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

Submission:

I am a person with a disability and current NDIS participant who prior to my disability was a government Executive in public policy. This submission has been written with assistance from my carer/partner due to my functional capacity.

Summary

The Government should withdraw this bill because it does not address fraud or provider integrity issues but instead strips protections away systematically while concentrating power into one Minister’s hands without access independent review thereby risking serious harm among Australia’s most vulnerable citizens.I bring both lived experience being someone living chronically disabled along background executive role within public sector policies. This document identifies seven critical concerns regarding proposed legislation proposes constructive amendments each.The NDIS requires modernization genuine reform whereas this bill neither penalizes participants lives at risk.

Issue 1 Tightened Eligibility Access Supports

The Problem:

The new definition ‘functional capacity’ introduced under this bill forces applicants exhaust all available treatments before accessing services removing existing requirement that these must genuinely accessible individual terms geographic availability cost.Treatment word directly added eligibility provisions creating medical barrier fails account reality multiple disabilities interact exponentially compound impairment.

Why It Matters & My Lived Experience As former Director financially secure became disabled now live below poverty line Disability Support Pension Most conditions covered PBS Medicare specialist gap fees hundreds dollars per appointment Treatments deemed ‘available’ simply inaccessible thousands others like me.A person lifelong condition could be denied NDIS if treatment reduces disability impacts even though out reach Introducing formal standardised definitions of function further risks blunt assessment tools fail reflect fluctuating cumulative and lived reality disablement.

What Needs to Change

• Restore the requirement for treatments truly accessible (financially geographically) considered “available”
• Remove addition term

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

Submission 2261

Issue 2: ‘Not Contactable’ Provisions and Participant Communication Rules

The Problem

The Bill enables plan suspension or revocation where a participant is deemed ‘not contactable’. There are no defined standards regarding what constitutes “reasonable attempts” in contacting them; there’s also lack of minimum timeframe requirements nor advance notice provided when making information requests. Civil penalties may apply if these conditions aren’t met as well,

Why It Matters & My Lived Experience

For numerous individuals with disabilities periods without availability isn’t an option but rather symptomatic condition they’re dealing within their daily lives such as hospitalization during mental health crisis unconsciousness because disability impacts ability communicate effectively over phone calls without carer present planned rest medication lead up it missed every private number call from NDIS repeatedly requested communication written scheduled ahead time avail instead decisions made without input accountability NDIS staff specialist wait times already exceed months some specialists refuse write reports due being time poor choice focus treating patients which unusual complicates timely compliance participants out control

What Needs to Change

define reasonable attempts at contact primary legislation including minimum number, methods timetables consideration meeting needs people disabilities impact communicating require advance notice multiple avenues include writing before any plan suspension triggered sufficient timeframes establish explicit protections for uncontactable participants due disability hospitalized crises remove substantially limit civil penalty provisions circumstances

Issue 3: Restrictions on Plan Reassessment and Review

The Problem

The Bill would restrict timing participant can request unscheduled reassessments imposes new restrictions how changes are made. Unspent funds one-off items no longer automatically carry forward plans renewed legislated timeframe review decision right appeal unreasonable takes.

Why It Matters & My Lived Experience

Practical reality challenging NDIS decision inaccessible most participants design currently Administrative Review Tribunal second seeking funding power wheelchair both unable access advocate service capacity carer I faced NDIs legal team without own legal support representation process designed serve month years demands sustained cognitive physical energy many simply have significant financial emotional cost first tribunal process functional deteriorate measurably stress meaning by the was Page of

