Submission 2445
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for
Future Generations) Bill 2026.
1
Submission 2445
My previous submission:
Dear Members of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee,
I write this submission in my personal capacity as a law and criminology student with a particular interest in social justice issues affecting Australians living with disability. I am also a person living with four diagnosed psychosocial disabilities: Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Major
Depressive Disorder (MDD), and Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD).
In addition to my lived experience, I have undertaken research into disability services and examined commentary from legal professionals, medical practitioners, and disability advocates regarding the effectiveness of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). I therefore welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s inquiry into the participant experience and to provide feedback regarding legislative reforms that may adversely affect people living with disability.
Background
For the purposes of this submission, I adopt the definition of disability contained within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which states that persons with disabilities include those who have:
“long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”
This definition recognises that disability is not solely determined by an individual’s condition but is also shaped by environmental, social, and institutional barriers. In contrast, current approaches within the NDIS increasingly emphasise measurable functional impacts and standardised assessments. While assessment frameworks are necessary, disability cannot always be reduced to quantifiable metrics without overlooking the complexity of lived experience.
Disability exists on a broad spectrum and affects individuals in profoundly different ways. Unlike many temporary illnesses, disabilities often require ongoing support and accommodation across multiple aspects of life, including employment, education, social participation, and independent living.
2
Submission 2445
Importantly, disability is not always congenital. Many Australians acquire disabilities through injury, illness, trauma, or unforeseen circumstances. For example, a person living with paraplegia may have acquired their condition as the result of an accident rather than a genetic condition.
Living with disability in a society that is not always designed to accommodate diverse needs can be deeply isolating. Individuals frequently encounter barriers that others do not experience, including inaccessible infrastructure, inadequate support services, social stigma, and misconceptions regarding disability. Such barriers can contribute to unfair assumptions that people with disabilities are unwilling to work or participate in society, when in reality they are often navigating significant structural obstacles.
For many people living with disability, including myself, applying for the NDIS is not a first option but a last resort. Accessing the scheme requires extensive documentation, specialist reports, and evidence demonstrating that a condition is both permanent and significantly impacts daily functioning. The burden of obtaining this evidence can be substantial.
Specialist consultations and assessments frequently cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars, placing significant financial pressure on individuals who are already seeking support due to disability-related challenges. Consequently, prospective participants may incur considerable expenses before eligibility is even determined. This creates a contradiction within a scheme intended to provide support and assistance to those who need it most.
Furthermore, even where access to the NDIS is granted, funding allocations may not always be sufficient to cover the actual costs of necessary specialist services. As a result, participants may continue to face barriers to accessing appropriate treatment and support despite being recognised as eligible for assistance.
Public perceptions of disability have also been influenced by media narratives that portray the NDIS as an unsustainable burden rather than an essential support system. Discussions regarding participant funding frequently focus on expenditure without adequately recognising the purpose of the scheme: enabling individuals with disability to participate meaningfully in society.
Access to social participation, education, community engagement, transportation, and assistive technologies should not be viewed as luxuries. These supports contribute significantly to quality of life, independence, and wellbeing. While the NDIS should not
3
Submission 2445
exist solely to facilitate social activities, social participation remains a fundamental aspect of human life and should not be dismissed as unnecessary.
Transport provides a useful example. Many Australians can independently drive or rely on public transport; however, these options are not always accessible or reliable for people with disability. In regional centres such as Newcastle, transport limitations may prevent participants from attending medical appointments, employment opportunities, educational activities, or community events.
Although rideshare services may provide an alternative, some participants have reported difficulties securing transport due to accessibility requirements. This creates gaps in access that can further isolate people living with disability. It is therefore essential that participants are provided with the resources necessary to engage with society on an equal basis with others.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge that many NDIS participants have experienced adverse consequences resulting from fraud committed by a minority of providers and participants. While fraudulent conduct must be addressed and prevented, many legitimate participants have borne the consequences through increased scrutiny, administrative complexity, funding restrictions, and service disruptions.
In some cases, participants have discovered unauthorised claims against their plans for services they never received. Such incidents can result in significant administrative burdens, temporary funding limitations, and interruptions to essential supports. Legislative responses to fraud should therefore be carefully targeted to ensure they do not disproportionately disadvantage legitimate participants.
4
Submission 2445
Key Legislative Concerns
- Budget Resets and Funding Reductions Recent reforms have introduced reductions to certain capacity-building and participation-related supports, including substantial reductions in social and civic participation funding and reductions to daily living support budgets.
While fiscal sustainability is an important objective, reducing access to supports may limit participants’ ability to access healthcare, engage with their communities, and maintain independence. Funding decisions should be based primarily on participant needs and clinical evidence rather than budgetary considerations alone.
