Submission on the NDIS Amendment Bill

My reason for contributing.

Navigating the world as a young disabled person has come with many challenges. My illness is invisible to the untrained eye and the expectation to participate as an able-bodied person within society only adds to the stress of managing my health. Despite this, I feel grateful for the wisdom received in my disabled body and know that the best way for me to utilise my lived experience is to share my perspective with you. Despite having a medically verified, permanent, lifelong incurable disorderand no longer being able to achieve many regular daily living tasks independently, is unable access NDIS funding. I’m submitting because it’s painstakingly difficult people accessing support services via NDIsD, how misunderstood are disabled folks wider community Broader economic pressures already disproportionately impacting most vulnerable our community With mind choosing amplify voices disabled while ndis sits chopping block.

Overall view bill.

Overall believe proposed changes will negatively impact participants communities Some these changes indirectly lead dangerous life threatening situations participants not carefully considered edited or rejected Proposed amendments pose significant economic threat current participants families also wider community demand mainstream support increases rapidly Building stronger more efficient economically does require input range stakeholders perhaps importantly must consult those lives directly impacted.

Concerns.

Have several concerns about proposed amendments 1 First concern increased reliance standardised system driven decision making processes Automation administrative action raises alarm outcomes provided computers have very real impactful consequences humans What found particularly interesting Schedule Part Division subsection -

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2258

“A failure to comply with subsection (4) does not affect the validity of the administrative action taken by\nthe operation of the computer program.” This reads as “The computer’s actions are valid even if it fails to comply with the rules”. I am really shocked, and terrified, to see that line included. I also read that the CEO can take administrative action if the action taken by a computer \npogram is not correct or ‘preferable’. But what does preferable look like? Preferable to the livelihood of participants? Preferable to lobbyist interests? The Minister’s views? national budgets? Preferable to the tastes of other stakeholders? I hope to see some more clarity around this use of language. I also hope to see further protections added here, such that these decisions made in consultation with the disabled community rather than one overarching voice.The use automated computer systems trickles into my concerns: 1 When human element minimised we miss opportunities reasonable flexible support arrangements While AI systems being helpful when audio text services used summarise person meetings feel level dependence on automated system will many cases fail accurately provide needed participant Support each nuance varies greatly between participants Automated erases nuance could inadequate funding essential services potentially overfund areas less important for particular participant wasting resources biggest worry disabled people go without integral life saving support inaccurate plan due lack review decision making processes 3 Amendments put forward regarding renewal reassessment don’t seem adequately accommodate changes within fair time frames Where adjustments required reviews should be accessed timely manner Despite permanent nature disabilities unpredictable circumstance change happen recipients may require before next scheduled check Timely assessments are necessary maintaining accurate up date plans reflect current goals needs circumstances proposed elongation times including 90 day turn around currently days after a participant requests reassessment places at risk receiving adequate irrelevant service treatments it is needed burden vulnerable community administrative roadblocks against providing accessible services

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill Submission

Submission: 2258

4. I also opposethe proposal allowing ministerial powers adjusting funding categories.* My understanding*,funding levels certain groups supports adjusted at a systemic level not individual needs.I few concerns about this.Firstly defunding underresourcing entire areas without personalized considerations each participant has potential cause harm suffering participants families.Second ministers swayed implement category cuts based public perception news cycles example defund social participation because bad faith headlines pressure opinion most dangerous changes put forward directly burden disabled folk consequently apply greater pressure our overwhelmed medical systems schools public services mental health specialists,families,care facilities.

5.It feels stating obvious here but disabled people won’t suddenly stop needing support when their funding cut So leaves me lots questions tangible impacts would follow implementation proposed changes.How will (ex)participants continue access essential to their individual needs?These intended flow on impact mainstream service providers expected increase demand particularly low cost/free services measures taken aid smooth transition how supply keep up new demand vulnerable disabled harmed process How reduce Will already main stream suffer poor planning mismanagement resources costs of surge with demand become inaccessible both disabled wider community working class fare step away paid work care for loved ones? Are the proposals really efficient way achieve long term financial sustainability? 6I do have more concerns other proposals in bill. Oppose some language defining functional capacity reasonable necessary permanent With reference schedule part amendment section definition believe best equipped diagnose define identify issues than NDIA legislators’d like see OT’s particular space defining rather NDIS employees As reason and necessary understand why “so far as is consistent scheme” added however vague may result unfair denial

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

Submission 2258

support for participants (especially items like motorised wheelchairs or in-home modifications). I understand clarity provided in schedule $1$, part ${\bf{6}}$*, amendments \textit{{7${}^{th}$ }}and {3rd}. I believe CEO should be required to collaborate with healthcare professionals inorder justify their conclusions reasonable necessary support that should not funded.

Final statement*

NDIS funding investment all Australian people.* Many proposals changes to the NDIS amendment Bill seem half baked concepts lack adequate foresight increases automated processes reassessment roadblocks ministerial power imbalance redefining language consequences may follow these proposed changes driving concerns Disabled folk worthy generous support and access appropriate services contribute meaningful ways wider community If desired outcome of these changes improve Australia’s economic health there abundant pathways consider before gutting essential lifesaving funding this bill needs get worse economys get better Sincerely,