Submission 2206
Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
1. Introduction.
deeply concerned about the potential harm this proposed amendment could cause to individuals with disabilities across Australia. The changes being suggested appear to be a calculated effort aimed at removing vulnerable members from the scheme while evading our government’s duty towards providing essential support services tailored specifically for those living with impairments - all due primarily because we’re facing unexpected increases within disabled populations seeking legitimate assistance through these programs. Rather than exploring ways to secure additional funding necessary for maintaining current levels of service provision under existing frameworks, these amendments intend on eliminating participants whose options remain limited regarding alternative sources of aid. My heartfelt plea goes out toward you esteemed committee members; please take into account both personal testimonies shared directly by persons affected along side various advocacy groups representing their interests when considering whether or not accept such modifications outright without any protective measures attached thereto. Since I lack formal expertise concerning legislative matters, wherever applicable throughout my response here today,I’ve highlighted areas where specific alterations might lead us down harmful paths ahead and opted instead recommending simply ‘rejecting’ said modification entirely. However,it should also become clear that numerous organizations dedicated solely towards promoting rights among people experiencing disability have already begun submitting detailed proposals suggesting either revisions needed upon certain aspects discussed above OR adding safeguards against potentially damaging provisions contained therein. Therefore,you are encouraged strongly listen closely whenever hearing suggestions coming forth which may prove more beneficial compared merely rejecting everything presented initially. Some examples taken straight away from People With Disability Australia were included below as well:
1.1 A note on accessibility re making a submission.
I would like the committee to understand how many other submissions represent thousands yet unseen ones made possibly had there been enough time allocated allowing disabled Australians themselves plus those caring alongside them (family members) express opinions freely especially since current deadlines set up don’t allow sufficient opportunity for everyone wishing desperately want voices heard during this process - particularly noting only half what was recommended according to official guidelines issued earlier regarding proper impact analysis procedures related policy development activities undertaken by Australian authorities. Preparation of even basic form letter has proven extremely challenging within given timeframe thus leaving me feeling quite distressed knowing full well it couldn’t incorporate comprehensive coverage reflecting all recommendations put forward previously concerning matters relating specifically around enhancing protections afforded individuals suffering disabilities through various advocacy bodies working tirelessly everyday fighting hard just so they can live better lives free any discrimination whatsoever.
Submission 2206
ableism and bullying. Her father (who is also AuDHC) works four days a week and this is our sole income. I suspended my writing career and PhD scholarship to support her at home. Money is tight for us and we rely on NDIS funding for continence aids and OT support. We currently can’t afford for the adults to go to the dentist, new glasses for me or to get our cats vaccinated. We previously used some of our NDIS budget to pay for our child to attend an accessible social club for neurodivergent children until it closed down recently, in anticipation of the budget cuts proposed by this Bill. Our current NDIS plan only partially covers the cost of continence aids and has also removed her accessible swimming lessons. We are barely managing to afford the unfunded continence aids she needs and to pay for the swimming classes ourselves. We haven’t found a replacement social club for her, because no neuro-affirming club exists where we live. (This club was unique in South Australia and is sorely missed.) We could not afford her OT fees without the NDIS.
The report from her OT outlined her need for professional support to continue to thrive as she grows older. It explained that the support we as her parents provide borders on unsustainable and will only increase as we all age. It outlined a future in which she could achieve independence with professional support and warned of the dangers of leaving her parents as sole providers as her needs became more complex. These were dangers to her wellbeing - with harm to her mental health, social and emotional wellbeing from a lack of access to the community and broader structural and professional supports, and the wellbeing of the whole family, which, while we would do anything in our power to provide her with everything she needs, remains under considerable strain due to low income and lack of capacity - there is only so much one full time and one part time carer can do without respite.
The report also spoke of my daughter’s well-being as being a Human Right as a person with disability. My husband and I agree completely.
Given this situation, the idea of my daughter potentially being one of the anticipated 160,000 NDIS participants removed from the scheme due to changes to the NDIS Act is genuinely frightening. We would continue to do everything we could to provide for her and to help her thrive but we would become poorer than we already are, perhaps have to send her to school which would be dangerous to her mental health and education, become even more strained and at risk of burnout as a family, and closer to merely surviving rather than thriving. We would be terrified for her future as we age and eventually die if she wasn’t able to access support through her OT to build skills for
Submission 2206
independence, including potentially accessing a support person or carer in the future.