- Stricter Eligibility Requirements The transition from diagnosis-based access pathways toward standardised functional assessments raises concerns regarding the accuracy and fairness of eligibility determinations.
Unless such assessments are conducted or supervised by appropriately qualified medical and allied health professionals, there is a risk that complex disabilities may not be adequately understood or assessed. Disability is highly individualised, and rigid assessment frameworks may fail to capture the full impact of certain conditions, particularly psychosocial disabilities.
- Expansion of Ministerial Powers The expansion of ministerial authority over funding determinations raises concerns regarding participant autonomy and access to essential supports.
Medical and specialist care decisions should be informed by appropriately qualified healthcare professionals who possess expertise regarding a participant’s specific circumstances and needs. Excessive centralisation of decision-making authority risks prioritising financial considerations over participant wellbeing and may reduce confidence in the fairness of the system.
- Impacts on Families and Children Changes to plan reassessments and funding arrangements may have significant implications for children and their families.
5
Submission 2445
Where supports are reduced or removed, families may be required to absorb the costs of therapies, interventions, and specialist services that were previously funded. This may place considerable financial and emotional strain on parents and carers.
Expecting families to assume responsibility for complex therapeutic or behavioural interventions in addition to their caregiving responsibilities may contribute to caregiver burnout and negatively affect outcomes for both children and their families.
6
Submission 2445
Recommendations
I respectfully submit the following recommendations for the Committee’s consideration:
1. Ensure that disability-related assessments are conducted or overseen by appropriately qualified medical and allied health professionals. Determinations regarding support needs should be informed by individuals with the expertise necessary to understand the complexity of disability.
2. Strengthen consultation requirements prior to major NDIS reforms. Governments should meaningfully consult with participants, families, disability advocates, medical professionals, and community organisations before implementing significant policy changes.
3. Recognise the diversity of disability experiences. Disability is not a one-size-fits-all experience, and participants require flexibility in how support needs are assessed and funded.
4. Ensure anti-fraud measures are targeted and proportionate. Efforts to combat fraud should focus on those engaging in misconduct without imposing unnecessary barriers on legitimate participants.
5. Protect participant access to social, educational, and community participation supports. These supports are essential components of independence, wellbeing, and inclusion and should not be viewed as discretionary luxuries.
Conclusion
The NDIS was established to support Australians living with disability to participate fully and equally in society. While efforts to improve the sustainability and integrity of the scheme are important, reforms must not come at the expense of the individuals the scheme was created to support.
I encourage the Committee to carefully consider the lived experiences of participants when assessing current and proposed reforms. Disability policy should be informed by evidence, medical expertise, and meaningful engagement with those directly affected. Above all, reforms should preserve the dignity, autonomy, and quality of life of Australians living with disability.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours sincerely
7
Submission 2445
Dear Members of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee,
I write this submission in my personal capacity as a law and criminology student with a particular interest in social justice issues affecting Australians living with disability. I am also a person living with four diagnosed psychosocial disabilities: Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Major
Depressive Disorder (MDD), and Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD).
In addition to my lived experience, I have undertaken research into disability services and examined commentary from legal professionals, medical practitioners, and disability advocates regarding the effectiveness of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). I therefore welcome the opportunity to contribute again to the Committee’s inquiry into the participant experience and to provide feedback regarding legislative reforms that may adversely affect people living with disability.
I reiterate the following in particualar:
Key Legislative Concerns
- Budget Resets and Funding Reductions Recent reforms have introduced reductions to certain capacity-building and participation-related supports, including substantial reductions in social and civic participation funding and reductions to daily living support budgets.
While fiscal sustainability is an important objective, reducing access to supports may limit participants’ ability to access healthcare, engage with their communities, and maintain independence. Funding decisions should be based primarily on participant needs and clinical evidence rather than budgetary considerations alone.
- Stricter Eligibility Requirements The transition from diagnosis-based access pathways toward standardised functional assessments raises concerns regarding the accuracy and fairness of eligibility determinations.
Unless such assessments are conducted or supervised by appropriately qualified medical and allied health professionals, there is a risk that complex disabilities may not be adequately understood or assessed. Disability is highly individualised, and rigid assessment frameworks may fail to capture the full impact of certain conditions, particularly psychosocial disabilities.
- Expansion of Ministerial Powers 8
Submission 2445
The expansion of ministerial authority over funding determinations raises concerns regarding participant autonomy and access to essential supports.
Medical and specialist care decisions should be informed by appropriately qualified healthcare professionals who possess expertise regarding a participant’s specific circumstances and needs. Excessive centralisation of decision-making authority risks prioritising financial considerations over participant wellbeing and may reduce confidence in the fairness of the system.
- Impacts on Families and Children Changes to plan reassessments and funding arrangements may have significant implications for children and their families.
