NDIS
SUBMISSION TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NDIS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026
Submitted by: Date: May 2026
INTRODUCTION
I believe it will cause harm; it targets people with disability not fraud or violates UN CRPD.
Name redacted: A 63-year-old NDIS participant living in NSW who lives with Autism Spectrum Disorder ASD Level II (Level), ADHD, Complex PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder Generalised Anxiety Borderline Personality Disorder Stroke damage Brain injury some sight loss post-stroke vestibularopathy Severe osteoarthritis knees hips shoulders + Bilateral Deafness These are diagnoses accepted by NDIA but my actual ones Permanent progressive complexes have substantially permanently reduced functional capacity across multiple domains.
Rely on assistance for mobility indoors community Even attending a single medical appointment depletes entire day’s energy Not occasional limitations they’re daily reality of life I am strongly opposed to this amendment bill current form This submission draws lived experience extensive clinical documentation history administrative failure caused serious ongoing harm Committee reject provisions restrict access reduce supports remove choice control disabled people The as drafted will direct harm like me thousands others Australia Consultation period inadequate disabilities particularly those executive functioning deficits fatigue-related conditions require significantly more time prepare evidence quality process deserves Tight timeframe itself barrier meaningful participation Without support cannot not cook nutritious meals maintain home Access allied health physiotherapy torn ligaments due falls My physical condition deteriorates risk increases Mental health declines Increased thoughts self-harm Proposed Bill embed legislation approach causing harm narrow deficit-focused assessment function fails account fluctuating invisible complex nature WHODAS occupational therapist found severe difficulty
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2229
Bill’s approach to functional assessment would not have captured this. It would have left me, and many others like me, without the supports we need and are entitled to.
The proposed requirement to undergo treatments as a condition of access is deeply inequitable.
Many evidence-based treatments for physiotherapy, hydrotherapy, remedial massage — are not covered by Medicare at the frequency required. A Medicare chronic disease plan provides only five allied health sessions per year.
Requiring people in my circumstances to exhaust these inadequate mainstream options before accessing the NDIS is not a meaningful threshold — it is a barrier that will disproportionately exclude those with the greatest need.
I also live in Lake Macquarie, a regional area, an area with extremely limited public transport. The nearest bus stop is 1 kilometres from my home — a distance that exceeds my entire daily walking capacity.
The suggestion that mainstream services are available to me is not grounded in the reality of where I live, or the reality of my condition.
INDIVIDUALISED PLANS
My Mental health (psychosocial) & autism disability does not present the same way from day to day, or from person to person.
I have fluctuating symptoms — a pattern that is intrinsic to these conditions and well-documented in the clinical literature.
On some days I can engage in light conversation.
On other days I am bed-bound with depression, unable to process basic information. Post-exertional malaise means that activity on one day can result in multi-day crashes.
My NDIS plan needs to reflect this reality.
I require domestic assistance, meal preparation support, community access, allied health, assistive technology, and support coordination — not because I share a diagnosis with others, but because my individual circumstances demand these specific supports.
Another person with these disabilities may have different living arrangements, different informal supports, or different functional thresholds.
I have no parents, siblings, cousins Aunts, or uncles. No informal supports.
No immediate or extended family except a son (NDIS participant) who is more disabled than I am.
He has agoraphobia, Autism L2, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and ADHD. He cannot drive, does not have a job, and cannot provide ongoing care.
I have cousins interstate, but they are not available for routine support. There is no informal support network that the NDIA can rely on to substitute for my funded supports.
The Bill’s approach — which moves toward standardised support packages and away from individually tailored plans — will fail people whose needs do not fit a predetermined template.
My needs are complex, interdependent, and evidence-based. They have been assessed by a Mental Health Occupational Therapist, Physiotherapists, Psychiatrists, Clinical Psychologists, GPs, — all of whom have independently confirmed that my supports are necessary, reasonable, and clinically justified.
A system that substitutes ministerial discretion for this level of individualised assessment is not a system that will serve me — or the many Australians like me.
REDUCTIONS IN SUPPORT
I have already lived through what it means to have supports reduced. When my NDIS funding was significantly, I was forced to try to maintain my home and prepare basic meals.
I could not do this.
Submission 2229
The result was a direct and documented deterioration in my functional capacity and mental health, and it directly impacted in my son and my ability to look after my son. We had experienced domestic violence from his father so there was no option to reach out there. This impacted his schooling and he didn’t get an HSC.
The Bill’s proposal to grant the Minister power to reduce Social and Community Participation funding by up to 50 per cent is particularly alarming. My community access supports are not a luxury. They enable me to attend medical and therapy appointments — appointments that are themselves what maintain my remaining functional capacity. My counsellor has documented over five years of clinical observation that when my mental health deteriorates, my sleep quality declines, which directly triggers severe mental heat crises. Social and community participation is not separate from my health — it is integral to it.
