Submission 2134

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

Submission to: Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Deadline: May 29th, This submission addresses the following parts of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026:

Schedule Item 3–4 - Proposed Section definition functional capacity.
Part, Items limits on participant-requested reassessments change from days to .
Item: Requirement that supports arise directly eligible impairment/s.
item: Support determinations allowing funding reductions groups support.
item: Plan renewals replacing plan continuations.
item: Transitional conversion assessment dates into end dates.
item: Financial sustainability wording in objects Act.
item: Principles relating scheme sustainability.
Repeal section planning principles item.
items: Maximum funding amounts, intensity ratios worker-to-participant.
Consideration another system or service by government.
Value money and effective/beneficial evidence considerations.
Family carer informal community consideration. Suspension revocation where participants contactable items proposed sections A). Sections B), C), D), E), F).

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

Submission 2134

Schedule 1, Part 9, items 96–98 — proposed section 25B and related access/revocation provisions: alternative support requirements and excluded impairments.
Schedule 3, Part 1, items 3-4 — proposed sections 34B and 45C: Ministerial powers relating to indexation and maximum pricing.
Schedule 4, item 4 — proposed sections 32K(3B)-(3E): new framework planning budget methods, funding levels, and max funding amounts.

The NDIS helps people live safely maintain independence participate community study work communicate access support avoid crisis dignify NDIS should be treated essential social infrastructure similar Medicare We do treat Medicae chari we should not treat disabling support charite either

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

Submission 2134

The NDIS, or disability support more generally, matters to me because:

Despite what many NDIS representatives have told me, the services I require are not provided adequately, or at all in some cases, through Medicare-funded health initiatives.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2134

Section 4 - Financial Sustainability Being Placed Into The Objects Of The Act

Relevant Bill provisions:

Schedule 1 Part 6 item 60 — section 3(1)(d)
Schedule 1 part 6 Item 65 proposed section 17B. The bill proposes to amend the objects of the act so that ndis supports will provided “so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability scheme.” I understand how important it’s financially sustainable but i’m concerned placing this wording into an act could make cost controls a dominant legal principle in ndis decisions.The NDIS should be responsible fiscally however we shouldn’t use sustainability to deny essential support to those who are disabled.Costs should focus on fraud price gouging provider exploitation poor administration thin markets lack early support service gaps pushing people crisis.It must not reduce necessary support.I am worried about this affecting me my family or community because As someone complex neurodevelopmental disability fluctuating capacity needs underrepresented and therefore already unfunded if government uses financial reasons cut funding I know others at risk even more disadvantage.\nI ask committee recommend balance between fiscal responsibility safety dignity independence participation choice control rights for all disabilities.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2134

Relevant Bill provisions:

Schedule 1 Part 4 item 34 — proposed section 34A;
Schedule 1 Part 6 Item 68 –– Proposed sections 33(2EA),and 33(2EB);
Schedule 3 part items -’’—Proposed Sections 34B And 45C.

I am concerned That The bill gives too much power ToThe MinisterTo control major parts Ofthe ndis through legislative instruments.The ndis affects safety independence housing work study family life community participationAnd dignityOf hundredsof thousandsOfaustralians.A singleMinister should not have broadpower to reduce funding categories set maximum support amountsControl Support intensitySet worker-to-participant ratios Alter Pricing settingsOr reshape scheme without strong safeguards.Major decisions about disabilitysupport Should require:

genuine consultation with disabled people and representative organisations
transparent public evidence
parliamentary scrutiny
human rights impact assessment
protections For psychosocial disability complex disability
review Rights where a person’s supports are affected Safeguards so costcontrol does Not override Safety, Dignity Independence Community Participation.I Am Concerned About Broad ministerial powers because:Disabilities Impact more than oneperson. It takes significantcommunity cohesionto understand properly administer Disability Supports If the MinisteR isnot themselves in receipt of DisabilTy Fundingandsupportthey cannot possibly make decisionS whichimpact those oF us who do Without gross miscalculation.I askthecommitee torecommend stronger limits oversight Consultation requirements transparencyand reviewsafeguardsforyAnyministerialpowers that affect NDISfundingsupports pricing eligibility or planning. 6.Concern repeal Section 31 Planning principles

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2134

Relevant Bill provision:

Schedule 1, Part 6, item 66 – repeal of Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 3, which contains section 31.

