Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Submitted via email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Date: June 1st,

greater \n>supports\nan adjustment within my household education potential employment would physically mentally healthier as an adult.

When my daughter diagnosed same condition have knew could easier pathways for live fulfilling life due no small NDIS.

I’d watched then PM Julia Gillard stood Parliament promised solution previous inadequate indefensible patchwork supports was nation-wide demand-driven system care tailored needs individual established durable long-term basis”

Prime Minister said original Bill clearly recognises right people disability exercise choice control over planning delivery their supports”. It genuinely nothing about us without us However process proving eligibility wading through bureaucracy get should fairly simple physical adjustments been short soul destroying Rather than looking providing people disability Prime Minister words what necessary achieve goals aspirations take part community keeping reasonable expect scheme provide Scheme consumed deficit model I’ve lost count times received medical report starts sentence like sorry language can be confronting My daughter’s diagnosis not complex one Like me she has pseudoachondroplasia form dwarfism significant impact on bone joint growth health

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission: Securing the NDLSI for Future Generations Bill 2026 Submission Number: 2152

But the constant requirements to prove she is disabled enough and disabled for life has highlighted where some of the real inefficiencies lie within the system. Since being approved for NDIS funding, about 30 per cent of our funding has gone towards a social support therapist.This has been a godsend.Possibly necessarily ,we’ve spent about 17 percent on initial meetings with providers.However over halfofmydaughter’s budget hasspentonreports provingthat herdisabilityisapermanentandsignificant – somethingthatisalreadydoneby doctors at Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital long before we appliedfortheNDIS.A diagnosis odwarfism does not go away yetwecontantlyhave toprove thateffect.Andmostfrustratinglyforsophysical disability,notasinglephysical adjustmenthaseverbeenmade.We haveaquote sitting there fora adjustments tonour household infrastructure that would allowherto access supports thats are criticalt o her dignityand respect.Weknowtha tevery dollar counts,and when wesaw tha t quotewasa moreadjustments than weneeded,wetookwhat wet houghtwastheresponsible measureofofrequestingthatquotebechangedonly tob e charged again forg etting another quote. Andwenowgoingthroughprocessgetting further reports to prove permanent and significant nature daughter s disabilit y just get these reasonable necessary physical adjustm ents.Meanwhile my daughtercannot independentlyaccess really basic facilities most6 year olds take for granted.

Submission: Securing the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDLSI Future Generations) Bill20 26

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

Submission 2152

I share these experiences, not to rant about the scheme, but to highlight that inefficiencies in the system do exist. However, it’s not that there are too many people on the scheme or we’re asking unreasonable supports; rather than being listened to, spending much money just trying prove our deficit then when think getting somewhere presented with more barriers. And now this bill tells us again proving disabled enough. My daughter wonderful human kind artistic full surprises future hundreds thousands others at risk from this bill. It basis make following recommendations:

Parliamentary Scrutiny Transparency

The amendment bill has insufficient weeks which is inadequate considering accessibility communication needs Australian Government Guide Policy Impact Analysis says should occur minumim possible The disability community quite rightly extremely nervous worried changes two week period simply have time properly convey how cuts will impact them Recommendation: Amend consultation best practice minimum of thirty days.

Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law

The issue: The Bill allows Ministers to change who gets NDIS support (Schedule 1 Part s 8 &9)and how much funding people receive (**[Schedule 1 Part $4$; Schedule $3$]by signing an instrument,without going back to Parliament. The rules that will determine critical eligibility thresholds ([Schedule extbf{1} Parts $oldsymbol{ extrm{ }}$ extit{$1$,} extit{$8$ extit{} } extit{} extit{}, extit{$9$}]) have not yet been written.

How this affects participants:*

The decisions that shape the lives of participants,*whether they qualify for the NDIS and what supports they can access, could be changed without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny.*Participants may not know supportsor eligibilityruleshavechangeduntiltheirplanisaffected. In our situation,we couldbehalfwaythroughthe processofgetting physical adjustments, ora boutto make a breakthrough in social interactions through therapy anda ndsuddenlyfindoutthere is no morefunding.This isthe lifelongsupport we need.*Recommendation: Requirethat alldecisions affectingNDISeligibilityandfundinglevelsbemade throught primarylegislationsubjecttoupparliamentaryscrutiny,with mandatory advance notice t affectedparticipantsbefore any changes take effect.