A 50 per cent cut to this budget would mean I could no longer attend groups, community events, or family visits that are currently supported under my plan. These are not peripheral activities. They are the activities that provide me with reason to get out of bed on difficult days. Removing them would accelerate the cycle of isolation, mental health decline, and physical deterioration that my clinical team works to prevent.
I also strongly oppose the proposal for group programs to substitute for individual social and community participation funding. I have sensory sensitivities and unpredictable symptoms. A fixed group schedule cannot accommodate the reality of my condition. On a bad day, I cannot leave the house. On a good day, I may have capacity. Individually coordinated community access — with a support worker who knows my needs and can pace activities accordingly — is the only format that works for me. A group program would not.
The power to make further cuts at any time, at ministerial discretion, is itself a source of profound anxiety. The uncertainty of not knowing what supports will be available in future plans directly affects my mental health and my ability to plan my own life. The NDIS is supposed to provide certainty and dignity. A system in which supports can be reduced at any time by ministerial decision does neither. If a Liberal or One National minister get in they will have power to gut the scheme and shelve supports or groups.
CHOICE AND CONTROL
Choice and control are not abstract principles. For me, they are the difference between receiving care that works and care that causes harm. I have established relationships with support workers who understand my condition, who know how to pace activities to avoid post-exertional crashes, and whom I trust. Building those relationships takes significant time and effort — time and effort that I cannot afford to expend repeatedly.
Mandatory registration requirements that restrict my ability to use unregistered providers, including directly employed support workers, would force me to navigate a bureaucratic registration system in search of a provider who might or might not be able to meet my needs. Many smaller, specialist, or flexible providers — the ones most likely to offer the kind of responsive, individualised support I require — are unregistered precisely because the registration burden is too high for small operations. Mandatory registration would reduce the pool of available providers and reduce the quality of care I can access.
If registration is to become mandatory, a self-directed category of registration must be included. People with disabilities must retain the right to directly employ and direct their own support workers.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2229
This is not a niche preference — it is essential for anyone whose support needs are complex, fluctuating, or highly personal.
My plan manager and support coordinator work for me. They help me navigate a system that is, as my own experience demonstrates, capable of significant administrative error.
HOW THE NDIS IS RUN
My experience with the NDIA has been defined by administrative failure, inconsistency, and a lack of procedural fairness.
The Bill proposes to expand the NDIA’s powers to search participants’ homes, require production of information, and issue large fines. Given the NDIA’s demonstrated record of administrative error and inadequate engagement with participants, expanding these coercive powers without first addressing the agency’s culture of poor decision-making is deeply concerning. I have no confidence that these powers would be exercised with the care and accuracy.
The proposal to allow automated or computer-generated decisions about disability supports is similarly alarming.
My psychosocial condition is complex, fluctuating, and not easily captured by standardised assessment tools. The WHODAS 2.0, CANS, Lawton’s IADL, and FRAT assessments conducted by my Occupational Therapist were administered by a skilled clinician who could contextualise my responses, observe my functioning, and apply professional judgment. An algorithm cannot do this. An algorithm cannot understand that my mental health, Autism, and stroke deficits causes cognitive fog that affects how I answer questions about my own capacity. An algorithm cannot weigh the difference between what I can do on a good day and what I can reliably sustain.
The proposal to impose a 90-day claim period is also of direct concern. Cognitive fatigue is one of my primary symptoms. Managing the administrative demands of the NDIS — documenting expenses, tracking budgets, lodging claims — already exceeds my daily capacity on many days. A 90-day deadline would disadvantage every participant with a cognitive, fatigue-related, or episodic disability. It is a deadline that reveals an assumption that participants are able-bodied administrators of their own care — an assumption that is fundamentally at odds with the purpose of the scheme.
CONCLUSION
The NDIS changed my life. When I had access to the right supports —Psychology weekly, domestic assistance, and community access— my condition stabilised. I was able to drive short distances. I could walk independently without aid in my home. I had capacity for social connection, for creativity, for the activities that give my life meaning. That is what the NDIS is supposed to do.
When those supports were reduced, I declined.
When supports were absent, I was left not eating for days till I passed out in the floor, last month May 7.
The NDIS Amendment Bill 2026, in its current form, will make the system more likely to fail people like me — not less.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2229
It narrows access, reduces supports, removes choice and control, expands coercive powers, and embeds ministerial discretion in place of individualised assessment.
It does not address the administrative failures.
It does not fix the culture of poor decision-making at the NDIA.
It does not provide the certainty and dignity that disabled Australians deserve.
I urge the Committee to recommend that the Bill not be passed in its current form. The NDIS must be strengthened — not diminished. Disabled Australians deserve a scheme that recognises the complexity of their lives, respects their expertise in their own needs, and holds the NDIA accountable for the decisions it makes. This Bill does not do that.
May, 2026