I am concerned about the proposed repeal of Section 31 planning principles. Section 31 is important because it recognises that NDIS plans should be individualised, directed by the participant, and support choice, control, independence, and community participation. These principles are not minor administrative wording.They reflect the heart of what the eNDISis meantto beto be.Iamconcernedthatremovingsectionrisksweakeningtheperson-centrednatureofthescheme. Individualisedplanningmatters tomebecause:Like many others with complex neurodevelopmental disabilities,mynecessarenotonlyunmetbystandardisedcarepackages,inmanycasestheyaworsened bymethem.Ihavesoughtassistanceforthesecondaryimpactsmydisabilityfortwo decades,yethave onlyjustbeguntofindsupportsthatareuseful.Myearlyinteractionswith careprovidersmademe moreandmorereluctant toseek supporthpto pointbecominghomelessmultipletimesratherthanattempting tonavigatethesame standardisedproceduresandreacare providerswhich compounded mytrauma. I ask theeCommitteerecommend thatectionshouldnotberepealedorthat equivalent protections forindividualisedparticipant-directedflexible planningsbekeptclearlyanda directlyin eAct. 7.Concermsupportsmustarise“directly”fromaneligible impairment Relevant Bill provisions: schedule 1 Part3 itemitem – section (aa); Schedule4, t6—section(2). TheBillproposestochangethewordingsothsupportsmustaddressneeds arising directly from animpaired or impairments forthepersonmeets the disability orearly intervention requirements.

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

Submission 2134

Submission Content:

Concern: This amendment might negatively impact individuals with complex or overlapping disabilities.
- Explanation: Disability often involves multiple interactions between various types such as psychosocial disability, neurodevelopmental issues, physical impairment due to chronic illness trauma cognitive challenges etc., which are interdependent rather than singular conditions.`
  
  If considered solely based upon one eligible condition directly causing an issue then it risks ignoring how real life works in terms of managing these complexities and their combined effects leading towards greater fragility instead closer living independence autonomy`
  
  My personal experience is characterized by co-morbidities diagnosed over twenty years ago where my autism ADHD were masked secondary traumas symptoms resulting numerous chronic illnesses whose impacts far-reaching make actively manage primary disability out reach current financial constraints exacerbating psychological impairments worsening day-to-day functioning' I urge Committee recommend Act continues consider whole person including interacting impairments environmental circumstances functional impact `’ ’

Concern: Support Determination Could Reduce Funding Across Categories

Relevant Bill provision Schedule Part item proposed section A. The bill allows broad funding reductions specified groups supports through support determinations concern categories supported reduced scheme without properly assessing each participant’s individual needs`. Person’s should not be simply because they fall into a category targeted cost reduction Broad funding may especially harm people who rely on supports for:

Lower Individual capacity for employment. Despite holding multiple jobs and seeking employment assistance through mainstream providers and community network, I am still without adequately employed work suitable long-term disability.This leads: -Housing instability.Without adequate paid work affording accessing rental accommodation incredibly difficult this leads: -Further reduction Capacity finding performing paid work leading exacerbates mental Chronic Health Issues Reduces Employment Further Leads Greater Need More Supports Funding Pressure on NDLS System Removes Ability Participate Community Aspects Life Society In Turn Leading To: Lower Economic Functioning Unable Current Job Market Create New Opportunities Others Through Self-Employment Reducing Overall Local National International Economic Health.

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

Submission 2134

Section 9 - A Support May Be Accepted As Reasonable And Necessary But Still Not Fully Funded

Relevant Bill Provisions:

Schedule 1, Part , Item, Item Number: Proposed section Section Number
Schedule 1, Part , Item, Item Number: Proposed Sections Sections Numbers
Schedule X

I am concerned that this bill might allow supports recognized as both necessary but still providing less than actual cost of such. This creates serious practical problem where partly funded support not accessible at all. For many participants partial funding real support; people with low incomes cannot simply pay gap, could lead to losing access even accepted needed. Poorly-funded would be because: I others in my position already live significant deficits financially prioritizing basic needs over capacity-building due lack adequate funds current plan. The Committee should recommend sufficient fund actually accessing supported.

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

Submission 2134

Research evidence is important.

However, disability support is not always captured well by published research,and there is contradictory research. Many supports,diseases,& communities are under researched.Psychological disability,rare diseases&complex disease,nurodivergence trauma &fluctuation often do no fit neatly into generalised evidences.I’m concerned that lived experience clinical judgement ,and evidence of an individual’s support works may treated as less important.This concern arises where participants already used effective supports showing improvement, maintenance,or prevention decline in functioning,safety,independence,community participation.A support working includes:Ecotherapy somatic-based/complementary medicine creative therapies.The evidence shows:Stable safe accommodation outside urban setting drastically improves ability to move interact with others calmly accept nervous system issues social disruptions better flexibility giving access other supports improving psychosocial physical capacities.I ask Committee recommend: lived experiencesindividual outcomesclinical evidenceparticipant history must be valued above published research.Evidence rules protect people psychological complex rare andunder-research disabilities.

