National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2477
Submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by
NDIS Participant
, Western Australia
I am currently an NDIS participant and I am submitting in opposition of the broad, sweeping, generalised and ambiguous changes brought forward by the readings of this bill. While the aim of reducing costs and overheads of the broader NDIS is admirable, this is unfortunately an example of a very poorly targeted bill that places a large amount of the burden on the participants themselves rather than areas that have been increasing the cost of the program. It also introduces many troubling policies, of which I will go over the most notable and impactful I have noticed upon reading to myself and other participants.
First of all I would like to state that I am in full and complete opposition to the bill until it is reviewed, clarified and vastly changed from it’s current form. The social, health, community cost and devastation that would occur if it is passed in it’s current form is extreme.
Some of the troubling parts include but are not limited to;
A) The proposal for automation of administrative decisions, with the potential use of generative AI or similar systems.
Automated administrative tasks on a high level have in the past shown to be capable of causing egregious and dangerous mistakes. In cases these have resulted in the deaths of multiple people. A person reviewing documents in question, or working through an application can make a mistake that may affect one to a few participants. An automated system, be it generative AI or other if it is poorly implemented, programmed or suffers from an error has the potential to affect an amount of participants in the thousands if not more or system wide. It also introduces the concern of not being able to cope with, or have the provisions in the system (IE: be very rigid in it’s scope) to deal with the complexities and individual needs of each and every participant or applicant to the NDIS system. It is hard to say how, or on what level this system would be used as this information has not been disclosed in a level of detail needed for full understanding. Given the risk to participants and applicants I am in full opposition.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2477
B) The proposal of changing legislation so funding will only be for needs directly arising from funded impairments.
This is a crucial proposed change that would heavily affect myself and many other participants currently on the NDIS. No one condition exists purely within a vacuum. There are an overwhelming amount of cases where a participant/applicants main impairment meets the criteria is vastly changed in the needs, support, scope or assistive technology required. A participant/applicant could for example have a condition that on it’s own does not require mobility equipment. However with the interactions of another impairment it changes the symptoms and disability experienced. This leading to a genuine, high impact on quality of life and restrictive living conditions without mobility equipment. The current system while it states something similar, has an added note that requires the NDIA to consider a variety of factors or the impact of another impairment. With this it allows the context of the total impairment a participant/applicant experiences rather than just the eligible impairment. It is absolutely crucial that the entire interaction of impairments is taken into account to properly recognise what a participant/applicant is impacted by. In regards to the rigidity of this proposal I am in full opposition.
C) The proposal of a requirement to exhaust all available treatment options.
This proposal is one that will impact the poorest and most impaired participant/applicants in a profound and incredibly debilitating way. For many impairments there are many treatments that are inaccessible to participant/applicants through either cost, ability or geographical distance from the provider of the treatment. Of note with this proposal cost or availability due to geographic location or impairments preventing access to some treatments would prove to be devastating. Large amounts of participants/applicants simply would not be able to access the treatment options required to be exhausted before using the NDIS program, leaving many to fall through the cracks and further increase the burden on the hospital and medical system. Some treatments also may not have spaces available for participants/applicants, leading to extremely long wait times for an attempt to even access the NDIS program before even being able to start the application or renewal process. There are also treatments that could be potentially harmful to the participant/applicant or involve unnecessary risks and medical procedures that are unlikely to improve or stabilise debilitation. I am in full opposition to this proposal.
D) Proposal of expansion of mandatory provider registration.
This proposal has a high risk of causing participants to lose access to support workers they have a high level of trust with, provide a higher level of individualised support or be forced to rely upon a larger corporate run system providing less flexible and fluctuating services at a higher cost. For participants in regional areas or with more complex and involved needs it would prove to be a large risk with a lack of services probable. Often individually employed sole trader support workers know their clients and their specialised needs well, as they engage in the work themselves and are not assigned out by a larger body. It also offers a high level of flexibility that is needed by many participants. Direct employment of support workers can also lead to a greater reduction in cost without company costs and overheads added into the equation when support is provided. Many sole trader support workers may not be able to continue to support their clients as NDIS registration could prove to be a costly and difficult process they are unable to carry the cost of burden themselves. While at the same time seeking an agency to work from would remove the very reason they’re more effective for participants with their flexibility and ability to specialise in their client/s specific and individualised needs. I am in opposition to this change without greater clarity and provisions to assist sole traders to gain provider registration.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2477
E) An increased reliance on informal supports.