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

Submission 2261

approved for NDIS access, I required a higher level of support than I would have needed had the original decision been made correctly and promptly. In the interim and for over a year after gaining access, I needed to use a rusted wheelchair collected from the side of the road —with no rubber on its wheels—to attend medical appointments. This is not an exceptional case.Itis what happens when decisions are inappropriate,and timeframesarenot metand thereisan accountabilityforthe delay. TheNDIShasmissedeverysingleprocessingtimeframeinmyexperience—acrossmyminitial application,mychangeofcircumstance requests ,andothearppeals.Thereisonocommunicationwhen timeframe sarebreachedandonconsequenceforthAgency.Itistreatedasanacceptednorm.For participants,thecostofthat norm istborneentirelybythem.Whatemy experiencealso reveal s thatthestrialprocessitselffrequently works—the NDISHAS overturneditsowndecisionsbefore mattershave reachedahearing,suggestingtheriginal decisi ons were indefensible.Thebarrier isnott themerits; itispersistenceanda ndacity.Participants whocannot sustain alengthy unsupported high-stakes process will simply give up.T he Bill’sproposed restrictionson unscheduled reassessmentsandan d plan reviewswill makethissworse.removing then only leverage manyparticipantscurrently haveto compeltheadgencytotakeffect. Forparticipan tsone five-year plans,tainability torequestreassessment inresponse to asignificant deteriorationinh ealthorchange of circumstance istrangerous.Thescriting and procurement process for complexequipment suchas wheelchairsroutinely spans months ;removings unspent fund rollover makes timely accesstocritical equipment a lottery. What Needs To Change Preserve the right tor request anunsched uled reasse ssment Legislate binding timeframesfor reassessment decisions,with arightof escalation if timeframe sarenot met Retain automaticrollovero funspents funds fo ritems with longprocurement lead times including assistive technology Introduce mandatory participant notificationand explanationforallplan changes Preserveland strengthen not limit ,access tot h Administrative Review Tribunal forall substantive NDISdecisions Increase funding o fa dvocacy support servicesf or Appeals anda n administrative review tribunal processes sosupport isaccessibleby allindividuals Issue4: Ministerial PowersTo CapAndCut Funding Categories The Problem ThBill grantstheMinister broadpowers set maximum dollar amounts orcaptop intensity ratio oran categoryofsupportsf ore ntireclassesdisabilit y byinstrument.Thespecific capvaluesaretobe setinaseparat edocumentthatcanbe amended atanytime without parliamentaryscrutiny publicnotification ora ndparticipant consultation. Th Billessentiallyelevatesfinancial sustainability asa primary objective placing itabove delivery of reasonablean d necessary supports to individuals Why It Matters & My Lived Experience The idea thataminister couldcutallfundings inane entire supportcategory —without notice, on individual assessment,andw ithout anyrightoreview—is fundamentally incompatible wit ha person centred scheme.Itwouldallow fund ing for,say al personal careoral lcommunicationsupports, tobereduced overnightathewhimof theministerto-the-dayfor thousandso f participantsbasedon budgetpressuresrather thanindividuallen eed. Therhetoricusedtojustify strippingsuppor tsfrom peoplewith disabilities ratherthan providing sup porttosuchavulnerable groupinsocietyhasalready beenharmful on many levels.ThisBil has spreadit fromParliamenttomediatothepublicandimpactedoni have already seen itsimpactineverydayinteractions.Peoplehaveaskedmehow much my (appliedf or) wheelchaircosttaxpayer’s Page36

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

Submission 2261

Issue 5: Automated Decision-Making and Reduced Participant Rights

The Problem

The Bill increases reliance on automated and system-driven decision-making while simultaneously limiting access to independent external review through the Administrative Review Tribunal. Broad new information-gathering powers enable NDIA demand highly personal records — including bank histories and medical files without clear privacy safeguards.

Why It Matters & My Lived Experience

The Robodebt scheme demonstrated catastrophically what happens when automated systems make high-stakes decisions about vulnerable Australians with insufficient human oversight or meaningful appeal rights.The consequences were devastating.Disability is complex individual rarely reducible an algorithm.Removing limited right-independent review automating more decisions deeply dangerous combination. The move toward automatedsystem driven decisionmaking made significantly worse existing cultural operational failure.NDIS routinely disregards clinical evidence provided treating doctors specialists allied health professionals.Isolated complaint systemic pattern serious consequence participants schemes own budget.As participant I provided occupational therapy reportsincluding from a NDISappointed OTspecialist assessments explicitly recommending power wheelchair accessible housing.These requests by NDIA not read actioned.Instead forced two rounds appeals administrative tribunal proceedings supports entire team documented outset.Legal costs spent opposing those exceeded cost of themselves.When staff failed engage in clinical evidence funded significant personal expense Agency commissioned its own assessment which reached identical conclusions.Real savings exist cutting support ensuring time training mandate properly engaging first time.Automation fixing this problem Reform establish that treating specialist primary authority on participant’s needs decisions against weight require documentation genuine independent timely mechanism catch errors before Tribunal current approach costs the scheme takes longer causes harm people it supposed to support.