We would all be vulnerable to mental ill-health and a poorer quality of life.
1.3 Fear for the Broader Disability Community
I want to emphasise that I count my family as privileged within the disability community. I have outlined what the proposed amendments would mean for us and hope it can be seen that these would generate tangible pain for our family. But I am aware that many less privileged families already exist at breaking point and if they lose access to the NDIS through the proposed changes, these families and individuals WILL BREAK.
I am worried about the mainly Autistic children who will be removed from the NDIS and directed to Thriving Kids providers, which as well as being inappropriate for their needs and wellbeing, in most cases don’t actually exist yet. It is callous to cut off support for these kids with no alternative on offer.
I am terribly worried about the outsourcing of previously NDIS funded supports to the parents and carers of disabled people who are already at capacity financially, physically and emotionally, the majority of whom are women.
I am distraught by reports that current NDIS participants are researching voluntary assisted dying options in fear of a future in which they will be so unsupported that they would rather be dead. I have also heard talk of suicide. The fear in the community is heartbreaking to witness and it is not misplaced - people will genuinely suffer when their supports are cut, some drastically.
I fear for disabled people who experience domestic violence and who will be at greater risk as supports are cut.
Please listen to disabled people and their advocates when they say that these amendments as they stand are cruel, unfair, ableist and a violation of Human Rights.
2. Addressing the Terms of Reference (prepared with information on proposed changes in the Bill provided by Villamanta Disability Rights Legal Service and People With Disability Australia).
Problems with the proposed changes, and recommendations.
2.1 Access to the NDIS re Functional Capacity
Currently “functional capacity” is used as a term but not defined. The test of “substantially reduced functional capacity” is applied case by case. With changes to the Bill “functional capacity” is defined as a term for future rule making.The named assessment tool is the Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN). I-CAN requires validation to ensure it will sufficiently identify
Submission 2206
the needs of all people with disability, including those whose needs may be fluctuating or episodic and may not be captured through a point-in-time assessment, and to ensure it is culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability. This amendment means there will be rules that effectively limit who can be considered for access before applying the legislative test. It is a way to make the NDIS harder to access and will filter out disabled people with reasonable and necessary support needs from the scheme.
Recommendation from PWDA: Do not proceed with I-CAN as the functional capacity assessment tool unless it has been demonstrably validated to identify the needs of all people with disability, including those with episodic or fluctuating disability, and demonstrated to be culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
Permanence – disability requirements
The amendment requiring that a person has undertaken all “appropriate treatments” before being able to access the NDIS will apply regardless of a person’s circumstances. For example this test would still apply if a person were unable to afford the treatment or get to a clinic offering the treatment.
Recommendation: This amendment is designed to stop disabled people accessing the NDIS, outsourcing support to potentially inaccessible treatment options. It discriminates against low income and regional disabled people. There are no safeguarding measures around participant harm due to side effects or complications. Please reject this change.
Early intervention requirements
The proposed change to early intervention criteria from “benefit the person by mitigating or alleviating the impact of the person’s impairment” to “benefit the person by reducing the impact of the person’s impairment”.
Recommendation: This amendment discriminates against people with degenerative conditions who may have treatment delayed until the point they meet the disability requirements, potentially reducing quality of life. Please reject this change.
Planning and Impairments
The change in the wording of from 34(1)(aa) support needs “arising from an impairment” to the support needs “arising directly from an impairment or impairments” means that people with complex or multiple disabilities will only have one impairment considered. In our daughter’s case this would mean her Autism but not her ADHC or anxiety profiles would be considered, meaning that reasonable and necessary supports specific to these would not be considered. For other people it might be that their mobility impairment but
Submission 2206
tnot their Down’s Syndrome or their Down’s Syndrome but not their d/Deafness would be considered.
Recommendation: This amendment discriminates against people with complex and multiple disabilities. Please reject this change.
S 3 Objects of the Act
The current object of the Act is to provide reasonable and necessary supports, including early intervention supports, for participants in the NDIS; the proposed change is for the object of the Act to “provide NDIS supports for participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme that are reasonable and necessary, so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability of the scheme”.
