Submission 2: NDIS Future Generation Bill 2026

I am an NDIS participant living with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) in Perth, Western Australia.

I am writing again about my deep concern regarding proposed reforms within the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Act for future generations bill 2026 that I believe could disadvantage people like myself due to complex conditions such as MS which affects mobility balance vertigo fatigue vision coordination making it difficult accessing communities safely managing needs independently ongoing support intervention needed maintain capacity quality life.

Concerns raised include replacing diagnosis based assessment considerations new functional capacity evaluations where symptoms fluctuation environmental modifications cumulative impact disability are overlooked leading underestimating how these affect day-to-day functioning.

This issue has been highlighted previously by organizations representing individuals affected including MS Australia others concerned multiple sclerosis characterized permanent fluctuations invisible disabilities changing levels function baselines influenced stress temperature changes illness co-morbidities neural load carry snap shot evaluation fails capture true condition impacts ability participate safely everyday life home supports essential work study without them losing job unable access community daily basis meet personal goals volunteer manage own health admin part society contribute conversation connection snapshot assessments miss important individual indicators.

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

Submission 2248 - Supplementary Submission

I am also concerned about proposals that would only fund supports linked to impairments specifically accepted by the NDIA. Many people with disability live with complex presentations where symptoms overlap, evolve over time and cannot be neatly separated into categories. Restricting supports in this way risks creating artificial divisions that do not reflect the reality of living with disability. Another concern is the proposal to refuse supports where there is insufficient published research. Many supports are funded because treating professionals observe clear functional benefit for an individual participant. Decisions should continue to consider clinical judgement, individual outcomes and the expertise of treating practitioners who understand the person’s circumstances.I am also concerned about provisions that would allow support categories to be reduced through broad policy decisions rather than individual assessment. People with progressive neurological conditions require personalised consideration. Funding decisions should continue to be based on individual functional needs rather than broad reductions applied across disability groups.Many people within the MS community are already experiencing significant distress due to reductions in allied health funding, particularly physiotherapy. Physiotherapy is widely recognised as a key intervention for maintaining mobility, managing symptoms, reducing falls risk, preserving independence and maximising quality of life for people living with MS.I am aware of cases where physiotherapy funding has been removed and replaced with funding for a Therapy Assistant. However, a Therapy Assistant does not replace a physiotherapist. Therapy Assistants work under the direction and supervision of qualified allied health professionals and cannot independently provide the assessment, clinical reasoning, treatment planning and ongoing review that people with complex neurological conditions require. Decisions that reduce access to appropriately qualified allied health professionals risk undermining participant outcomes and may ultimately increase support needs over time. I am particularly troubled by the prospect of important assessment tools, eligibility thresholds and operational rules being determined after legislation has already passed. Disability organisations, avocates and legal bodies have raised similar concerns. Participants deserve transparency and certainty.Parliament should know exactly how these reforms will operate before they become law.My concerns are not mine alone.They reflect concerns raised by MS Australia and numerous national disability organisations in their submissions to this inquiry.These organizations highlight risks associated w ith fluctuating neurologica lconditions,the dangers o f implementing major refor ms be fore k ey details h ave b een fully developed an d scrutinised,and t he importance 0f ensuring decisions remain grounded i n individual functional need rather than administrative efficiency or cost containment.I also respectfully ask the Committee to consider th e human impact on these reform s p erson living w ith disability.Many NDIS participants manage c omplex medical condit ions,specialist appointments , therapies,reviews,hospital visits a nd administrativ

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

Submission 2248 - Supplementary Submission

requirements. This creates significant physical, cognitive and emotional strain. People with disability are often among the most vulnerable members of our community and many\neexperience substantial medical \and appointment fatigue simply from tryingto access anda\nmaintainthe supports they need. I respectfully begthecommitteto recommend that thisBillanda its associatedreformsbe pausedinstanta genuinelytrauma informedapproachise embeddedthroughout every aspectof thproposed changes.Requiringpeoplewithdisabilitytorepeatedlyprove theirneeds,navigate increasingadministrativeburdens,facouncertaintyaboutessentialsupportsandocontinuallydefendtheir eligibilitycancausesignificantdistressaharm.Any reformothen DISshould prioritisedignity,safety,trust,tansparencyam meaningfulconsultationwithe peoplewho have lived experience of disabiliy.The sustainability o then NDIS should never come at thee expense ofthewellbeingofvery peopelit was created to protect.T heNDISSdesignedtosupportpeoplerebasedontheirfunctional needsandcapacitytoparticipateineverydaylife.Ibelievethatprinciplemustremainatcentrer anyreforml respectfull ask committetorecommendtha1.Functional assessmentsreflectapersonsrealworldcircumstances,including symptom fluctuation, fatigue , support nee assistive technology an environmental factors.2.Supp continue be determined based on individual functional impact rather than narrow impairment categories3.Clinical evidence and recommendations from treating health professionals remain a valid basis for funding decisions4.Individual planning review rights procedural fairness are preserved5.Assessment tools thresholds decision making rulesbe fully developed published independently scrutinised beforeany legislativechangesare implemented6.NDIS continues recogniseneedspeoplewithprogressivenurological conditionswhose disabilities may not fit neatly within rigid assessment frameworks7.Bill pausuntil comprehensive trauma informedreviewproposed reforms undertaken includingmeaningful consultation with NDIS participants families carers disability advocatesdisability organisations frontline alliedhealthprofessionalsThankyouforconsideringsubmission.