Submission 2051
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by:
Residence:
Date: Monday 1 June 2026
- I am a 45-year-old NDIS participant who joined the scheme less than two years ago.
- My access was granted based on the combined impact of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and monocular vision loss (permanent vision loss in one eye).
- Individually, these conditions did not meet the access criteria at the time of my application; it was the interaction of both that qualified me for access.
I am writing to express my profound fear that the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 will result in my imminent removal from the scheme within the next two years. As an existing participant, I am currently awaiting the outcome of additional assessments that were funded by the NDIS in my new plan (February) to determine my future needs (including a Speech Pathology assessment recommending 26 hours of therapy). I am not only worried that I will be knocked back for clearly necessary supports without due consideration being made, but that even if they are funded, they will be quickly removed by year’s end, and I won’t have any support by the end of 2028.
Permanence and All Appropriate Treatment
The Bill’s new definition of permanence is a direct threat to my continued access and participation in daily activities, including work.
The Clause:
The Bill states an impairment is not permanent if there is “any other treatment which is likely to materially improve, reverse, or alleviate the impact.”
My Risk:
- I have ASD.
- There are various therapies and mainstream supports (via Mental Health Care Plans) that may “alleviate” some symptoms.
The Trap:
Under the Bill, a delegate could argue that because I could access these mainstream or therapeutic options (even if they are insufficient to manage my complex needs), that appropriate treatment options are still available. They could demand I exhaust these (unnamed) options while removing the reasonable and necessary supports I require.
The Reality:
ASD is not a curable condition; it is permanent. The treatments available are management strategies and work with varying degrees of success based on range of factors, including individual traits and needs. The Bill fails to distinguish between curing an impairment and managing a lifelong disability. It sets a moving goalpost where “all appropriate treatment” is undefined, allowing delegates to deny access indefinitely by claiming a participant hasn’t tried an unspecified, perhaps irrelevant, treatment. What happens when new treatment options are introduced? Will participants be forced off the plan until those are exhausted and have to reapply?
Removal of Combined Impact Access
My eligibility relies on the cumulative impact of ASD and vision loss. The Bill’s strict “Direct Link” requirement (Schedule 1, Part 3) ignores a simple reality that many participants face. One disability
Submission 2051
does not define us all, many of us have multiple disabilities that have a cumulative negative effect on our ability to function independently and successfully in society.
The Risk:
The Bill requires supports to arise directly from a single eligible impairment. It rejects “contributory” links.
My Situation:
My communication difficulties and social isolation arise from the interaction of my ASD and my vision loss. These disabilities also co-exist with a variety of non-funded conditions including ADHD, ARFID, and several persistent physical ailments. While some ailments can be treated and cured, a combination of disabilities makes it unachievable without regular support.
The Consequence:
If a delegate determines that a specific need (e.g., navigation support or social communication) arises from the combination of conditions rather than ASD alone, they could deem it ineligible. This effectively dismantles the “combined impact” access model that allowed me to enter the scheme, putting me at high risk of removal. The simple fact is that vision loss has amplified my ASD, dramatically reducing my confidence and ability to do the things I was previously able to do without supports.
4. Removal of Appeal Rights
The Bill explicitly removes the right to merits review for “Support Determinations” (budget cuts) (Schedule 1, Part 4).
The Flaw:
If the Minister cuts my funding via a legislative instrument, I will have no right to appeal to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).
The Principle:
In Australian law, citizens have a right to challenge administrative decisions that affect their rights. By classifying a budget cut as a “legislative instrument,” the government creates a “rule by decree” where my livelihood can be stripped without recourse.
The Harm:
This violates Article 13 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which guarantees access to justice. It is unacceptable that NDIS participants are the only citizens denied the right to appeal a decision that determines their survival and quality of life.
5. Barriers to Access
While I am an existing participant, I am deeply concerned about the future of the scheme for new applicants and those up for review by 2030.
The Issue:
The Bill relies heavily on detailed Functional Capacity Assessments to determine eligibility.
The Barrier:
These assessments are expensive and require specialised OT capacity. If the government does not ensure these specialists are affordable and accessible, they create a barrier that excludes people with disabilities who cannot afford the upfront cost or wait for long queues.
The Demand:
The government must ensure that FCAs are fully funded and that there is sufficient OT capacity to provide these services at a reasonable cost. We cannot add more barriers to people who face so many structural societal barriers every day. Remember the election promise “nobody left behind”? This bill does the opposite.
6. Recommendations
I urge the Committee to recommend:
Submission 2051
Protect Combined Impact Access: Explicitly recognise that eligibility can be met through the cumulative impact of multiple disabilities, not just a single direct link. Functional impact assessments must consider ALL impacts of ALL disabilities. If a diagnosis no longer guarantees access, FCAs must be used to look at all the disabilities an individual has, regardless how they are viewed today.
Clarify Permanence: Define “all appropriate treatment” to exclude mainstream or insufficient treatments and require specific evidence of untried, relevant treatments before denying access.
Restore Merits Review: Amend the Bill to ensure that any decision reducing a participant’s funding is subject to review by the Administrative Review Tribunal.
Reject Budget Cuts: Remove the proposed 50% cut to Social/Community Participation and 10% cut to Capacity Building, recognising these as essential for safety and independence. If the country needs money, fix the PRRT, stop subsidising fossil fuels, and dump AUKUS. Punch up, not down.
- Conclusion
I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking for the NDIS to live up to the principles established 10 years ago of empowerment, choice and control, social and economic participation, and lifetime support. We are not costs to be maintained, we are participants in a democracy who contribute $2.25 to the economy for every $1 in support received. A short-sighted attempt to bring the budget back in the black at our expense will have longer term negative economic impacts, and more people will suffer as a result.
This is not about saving money, it is about stripping people of their dignity and rights. I urge the Committee to reject this legislation.