Concern all appropriate treatment before permanent disability considered relevant provisions Schedule Part items sections proposed section The bill proposes changes around permanence “appropriate treatment”.I am especially harmful for those having psychological conditions or fluctuating complexes.Ongoing treatments don’t mean lack a permanent condition person receiving years still have significant lifelong functional impairments.

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

Submission 2134

People should not be denied NDIS access due to uncompleted treatments.

Unaffordable,
Inaccessible,
Not available in area with long waitlists,
Culturally unsafe,
Re-traumatising,
Medically unsuitable,
Ineffective as per individual needs,
Only partially helpful,
Destabilising treatment options through public system.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2134

psychosocial disability
mental health crisis
hospitalisation
homelessness
family violence
cognitive disability
intellectual disability
acquired brain injury
autism
ADHD/executive dysfunction
language barriers
digital exclusion
poverty
unsafe home environments
lack of advocacy support
changing phone numbers or addresses
fear or trauma related to government systems Suspending or revoking supports in these situations could make people less safe, not more accountable. People may be hard to contact because:

Both phone and email are incredibly draining for myself and others with psychosocial limitations. Any communication, but in particular interview-style or official correspondence is inevitably dysregulating and contributes a reduced capacity for both social and basic life tasks.

As someone who lives in a rural area, a lack of phone or internet service has been significant barrier to receiving and replying to communication. My disability means that I am unable to clearly sense my needs during conversations due to interception issues. I often so anxious about an interview or communication by time it happens exhausted have reduced capacity. Both primary disability secondary chronic illness contribute frequent shut-downs freeze episodes communications meaning those needs often unable expressed. Mental health issues result from lacking support on primary disability also play large role reducing ability participate ongoing contacts NDIS representatives.

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

Submission 2134

I ask the Committee to recommend strong safeguards before any suspension or revocation, including supported outreach, multiple communication methods, nominee/contact checks, advocate involvement, crisis-sensitive communication, and protections for psychosocial disability, homelessness, family violence, and cognitive disability.

Concern: plan renewals and loss of rollover funds

Relevant Bill provisions: schedule 1 part5 item 50 — proposed section 50A; schedule 1 Part five Item fifty eight transitional treatment reassessment dates as end date.

I am concerned about replacing plan continuations with plan renewals where unused funds do not roll over. People may have unused funds for reasons outside their control include provider shortages thin markets illness hospitalisation psycchosocial disabilit burnout difficulty finding safe suitable workers rural regional access issues delays in assistive technology home modifications administrative delay support coordinator turnover inability organise supports without help Unused funding does not always mean person did need it system failed provide accessible support Funds go unused because Providers are available long time navigating ndis system exhausting takes months even spend point at which can

-fluctuating capacity means that there are long periods in which I am unable to use supports.* If,by timeI* am capable of accessing supports but my funding* is no longer available,** I miss out on chances to expand my capacity when * I* am able.

I ask the Committee to recommend safeguards so participants are not punished or unused funds caused market failure, ilness,crisis provider shortages administrative delay disability-related barriers.

Concern: caps support intensity,funding worker ratios

Relevant Bill provisions Schedule Part item proposed sections (2EA)and(3EB);Schedule item4proposedsectionsK(B)-(E).

I concerned about powers set maxima amounts,intensity ratio Caps may look fair paper disability support needs vary greatly between people A person with complex disability traumapsychosocialdisabilitycommunicationneedsbehaviouralsupportneeds high physical support needs unsafe family circumstances need more than standard cap allows Cans also fail rural regional thin areas where services cost harder access Standard would work mefamily community because: Long-term lack created secondary chronic conditions must be addressed part overall care This worsen impairments thus cannot treated adequately isolation them On top this due housing instability and issues nearly months barely able achieve plan goals let alone anywhere near reaching them.\nasked Committee recommended any caps maximums override individual assessment safety complexity trauma fluctuating real-world service availability.

