complexity specificity disabled life Robodebt scandal government apparently learned nothing from needs fit template no one should be denied essential supports.
• Limiting unscheduled plan reassessments removes crucial avenue apply necessary supports changing needs past I had applied urgent wheelchair repairs now funded 5 year plan my wheelchair years old won’t last another five years average wheelchairs need replacing every three-five years funding categories indexed inflation major issue rolling plans rising dramatically yearly cost increases.
• The bill does specific needs particular communities including First Nations disabled participants barriers accessing scheme itself supported funds cultural strategy missing.
• Category “social economic & community participation” covers work funding anything requires leaving the home. Without these supports people are trapped in our homes lose ability independent living working studying contributing basic features worth living.

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

Submission 2004

• The category of “capacity building daily activities” covers essential supports like exercise physiology and physiotherapy. Many disabled people require these supports to maintain current function and prevent deterioration. For me and many others, losing funding in this category would be devastating and could lead to hospitalisation. These are not “safe” categories to target. These categories are funded in the first place because they are essential, reasonable and necessary supports.
• Plans should absolutely not be suspended or revoked if “reasonable attempts to contact the participant” have failed. A few years ago my support worker got a phone call from a planner regarding an NDIS participant who she hadn’t seen in years. That participant was a nonspeaking disabled woman with a full time job and a degree from the University of Sydney. The planner called her former support worker instead of emailing the participant directly. If the agency cannot establish contact with a participant, or a participant cannot gather expensive medical reports at short notice, it should not be assumed that the participant is at fault. NDIA staff rarely communicate via the times and methods that suit participants. The agency’s failures of communication should never lead to funding being suspended or removed.
• Requiring participants to have completed “all appropriate treatment” to access the scheme is highly fraught. Disabled people should not have to undergo expensive, unnecessary medical treatment just to access supports to live a decent life. The scheme is not means tested, but not everyone can afford oraccess“all appropriate treatment”. Equally,treatmentthatisconsideredappropriate fora certain condition isnottecessarilyappropiateforeveryone.Ihaveheardcasesofpeoplebeingtoldtheydidnotmeetthe accesstriteriabecause theyhadnoattempteddangeroussurgerieswithlow success rates.Nobodywouldrefusemedicaltreatingthattimemight improve their functional capacity if that treatment is safe, affordableandaccessible.Effectivelythiswillbeusedasatechnicitytogatekeepsupportsfrompeoplen in genuine need,i.e those who havetherwise satisfied themanencyanda nditionalimpactrequirements. It isthealallingthaftertherDisabilityRoyalCommissionrevealedsomuchabuse anndneglectininstitutionalsettings,the government’responseistoenact abillthat will erode disabled people’s autonomy anda flexibilityofofsupports.If passed,thisbillwilhavedevastatingconsequences.Futuregenerations of disabledaustalianssullsuffergreatly.Ihopethatthereparliamentarycommittee wll consider thar there are many disableadaustrianswho opposethe bill,buthave been unabletomake asubmissiongiven thetighttimeframe.Noteveryonehas thenecessaryskillsetto read,understand,andresponstoparlamentariylegislation at short notice and without support. For every submission that youare reading,t here arany more voices going unheard.