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

Submission 2012

I am someone who has thought about going onto the NDIS because I’m disabled. As an individual living with significant challenges, it’s clear how important programs like “NDIS” can be; as they enable us to engage more fully within society—like getting out bed or working outside home. The current bill proposes substantial administrative reforms which would make it even harder to navigate this system successfully; removing key rights such as challenging plans or reviews, in favoring automated systems over human oversight. This shift could severely limit flexibility tailored specifically towards each person’s unique needs, despite having similar disabilities others may possess. Moreover, ministers now hold authority without interacting directly—with participants’ support being stripped away. Drafters of these changes seem focused on eliminating life-sustaining benefits rather than addressing systemic mismanagement under successive Labor and Liberal governments. They fail adequately address service provider rorts while instead shifting blame to individuals themselves. If adjustments are needed in response to increased costs from providers, those should come through properly managing privatized funding structures seen by many as government handouts. Additionally there have been unnecessary expenditures made both at NDIA level due to people questioning their rightful supports provided. In practice, those removed will likely find themselves forced onto non-existent schemes which strip them further of necessary assistance. This places the financial burden back upon disabled persons, families(close friends)or a combination thereof.Due extra expenses required for living independently, it becomes unaffordable for some who rely heavily on NDIS services. It remains unclear what specific types “disabilities” might be excluded but this bill risks taking away primary conditions that qualify someone for scheme coverage yet leaving other critical ones unsupported. The proposed reforms threaten removing essential supports vital not just for survival but quality-of-life itself; much like eugenics—suggesting we cannot afford basic necessities when other priorities demand attention.