What Needs To Change

• Prohibit fully automated decision-making for any funding, eligibility plan; requires human review at each point. Preserve and strengthen access Administrative Review Tribunal all substantive NDIS decisions. Introduce strict purpose limitations oversight mechanisms expansion information-gathering powers.

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

Submission 2261

• Require written reasons for all automated or system-generated decisions, with a clear and accessible pathway to review.
• Invest in staff knowledge and allow time for them to more accurately process participant documents, placing greater value on reports from health professionals as the experts.
• Up-skill staff to more appropriately review Appeals rather than them escalating and requiring lawyers to process support requests at the Tribunal.

Issue 6: Premature Legislation on Unresolved Prior Reforms

The Problem This Bill sits atop significant ongoing reforms within the NDIS scheme which are still being developed, trialled, implemented; foundational elements critical towards maintaining overall integrity remain untested/unfunded by state/territory governments. Introducing further structural changes before these existing programs have stabilized creates compounded uncertainty without safety net measures. It also places no restrictions upon transition processes.

Why it Matters & My Lived Experience I am uncertain about receiving future NDIS supports due to my role caring for an elementary-aged child—this directly impacts family security where there is currently no alternative comprehensive care structure available. These proposed alterations could lead to increased children entering into Child Safety Systems because parents/caregivers of individuals living disabilities lose essential familial ties through loss of necessary support services. Additionally this increases informal carer burden significantly. What Needs To Change Impose legislative moratorium until operational independent evaluation of fundamental building blocks required. Require mandatory community co-design with people having disability prior any new rules under Act made. Legislate clear transitional protections defined subject matter timeframes temporary rule/measures in place.

Issue 7: Increased Reliance On Informal and Unpaid Supports

The Problem The bill inherently shifts caregiving burdens even more onto unpaid informals provided by families/friends disproportionately impacting women who provide majority informal care Australia.

Why This Matters & My Personal Story Informal caregivers are not substitute funded supports they themselves face health employment financial personal needs structurally relying on them suppresses workforce participation, raises burnout levels creating scheme access determined availability unpaid labour rather than individual need.

The lack sufficient support received current system has had direct impact partner also providing full-time care resulting relationship strain depression developed as result of prolonged stress he suffered spinal surgery after injuring himself needing help mobilizing lifting second-hand mobility equipment delays NDIS provision caused all these impacts avoided if adequate supports were already available instead reliance my caregiver will worsen proposed changes. What Needs to change Recognize legislation that recognizes complementary nature between informal care funding supported NDIS programs. Page 5of6

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

Submission 2261

• Conduct and publish an analysis of the gendered impact of this provision before the Bill proceeds.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The NDIS is not perfect, and genuine reform is needed — particularly to address provider fraud and strengthen scheme integrity. This Bill does not do that. It penalises participants, removes protections, concentrates ministerial power, limits review rights, and does so while the existing reform program is incomplete. The economic modelling indicates that for every $1 invested in the NDIS, approximately $2.25 is returned to the Australian economy. The scheme supports over 270,000 jobs. Cutting it improperly will shift costs to health, housing, and child safety systems ––costs that are harder to measure but no less real. I ask the Committee to consider my lived experience when reviewing this Bill,and recommendthattheGovernment: - Withdraw the Bill in its current form. - Commission an independent co-designed review focused specifically on provider fraud and schemeintegrity Develop any further structural eligibility or funding reforms only after foundational supportsare operational independently evaluated. Ensure all future reform subject mandatory co-design with people disability binding timeframes. Commit primacy reasonable necessary individualised support central objectNDIS Act. Australia should be judged by how treats most vulnerable citizens.ThisBill as drafted fails test. Page6of6