Existing participants face narrower criteria and fewer rights to challenge decisionsThe issue: Th eBillchanges therulesforexisting ND ISParticipants makes it harder toc hallengesome decision aboutsupports funding.It also restrictst when youcan request areassessment*,removes reviewrights fora utomatic plan renewals,andmakes fundings reductions unreviewable ([Schedule oldsymbol{1} Parts $ extrm{ extit{$f 8$}}$,]) Combined with restrictions on reassessments requests (Part $2), automatic plans renewalswithout reivewright s(P art5) , an dunreiewvable f unding reducions( Part4)* existingparticipan tsface n arrowercriteria w ith significantlyfeweravenues tochallengedecisionabouttheirsupports.*

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 2152

How this affects participants:

This does not protect participants already on the NDIS, who could be reassessed under stricter rules. If someone’s funding is reduced or their plan renewed automatically, you may have limited or no ability to challenge going forward with a decision made in your case based upon an ill-informed medical report which impacts approximately one person out of every hundred thousand people if such was the basis behind it making it harder to challenge. The recommendation: Require “no harm” safeguard ensuring current participant loses access unless equivalent support exists before exit decisions and independent review rights preserved as well as preserving unscheduled re-assessments.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 2152

An unintended consequence could be that some participants may spend more at the end of funding periods on items that are not top priorities just so they can make the most of budgets.

Recommendation: Require that unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for customers saving high-cost items; also ensure independent review rights before any reduction takes effect.

Requirement To Exhaust Treatment Options Before Eligibility

The issue: a person’s eligibility depends upon exhausting all available treatments first, as per Schedule Part8. The whole-of-person assessment has been replaced in favor of single eligible impairment consideration under Schedule3Part4.The note acknowledging environmental factors and other ineligible impairments affecting support needs was previously included but is now removed from this part as well.

How This Affects Participants

People will need proof their condition cannot improve through treatment, which means proving a permanent disability exists without considering individual circumstances like ability-to-pay or availability of services where one lives. This adds unnecessary bureaucratic burden to prove an obvious permanency when there aren’t genuine ‘treatment options’ unless expensive surgery addressing symptoms rather than curing them qualifies. It requires spending extra money producing reports instead of providing actual supports needed by people with disabilities.

Recommendation: Do Not Proceed With Excessive Documentation Requirements – There Are No Safeguards Around Participant Harm, 7 Submission to National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing NDIS For Future Generations) Bill2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Unvalidated Functional Capacity Assessment Tool Risks Misidentifying Need

The Bill shifts assessment from whole-of-person consideration to a single eligible impairment (Schedule 1 Part 3). Read together with eligibility thresholds Parts 8 &9, this tool must sufficiently assess whether an individual meets criteria. I-Can requires validation ensuring accurate identification across various disabilities’ fluctuations/episodics not captured via point-in-time assessments while being culturally sensitive towards Indigenous peoples’ needs.

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

Submission 2152

Foundational Supports system intended to fill that gap has no confirmed implementation date and is not yet operational.

How this affects participants: Supports that help participants connect with their community, build skills and maintain independence may be cut before anything exists to replace them, leaving carers and families with greater responsibilities and no additional support. These supports are often what help people stay visible, connected and safe. My daughter’s social therapist has been crucial to build skills in dealing with the everyday social reactions — which can range from annoying to outright offensive and bigoted. Cutting this would have a huge impact on her future ability to participate inher communities. Recommendation: Require that no reductions to community participation or capacity building supports take effect until Foundational Supports are fully operational, adequately funded and demonstrably able to meet the needs of those who will lose NDIS supports. Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on this Bill. My hope is that people with disability are put front and centre of decision making,andthatyoutrulylistentothedisabledcommunity—nothingaboutuswithout us.Regards,Sam Drummond` 9 Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDISHforFutureGenerations)Bill2026