National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2268 - Supplementary Submission
PRIVATE – publish as anonymous only
Committee Secretary Community Affairs Legislation Committee Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
To the Committee,
Submission: Prohibit the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Report feedback.
I provide this feedback based on 30 years of lived experience with a family member who has a complex disability.
I was very disappointed with the Interim Report of the Committee. I feel the Committee has made light of the issues and the people and organisations that made Submissions. The view formed by the Committee that “…led to some confusion and misinterpretation regarding the bill’s intent and impact. Ultimately, this has resulted in misconceptions circulating in the disability community and beyond” is insulting. Submissions were made from many perspectives, including highly experienced lawyers. The gaps that have been identified show that the Government has very little understanding about people with complex disabilities and the impact of this Bill on them. The Government’s “intention” is one thing, but the consequences of trying to implement this Bill are another. This half-baked, dangerous Bill may achieve NDIS savings but the problems it invokes for complex participants will result in costs being shifted to other sectors such as emergency services. The NDIA cannot be trusted to deliver a safe and fair Scheme by using its own interpretation to “fill in the gaps” in the Bill. The NDIA gets it wrong, often, already. They will not cope with a new way of delivering the Scheme without harming more participants. The Bill must not go ahead. Proper consultation with disability experts of all types needs to take place before a safe and suitable Bill can be drafted.
The recommendations did not take into account the many issues consistently identified in the Submissions, which point out the dangers of the Bill to people with disabilities. Examples of harmful measures include:
Moving people off the NDIS to “Foundational Supports” that do not exist Weak approach to identifying and penalising fraud and sharp practices, leaving bad actors in the scheme to harm vulnerable participants Not enough weight on investigating providers rather than participants; Providers are more likely to be the ones engaging in large scale misuse of NDIS funds. They are the experts in ‘gaming the system’. The new amount of administrative effort placed on exhausted families already in the Scheme to re-prove everything; Plan renewals instead of continuations is cruel for the genetically impaired participant when the diagnosis alone is a reliable definition of a minimum baseline level of substantial and permanent need Ignoring the whole person: That is, with rare complex disabilities like Prader-Willi Syndrome, the interplay between, and cumulative effect of impairments across categories have a substantial impact on functional capacity; There is no evidence that the proposed testing tools like ICAN will be able to accurately reflect the truth of the difficulties in the participant’s life. Not enough detail in any part of the Bill to enable the community to identify adverse consequences, foreseeable and unintended Ignoring the context of a complex person’s life, in that they may not have informal supports or live in a location with adequate specialist supports for rare conditions Assessments to be conducted by office staff instead of experts in allied health and disability will result in unsafe decision (the NDIA already makes poor decisions as evidenced by AAT/ART outcomes)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2268 - Supplementary Submission
PRIVATE – publish as anonymous only
Plan reassessments are often due to errors made by the NDIA in the first instance; Participants should not be penalised for under-performance by NDIA staff or LACs who make mistakes in locating and understanding evidence supplied The time it takes for the NDIA to make decisions in crisis situations is already too long; It is not appropriate for the Bill to extend that time The Scheme is supposed to address individual needs; Implementing funding caps and “support determinations” is going to cause problems for complex participants; The increase in costs1 for crisis interventions will be in other sectors (eg emergency services) but still born by the tax payer. Giving the Minister too much power is not democratic and can result in capitulation to lobbyists and political winds Plan budget periods do not allow enough flexibility for complex participants whose needs can change significantly and suddenly; The NDIA has already proven itself too slow to act in these circumstances. People with ‘thinking’ impairments are going to be at most risk if they have not responded to attempted contact from the NDIA. They may not be able to organize their reasons, nor get adequate support when the administrative process fails them. This puts them at grave risk of being left in unsafe circumstances by the NDIA, the service that is supposed to keep them safe. Automation of assessments and decision making is completely unacceptable for people with complex impairments that include an impact on ‘thinking’ ability (whether intellectual, cognitive or neurological causation). Automation cannot address the uncommon cases. The only suitable safeguard for complex participants is to have human assessors and assessments because discretionary decision-making and evaluative judgements are needed for complex disabilities. Do not replicate Robodebt and Aged Care system flaws which are evidence that automation of human services harms Australians. Assessments must allow for input from those who know the disabled person and understand the impact of their complex disability The Bill is not compatible enough with Human Rights; The system as proposed fails to recognize individuals and their unique circumstances. It would appear that, in addition to the ‘Required’ category, participants, will have to effectively apply for every single other relevant impairment category separately. In the case of people with ‘thinking’ impairments their families will be the ones with the administrative burden, not to mention the professionals who will supply the supporting evidence. This is a waste of public money when the research shows that for some genetic syndromes, there is a predictable, inescapable set of traits that occur in different categories. If the NDIA misplaces the evidence for a category, the participant will be put in danger due to not receiving appropriate supports. I know of a case where evidence lost for a category has already happened. With complex conditions that involve cognitive and similar ‘thinking’ impairments, environmental triggers, that is a change in circumstances can cause sudden, catastrophic drops in functional capacity and adaptive behaviours. This could be that the intensity of the traits displayed increase, where inadequate supports exacerbate the situation, eg exclusion from a day program previously attended. The NDIS has already shown itself unable to respond in a timely manner to these changing needs. Therefore, raising the threshold for assistance for these individuals will increase the risk of harm to them. The appeal avenues and grounds are inadequate, with the risk of leaving complex participants underfunded An internal audit program as indicated by the Deputy CEO is not a suitable safeguard. Small sampling and slow report and reaction times will disadvantage participants. Such audits should be done on the KPIs of staff members involved in accurate record keeping and sub- standard decision making as these are the problems many participants have experience in the past.
1 Economic burden and health-related quality of life associated with Prader-Willi syndrome in France - PubMed
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2268 - Supplementary Submission
PRIVATE – publish as anonymous only
In summary, do not proceed with this Bill, the consequences will harm the most complex and therefore vulnerable participants. It is time for the NDIA to recognize particular needs and deliver targeted policy and Rules for people with ‘thinking’ impairments (whether the cause is intellectual, cognitive or neurological).
Yours sincerely,
Anonymously