Submission 2231
29 May 2026
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Dear Committee National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
My name is redacted and I am a person living with a disability and on the NDIS.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.
These new proposed amendments would most likely affect me in some capacity, which has bought fear to me. I have seen the commentary in the newspapers and media and feel that these proposed amendments are to appease factions of the community who are resentful that persons with a disability have support. Further, I do support fraud control of course from providers, although my perspective is that users are being punished for this. I take note, that the public service wage cost blew out by $250B this financial year and I wonder how that fairs against the NDIS budget.
Cuts to the NDIS means that the money cut from support workers – many of whom are unregistered and women – is taken from the economy, that is a fact.
I advocate that unregistered providers need to remain for choice and control, and that making a four part centralised only support worker companies, will monopolise and cause people, like myself, to be forced to deal with untrained people and people unsuited to us and that will cause harm. Especially to people with psychosocial disabilities.
Respectfully, the “securing the NDIS for future generations” is a misnomer and is a very cheeky manipulation and marketing ploy to try and make out these are for the ‘good’ when you are cutting ‘future generations’ from the NDIS. That is the point of these amendments.
I outline my recommendations below.
9B Definition of functional capacity
(1) A person’s functional capacity, in relation to an activity, is the person’s ability to undertake the activity: (a) without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications; and (b) in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.
(2) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may make provision for determining any matter for the purposes of subsection (1).
Submission 2231
In speaking to the above proposed amendments, make it utterly rife for abuse of power and too wide a discretion of what they propose to be functional or not and to exclude the impact of the persons environment and personal circumstances is conterproductiuve as that persons functional capacity is impacted by a range of things. If the NDIS were for example, to assess someones functional capacity as per the above and find that the person had capacity outside of factors in (b), then that would not be a true reflection of that persons functional capacity.
This description of function capacity does not take into account the unpredictable nature of a disability, particularly psychosocial. Where an NDIS assessor (see below) may not understand that someone with ‘two functioning arms and legs’ are unable to shower themselves on a daily basis but may be able to manage it once per month for example, and perhaps not very well, under this amendment the person would be deemed ‘functional’. Which is entirely unfair and does not take into account nuance.
Further, at present, we have in the NDIS, NDIS employees whose background includes being lawyers, call centres and working for insurance companies who are assessing like the above currently. These amendments do not fix that, only entrench it.
If by (b) one means that without supports the person would be non-functional, then that fits, but that is not made clear in these amendments which are open to legal interpretation.
What you will find is more appeals, more money spent, more time spent and more trauma with this amendment. And what will most likely happen is a repeal of the amendment due to the harm caused and abuse of discretion, which this amendment is open to.
Secondly, the phrasing of subsection (2), gives the NDIS a significant amount of power to change what they deem to be functional capacity at any time and change the description of it at any time. Which seems unlawful and unfair.
Further the UN bought in a Disability Care and Support Tool for countries to rate themselves against with supporting people with disabilities it can be found here:
I wonder where the NDIS and Australia sit within this assessment tool particularly with the changes to the NDIS.
In relation to the social and community supports, speaking from lived experience, if I did not have these supports, I would not leave the house. It has taken years to get to the point where I can leave the house and I still need to do that supported. I am sure that my experience is not unique and that others, like myself, will find themselves severely disadvantaged and deteriorating should the government proceed with this ‘cut’.
Submission 2231
I would sincerely urge the government and persons making these decisions to reconsider the tenants of Disability Discrimination and rights of a person with a disability that includes ‘a right to dignity’, a right to a quality of life, a right to refusal and The right to autonomy / choice and control / self-determination, ie, equal opportunity. This is already severely lacking within the NDS as found by the Royal Commission, and I wonder how this will be improved for persons with a disability if these amendments whose only goal is a cut in funding, go through.
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on these points.
Kind regards