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

Submission 2272

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

I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed changes to the NDIS. Before I continue, I feel I need to emphasise that I have not had enough time to read the long and complex proposed amendment document. I am familiar with writing submissions calling for treatments to be added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, so I thought I had enough experience to skim through the document and form a response on my own. How wrong I was. Once I saw the sheer length and complexity of the document, I stopped trying to read it and turned instead to the insights shared by people and organisations I trust. These included disability advocacy organisations, participants who shared their stories and concerns on social media, other advocates, certain politicians and submissions already uploaded to the Parliament submissions website. From these, I learned about the key areas of concern and how they might relate to me and others in the community.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2272

amendments, I would form many more. The concerns I have included are in no particular order of importance. They are all important. I believe the proposed changes will:

• Force at least 160,000 Australians with disability off or out of the NDIS before proper, proven alternatives are in place. This is frightening for people like me, as we would be much worse off without our supports.If people are pushed out of the NDIS without real supports to go to, they will not stop needing support.They will be pushed onto families,hospitals,,homelessness services ,mental health servicesand crisis systems thatare already under pressure.Thiswill cause reaharm.Inour community,families arestrugglingtoaccessdisability mentalhealthandsupports.society participation.despite these being central central tothe founding principlesofthen DIS.Thessupports arerotnot extras.T hey helppeople leave home.stay connected.work.study.volunteer.build relationships and live safelyinthecommunity.Reduce critical fundingfor essentialsupportservices.Mostsupporth workers anorganisationsarereallypassionateaboutpeoplethey carefors also opposefraudwithinthesystem.I nmany cases.theyhamstrungby inadequate professionaltraining byalready restricted funding suchas being ablet chargefortraveltime tonindividuals Most suppor providers needtosupported not penalised.Give theminister broad powerscutting fundingswithoutproper individual review.Cuttingoff whole groups of supports doesnotin take individuall needs into account.Also anypowers heldbymeminsterdependsonideoologyintegrity each person intherole. Greatly reduce participants’ right appeal decisions at all stages the scheme from initial applications through plan reviews changescircumstances. Ourappeal rights have alreaddiminished recent years.They should be much stronger align with humanrights conventions Reduce accessscheme for peoplewith cognitive disabilitiesand reducedmental functional capacity.Especially those whosecapacity may vary dayday Disadvantage use lackuse other service systems considered when their NDIS eligibility assessed.NIDSeligibility was always supposed based age residency citizenship statues level disability impairmentneed amconcerned that NDIA could start considering DSP orother Centrelink benefit status deciding whether include participantnot That would work against principlethat eligiblity is determined income.DSP assessment flawed outdated case Create negative outcomes applicantsorparticipantswhose decision automated.Terrifies remind me RoboDebt issues support automation administrative efficiency but assess peoples capacities andneeds Those decisions shouldalways responsibilitypeople extensively trained specificdisabilities areas such allied health professionals believefunctional capacity reports qualifiedhealthprofessionals knowindividualshould mandatory made more affordable accessible standardised Falsely penalise participants funding cut after 90 days noncontact Such delayscouldoccurany number reasons appears amendment makes no provisionsforNDIAtotoroughlyinvestigatereasons behind lack of contact address them For example,participantshave been in hospital lostaccess totheir

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

Submission 2272

• Support Workers:
  • Or being unable to contact others.
  • Or finding themselves trapped indoors due to safety concerns related to their condition such as needing assistance from carers but having no access because of an inability to use phones safely.