Another proposal is for there to be a greater reliance on informal supports. These types of supports typically include partners, parents and other family members as well as sometimes friends and neighbours. As the system already is, it heavily relies on this group in particular to take up a large amount of the support load. Many participants find their informal supports constantly overstretched and overworked. This often forces informal supports to take upon unsustainable workloads with both employment and care tasks to balance. Informal supports experiencing such a high workload result in a high risk for the participant, either through unintentional neglect, potentials for abuse or the chance of an informal support suffering a health issue of their own and suddenly leaving a gap in care unfilled. With the proposal for reliance on these supports to be relied upon more, these problems will only be exacerbated further and result in increased levels of harm and catastrophic outcomes for participants. It also has the potential to place a further strain on an already overworked and overburdened hospital system with avoidable and otherwise unnecessary hospital admissions as a form of last resort that could otherwise be avoided. I am in full opposition.
F) Proposed changes granting vastly increased ministerial powers (Including a greater reliance on legislative instruments, temporary modification to how parts of the act operate).
Both of these proposed changes grant an absolutely vast and unprecedented amount of power to the minister in question. It would allow the minister to make a massive amount of changes to how many parts of the program could be acted upon solely by the minister at the time. This being without going through the traditional parliamentary process that allows for much more oversight and the ability for parliament to debate the proposed changes rather than them being changed through acts of parliament. It also reduces the visibility of the changes to participants in the program and their ability to have their voices heard or be a part of the discussions or process through consultation. With such a large and impactful program like the NDIS it should have parliamentary review for major, or even temporary changes to how the NDIS act works or is implemented. I am in full opposition.
G) Proposal for moving towards more standardised planning for budgets.
This is an incredibly risky and dangerous precedent attempting to aim for a more “one size fits all” approach for plans and assessments for participant/applicants. Many participant/applicants with significant, complex and intertwining conditions would face having a potential loss of supports and individualised needs not met. While it makes for neat categories for administration, it ignores the very harsh reality that even with the same diagnosed impairment or set of impairments each participant/applicant will experience differing levels of severity and symptoms thus requirements for support. It could easily lead to a large amount of people falling through gaps of support where their individual circumstances aren’t taken into account and the plan is move to fit them into more rigid, broad and uncompromising categories. Without knowing more details of how the proposed Functional Capacity Assessment in the New Planning Framework will work and be administered it leaves a large area of ambiguity and lack of clarity to just how standardised and rigid this framework will be and how it will affect participants. Based on what is currently known I am in complete opposition to this proposal.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2477
Recommendation:
Based on all of my points provided above, this bill should be withdrawn. It is in need of significant amendment and reform, with the affected participants, advocacy groups, experts, supports and more consulted for a longer period of time. This would give participants a chance to truly have their say and have it altered based on considerations that come up. As it stands, the proposed changes to the NDIS face participants with unacceptable and potentially life altering consequences. There is a high risk for long term health and harm to come to many who are pushed out of the system or denied access to it. There are also an unacceptable amount of unknowns, changes of ambiguous nature, complete lack of clarity and unprecedented shift of power to the minister.
Conclusion:
In conclusion I am in complete opposition to all of the proposed changes stated above. The high risk as it stands to participants in completely unacceptable and asks them and their supports to accept it. There is a high risk of support being reduced before replacement systems are in place. While the NDIS does need reform, as it stands this is not a safe, transparent or even complete reform with a vast lack of community consultation. There are further points and items that I would also personally address further. However due to the nature of my own impairments and the limited time that has been provided to submit feedback and recommendations from a participant standpoint I chose to address the points that I believe would have the most impact upon myself and other people in my life that are either participants, applicants or intended applicants to the NDIS program.