Recommendation: Obviously this wording allows for reasonable and necessary supports, which provide basic human rights, to be deemed financially unsustainable for the scheme and therefore no longer the object of the NDIS. Please reject this change that sacrifices the objective of the NDIS along with disabled people with support needs.
S 31 Principles relating to plans
Currently the principles are that: The preparation, variation, reassessment and replacement of a participant’s plan, and the management of the funding for supports under a participant’s plan, should so far as reasonably practicable: (a) be individualised; and (b) be directed by the participant; and (c) where relevant, consider and respect the role of family, carers and other persons who are significant in the life of the participant; and (ca) where relevant, recognise and respect the relationship between participants and their families and carers; and (d) strengthen and build capacity of families and carers to support participants who are children; and (da) if the participant and the participant’s carers agree–strengthen and build the capacity of families and carers to support the participant in adult life; and (e) consider the availability to the participant of informal support and other support services generally available to any person in the community; and (f) support communities to respond to the individual goals and needs of participants; and (g) be underpinned by the right of the participant to exercise control over his or her own life; and
Submission 2206
(h) advance the inclusion and participation in the community of the participant with the aim of achieving his or her individual aspirations; and (i) maximise the choice and independence of the participant; and (j) facilitate tailored and flexible responses to the individual goals and needs of the participant; and (k) provide the context for the provision of disability services to the participant and, where appropriate, coordinate the delivery of disability services where there is more than one disability service provider. Only parts of (c), (ca) and (f) find their way back in to various sections of the Bill.
Recommendation: Please reject these changes that remove respectful, strengthening, flexible and inclusive supports from participants, their families and communities.
2.7 Support determinations: Powers Available to the Minister
Where the Current Act works so that reasonable and necessary supports + price guide = funding in a plan, changes in the Bill mean that the Minister can reduce the funding of a certain category by a percentage. He has already stated this will be social and community participation, but it is not limited to that. Some categories of participants will have this applied when 1407their next plan starts. People with Down’s Syndrome, who are vision impaired and Autistic and other Neurodivergent People spend the highest percentage of their budget on social and community participation supports. My daughter has already lost her main avenue of social and community participation through her social club closing in anticipation of these changes. Recommendation from PWDA: 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. Please also consider - how will future categories to have budget cuts be defined? On what data? This section of the Bill also states that “(3) In making the determination, the Minister must have regard to the safety of participants.” Please consider how this safety will be ensured? Other powers available to the Minister : The Minister will be able to make a determination for a support or a class of supports, in relation to participants generally or a class of participants: (a) a maximum amount of funding for the support or supports in the class of supports; or
Submission 2206
(b) a maximum intensity for provision of the support or supports in the class of supports; or (c) a maximum ratio of worker to participant for provision of the support or supports in the class of supports. The Minister can also set prices, including having different prices for different types of providers and registered/unregistered. Planners will also be able to consider other cost cuttings:
- Are their cheaper alternatives (but no longer requiring “the same outcome”)?
- Would leasing be cheaper than buying?
- What research and evidence is there of effectiveness? There will be a presumption that parents are responsible for providing substantial care and support for children. Parents will be expected to provide supports beyond their expertise, capacity and financial means, where professional support is appropriate. Already overstretched carers, especially women, many of whom are also disabled, will suffer burnout and ill-health from trying to provide support exclusively to their disabled loved ones, who will in turn suffer from lack of professional support and domestic strain. Please reject this Ministerial overreach which will result in underfunding supports and cost-cutting disabled people out of the scheme. Recommendation from PWDA: Require that all decisions affecting NDIS eligibility and funding levels be made through primary legislation subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory advance notice to affected participants before any changes take effect. 2.8 Reassessment
Currently Participants can request a reassessment at any time (due to a change of circumstances). The Agency can refuse to reassess, but that is a reviewable decision. After 21 days, if they don’t answer, it’s deemed to be a refusal, and this is also a renewable decision. The proposed changes in the Bill would mean that participants can only request a reassessment if certain conditions apply, and the Agency can refuse to reassess. This is a reviewable decision. They would have 90 days to respond, but if there is no answer subsequently, there would be no deemed refusal and no reviewable decision if they don’t reassess.
Recommendation: This attempt to deny flexibility and changing needs out of the scheme
cruelly ensures that when a participant’s budget is cut (for example by the Minister) there is no avenue for review. Please reject this change.