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

Submission 2134

Section 15 - Concern: shifting people to other service systems

that may not exist or may not be accessible Relevant Bill provisions:

Schedule 1 Part 6 item 70 — proposed section 34(1)(g)
Schedule 1 part9 items 96–98—proposed section 25B related access/revocation provisions. The Bill strengthens the idea some supports provided in other schemes government service rather than through the NDIS. I understand NDIs shouldn’t replace every public service however, persons pushed out of it into unready unavailable inaccessible designed to meet disability support needs. Many mainstream systems have long waitlists strict eligibility rules limited funding crisis-only thresholds poor understanding lack psycosocial practical daily living gaps between state federal responsibility People must fall between systems because each system says another is responsible I am concerned about being redirected services who say they don’t provide what need and go back to others leading me isolating refraining from contacting any support. The Committee recommend no person lose their NDIS unless genuine available, appropriate funded able meets their needs.

Section 16 – concern psychosocial disability explicitly protected

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2134

Relevant Bill provisions: This concern relates across multiple provisions, including Schedule 1 Part 1 proposed section 9B; Part‌ ‌6 proposé sections 34(1E)–*(1F); Part† †7 proposée section 40A; Part‡ ‡8 proposeé section 25A; and Part§ §9 proposee section 25B.

I am especially concerned about the impact of this Bill on people with psychosocial disablement.

Psychosocial disablement may involve fluctuations in capacity, executive dysfunction, social withdrawal, crisis periods, trauma, hospitalisation, difficulty communicating, difficulty maintaining appointments or navigating complex systems without support, or managing daily living tasks such as hygiene, housing accommodation, medication adherence, food preparation, transport arrangements work participation study engagement relationships community involvement etc., consistently due lack adequate assistance.

Psychosocial disability should not be excluded from being supported by the NDIS through:

treatment requirements;
narrow permanence rules;
artificial functional capacity assessments;
evidence rules that downgrade lived experience;
contact-based suspension procedures;
assumptions mainstream mental health services can replace disability supports provided directly to individuals within their homes; -or caps placed upon coordination between service providers for those requiring additional care needs beyond what is typically covered under standard funding levels available via other means outside clinical settings where possible.

The importance lies here: Many persons suffering from Psychosocial Disablements possess greater abilities towards certain roles & responsibilities when they are at peak condition. We contribute significantly toward society but require sufficient resources and accommodations accordingly so we might perform these duties effectively.

Therefore I urge you to recommend explicit protections specifically designed around recognizing fluctuating capacities ongoing treatments required after diagnosis traumatic experiences encountered during lifetime challenges faced with Executive Dysfunction alongside practical measures taken offsite of traditional medical facilities whenever feasible.

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

Submission 2134

I ask the Committee to recommend that the Bill be amended to:

Keep Section 31 planning principles, or retain equivalent protections directly in the Act.
Protect individualised, participant-directed, flexible planning.
Ensure financial sustainability does not override safety, dignity, independence, choice and control, or community participation.
Limit broad ministerial powers and require stronger parliamentary scrutiny.
Require genuine disabled-led consultation before major rules, instruments, caps, pricing changes, support determinations, or eligibility changes.
Remove or limit broad support determinations that reduce funding without dividual assessment.
Ensure participants have review rights where funding reductions or plan changes affect them.
Amend evidence provisions so lived experience, individual outcomes, and clinical judgement are not downgraded.
Protect psychosocial disability and fluctuating disability.
Ensure people are not denied access because they cannot access, afford, tolerate, or benefit from “appropriate treatment”.
Prevent suspension or revocation where participants are difficult to contact with strong safeguards.
Ensure people are not redirected to other service systems unless those supports actually exist as available, appropriate, accessible, funded services for individuals needing such assistance.
Ensure caps do not override individual assessments of need nor compromise personal safety needs within a person’s NDIS Plan.
Protect carers’ families against unsustainable unpaid support expectations by ensuring adequate resourcing is provided in the NDIS system itself rather than shifting costs onto informal caregivers who may be unable financially to meet these demands on their own resources alone outside any formalised care arrangement supported through an NDIS Plan.

Focus reform efforts towards combating fraud, exploitation, price gouging issues related directly impacting market failures arising out improper administration practices which undermine trust between stakeholders involved including but limited only to providers delivering goods & services under contract arrangements agreed upon initially when enrolling into one’s respective NDIS Plan.

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

Submission 2134

People with disabilities play just as important roles in our society and economy.

Investing in us means investing in our community overall. We need to be protected from unfair conditions and economic disadvantage which reduces the supports that we need to contribute.

Sincerely, Liza McGuigan