Where supports are reduced or removed, families may be required to absorb the costs of therapies, interventions, and specialist services that were previously funded. This may place considerable financial and emotional strain on parents and carers.
Expecting families to assume responsibility for complex therapeutic or behavioural interventions in addition to their caregiving responsibilities may contribute to caregiver burnout and negatively affect outcomes for both children and their families.
Recommendations
I respectfully submit the following recommendations for the Committee’s consideration:
1. Ensure that disability-related assessments are conducted or overseen by appropriately qualified medical and allied health professionals. Determinations regarding support needs should be informed by individuals with the expertise necessary to understand the complexity of disability.
2. Strengthen consultation requirements prior to major NDIS reforms. Governments should meaningfully consult with participants, families, disability advocates, medical professionals, and community organisations before implementing significant policy changes.
3. Recognise the diversity of disability experiences. Disability is not a one-size-fits-all experience, and participants require flexibility in how support needs are assessed and funded.
9
Submission 2445
4. Ensure anti-fraud measures are targeted and proportionate. Efforts to combat fraud should focus on those engaging in misconduct without imposing unnecessary barriers on legitimate participants.
6. Protect participant access to social, educational, and community participation supports. These supports are essential components of independence, wellbeing, and inclusion and should not be viewed as discretionary luxuries.
Conclusion
The NDIS was established to support Australians living with disability to participate fully and equally in society. While efforts to improve the sustainability and integrity of the scheme are important, reforms must not come at the expense of the individuals the scheme was created to support.
I encourage the Committee to carefully consider the lived experiences of participants when assessing current and proposed reforms. Disability policy should be informed by evidence, medical expertise, and meaningful engagement with those directly affected. Above all, reforms should preserve the dignity, autonomy, and quality of life of Australians living with disability.
10
Submission 2445
For the purposes of this submission, I again adopt the definition of disability contained within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which states that persons with disabilities include those who have:
“long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”
This semester I undertook AUSLAN as a course, and one of the terms I learned was “dinner table syndrome”. It’s a term used to describe the phenomenon Deaf or hard-of-hearing can experience when having a conversation with one or more hearing people. The describes how hearing people might inadvertantly exclude deaf people when talking having a conversation that is difficult to keep up with (either due to people talking too quickly or using terms the deaf person is unfamiliar yet). Yet when the deaf person tries to include themselves their attempt may be dismissed with hearing people saying, “Oh, it was nothing” or “I’ll tell you later”.
I bring this term up because I believe the Government is acting in the same way, with respect to the treatment of disabled people. The government is making decisions without trying to understand the realities of having a disability.
Imagine you are working in an office where using a phone is an essential part of your role. However, your phone’s battery drains at an exceptionally rapid rate, and you have no opportunity to recharge it because the only available power outlets are allocated to the office next to yours. As a result, you are unable to answer calls, respond to emails, send messages, or carry out many of the everyday tasks required to perform your job effectively. Now consider this as an analogy for disability. Yet this is what happens; for example, Prior to the 1980s, fire alarms for the deaf were almost non-existent because non deaf people didn’t consider the lived experiences of deaf individuals.
I implore the government to consider this approach. Have people with disabilities in the room and talk with people, even those who don’t get NDIS. Why?
- One in two Australians missed out on health care they needed last year mainly because they could not afford it, according to a new report. - The Consumers Health Forum surveyed more than 5,100 Australians, with the results revealing a health system that has become increasingly unaffordable. - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-31/australians-delaying-health-care-due-to -cost/106511170
11
Submission 2445
Because a) in that 5,100 Australians we don’t know if that includes someone with a physical or psychological disability.
And B) not every disability necessarily is debilitating enough to hinder people the way NDIS requires. Yet it is still expensive to treat and the current medical system doesn’t allow for those who can’t afford it, a chance to recieve healthcare unless they wait.
- I, for example, spent $3.9k getting assessed for ADHD and was put on an expensive healthcare plan. This is not accessible and I thankfully had a job to help pay of the massive bill.
- I therefore add the following recommendations to those outlined above: - increasing the number of healthcare workers. - reducing the cost of healthcare services and essential medicines. - introducing higher taxation on individuals with more than $3 million in disposable income to help fund healthcare initiatives. - and improving access to healthcare services. These areas were identified in the report as key priorities for immediate reform.
Although this report does not cover every experience and reiterates a lot from my previous submission, I believe nothing more needs to be said and the reports listed in this inquiry will already provide insight and solutions for the government to consider.
However, my following report aims demonstrates an important principle: the greatest barriers often arise not from an individual’s abilities, but from environments that fail to provide equitable access and support. When essential resources are unavailable or designed with only some people in mind, participation, independence, and opportunity are unnecessarily limited. Creating inclusive environments means removing these barriers so that everyone has an equal opportunity to contribute and succeed.
Yours Sincerely.
12