Submission 2206
Rollovers vs “renewal”
Currently when a plan passes the end date it is automatically extended, adding more time and funding called a “rollover” - any unused funding in the old plan remains, and nothing else changes. With the proposed changes in the Bill, the old plan would end and a new one start the next day, but unused funding would be confined to the old plan. If you reach the end of a plan and a renewal occurs, it will bring all the new features in - funding periods, support determinations maximum funding etc. A renewal is not reviewable. Support determinations won’t be written into plans. So the plan may say $50,000 funding, but there’s only $30,000 available. Please reject this change allowing a new underfunded plan with no avenue for review to refuse adequate support to people on the scheme. Recommendation from PWDA: Require that unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for participants saving for high-cost items and require independent review rights before any funding reduction takes effect.
Suspensions
The NDIA will be able to suspend a plan if they have been unable to contact a participant for 90 days. Would suspensions be automated? What if the participant has actually called or emailed the contact centre but nobody got back to them? What if the disabled person is unwell or in hospital, or lacks capacity or executive function to respond, or is working their second job to make up for inadequate support under the new changes? What if the NDIA doesn’t make contact within 90 days? Recommendation from PWDA: Require a “no harm” safeguard ensuring no current participant loses access to supports unless equivalent supports are in place, with independent review rights before any exit decision and access to unscheduled reassessments preserved.
Payments & claiming
Currently claims must be made within 2 years and the Act is silent on record keeping. Under the proposed changes, claims must be made within 90 days, participants must keep records of claims and payments for 3 years, and nominees must keep a record of claims and payments for 5 years.
Submission 2206
Recommendation:
This change is clearly designed to take advantage of participants capacity and executive function issues, making the scheme just too hard to access following tightening of the deadlines and record keeping requirements. Please reject this discriminatory change.
2.12 Plan management will fundamentally change
There will be a far smaller pool of plan managers, who must have a signed agreement with the NDIA. Plan managers will not be allowed to provide any other supports to participants. Plan managers will need to tell the NDIA about any other companies that are related (owned by the same people).
Recommendation:
Plan management helps with the administration support many disabled participants rely on to access the NDIS and making it harder to access a plan manager, and harder for plan managers themselves is another way to weed participants off the scheme. Please reject this change.
2.12 Automation
The NDIA will be able to automate certain decisions. For the moment they are focused on plan production and payments. With the changes like support determinations automation is obviously going to be essential to flow this through all relevant budgets. But what information is the automation relying on when deciding how to apply the determination, and why can’t the participant see it and review it? The most obvious piece of information is recognised disability/impairment – why can’t you see that on the portal/app?
Recommendation:
To avoid another Robodebt and its disastrous fallout, please reject these changes.
3. Conclusion.
Let’s be clear: the proposed changes have been designed to cut the cost of the NDIS at the expense of its original objective - to provide reasonable and neccessary support for disabled Australians. I understand that more people than originally anticipated by the architects of the scheme now require support, meaning that the NDIS is more costly than initial projections. Many of these unexpected participants are Neurodivergent children, like my daughter. It seems glaringly obvious that the answer to this issue is neither to redefine the definition of Neurodivergence, nor to adjust the NDIS Act to make Neurodivergent people (and other disabled people who will be filtered out by the amended Act) ineligible for support.
Submission 2206
If you build a house for two and then try for a baby and find yourself with triplets, you don’t throw a couple of them out the window after reclassifying them as not children, or not your responsibility. You build an extra room. If you don’t have enough money to build an extra room, you stop giving subsidies to the fossil fuel industry or ask for some of it back in the form of a gas tax so you can look after your children. Redefinition or being rejected from the scheme won’t make people stop being disabled, but instead will ensure that they are unable to receive professional supports while their “natural” support systems, already stretched due to systemic ableism, are overwhelmed. Families with disabled children who should receive support as a human right must not be sacrificed. Disabled people have been sacrificed in this budget via cuts to the NDIS because they are perceived to be a vulnerable, easy target without capacity to demand their rights as human beings. NDIS participants may be less powerful than other influential members of the community but they are still voters and they are very well organised and they are intrinsically worthy of support as a fundamental human right. If money can be found to prop up the failing fossil fuel industry that is destroying the planet, it can be found to allow disabled children to thrive and survive. A little reshuffling of priorities is all that’s required. Sincerely,
Anonymous (to protect my daughter’s privacy).