Submission 2502
Re: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for FutureGenerations) Bill 2026
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.
We are providing this submission as private citizens who have engaged with the NDIS since 2020.
We are a married couple with six children living in Katoomba NSW. Elliott is totally and
permanently blind, and Gemma is an Aboriginal woman and administrative lawyer. Our children
are aged between 20 and 1 years, some of whom have diagnoses of autism, ADHD,
developmental language delay. Elliott uses a long white cane for mobility and assistive
technology, including screen-reading software and navigation apps, to live and workindependently. Through the NDIS he receives support with transport, orientation and mobility
training, and home maintenance. These supports enable him to remain independent, continue
working, and to contribute to our home and family like he would if he were sighted. Without
them, Elliott’s independence and ability to participate fully in life would be significantly reduced.
It’s hard to imagine what our life would be like without the support of the NDIS - it’s hard to
pinpoint - the value of disability supports lies not in any one service, but in how they work
together to enable an ordinary life. This is why the proposed changes to the NDIS are so
concerning. Under the new approach, supports will only be funded where the need for a support
arises directly from an [NDIA approved] impairment. The causal link question is ill-defined by the
Bill, but the other matter that is difficult to define is the impact of a reduction in supports.
Legislators understandably seek precision when defining eligibility for supports. But there is no
equivalent precision in measuring the consequences of withdrawing them. Which supports
would we be able to continue to fund? What would we forego to fill the gap? And above all else,
what strain would it put on our relationship how might it affect our children?
We are deeply concerned about the proposed changes to the National Disability Insurance
Scheme (NDIS). The NDIS has transformed the lives of Australians who are blind or have vision
impairment by providing the supports they need to live independently, participate in their
communities and contribute to society. We support a sustainable NDIS, and in particular, we
support the push to reinforce the services available from other government agencies; but this
needs to be done in a way that doesn’t leave people with disabilities with the short straw.
Engagement with state governments, who provide much of the services that are to be leant on
Submission 2502
in lieu of NDIS supports, is essential. As residents of NSW is often seems that disagreement over
issues surrounding GST can leave constituents paying the price. We would propose, for example,
that state governments receive additional funding during the transition period to ensure that
recipients whose funding is reduced or who are no longer eligible can engage other government
services without undue disadvantage or delay. For this reason, we support the delayed
commencement provisions proposed by Dr Monique Ryan.
We are concerned that the Bill gives the Minister broad powers to determine what supports can
be funded under the NDIS while reducing participants’ ability to challenge those decisions. These
changes risk undermining the individualised approach that is central to the Scheme, and
administrative justice principles that are central our legal system and the values of Australian
society. The Ministerial power combined with the consideration of financial sustainability risks
placing arbitrary values on different aspects of life. Blanket rules across supports or disabilities
will inevitably lead to unforeseen consequences.
Blindness is permanent. While support needs may change over time, Elliott’s blindness will not.
The NDIS should recognise this by providing certainty for people with permanent disabilities
rather than requiring unnecessary reassessments or creating barriers to accessing essential
supports. We are concerned that the proposed reforms could:
reduce or restrict supports despite a disability remaining unchanged;
replace individualised decision-making with rigid rules or assessments that do not
properly reflect the realities of blindness and vision impairment; and
put essential supports at risk because of inaccessible communication or administrative
processes.
The public debate surrounding these reforms and the Explanatory Memorandum has been
framed largely through the language of fraud. Yet relatively few of the substantive amendments
deal with fraud prevention. Instead, many of the most significant reforms concern eligibility,
planning and ministerial powers. This risks creating the public perception that participants
themselves are the primary source of the Scheme’s financial pressures, when much of the
documented fraud has involved providers. Amendments to the NDIS should centre around
protecting recipients from people who seek to take advantage of them and the Scheme.
Submission 2502
The supports received through the NDIS are not optional extras. They enable Elliott to live a life
without feeling like a burden on those around him. When asked how his life would be without
his NDIS supports, the word that came to mind was “degraded”. Without these supports,
everyday activities that most Australians take for granted become difficult or all out impossible;
and this doesn’t begin to consider the emotional and mental toll that this would take on
recipients and their loved ones.
The Bill contains a level of ambiguity and uncertainty as to its application in practice. This not
only causes anxiety in all recipients, but also raises the likelihood of litigation, carrying at a great
cost to people with disabilities and pressure on the legal system. One of the purposes of
legislation is to create certainty. Citizens should be able to understand their rights and obligations
without having to speculate about how broad discretionary powers might be exercised in the
future. This Bill leaves many of the most significant policy questions to future Ministerial Rules
and administrative decision-making. That uncertainty is particularly acute for people whose lives
depend upon the continuity of disability supports.
We support reform and support sustainability for the Scheme; but this Bill needs amendment.
Amendments that protect individualised supports and policy measures that protect people with
disabilities from baring the impacts of the reforms. Thank you for taking the time to consider our
concerns. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with you further.