Impact of NDIS Amendment Bill on participant with complex disability, blindness, arthritis, and caring responsibilities (Participant experience)

Submission 2659

Written by (please do not publish my name)

Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community A<airs

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future

Generations) Bill 2026

Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community A3airs

Submitted by: Portal

Date: 1 June 2026

I am a 43-year-old woman, an NDIS participant with complex disability, and a single parent to a 12-year-old autistic child. I am legally blind and live with autoimmune arthritis that significantly limits my mobility and functional capacity. I also carry primary caring responsibilities.

This submission outlines how the NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 is likely to a3ect participants like me—particularly those with complex, intersecting disabilities, regional isolation, and caring responsibilities.

Schedule 1—Access and Planning Measures

Part 1—Defining Functional Capacity

The Bill introduces a stricter legal definition of “functional capacity”, describing it as the ability to perform activities independently, without assistance, equipment, or environmental modifications. This definition largely removes consideration of personal and environmental context.

The shift toward standardised functional capacity assessments presents significant risks. These assessments may fail to capture:

• The interaction between multiple disabilities

• The impact of environmental barriers

• The realities of parenting and caring responsibilities In my case:

• Legal blindness alone does not capture my full mobility limitations

• Arthritis restricts my ability to use assistive tools

• Regional isolation compounds these barriers A purely standardised assessment risks significantly underestimating real-world disability and support needs.

Part 2—Limit Unscheduled Plan Reassessments

The Bill proposes limiting access to unscheduled plan reassessments and increasing the timeframe for the CEO of the NDIA to respond to reassessment requests from 21 days to 90 days. Eligibility for reassessment is restricted to those experiencing a “significant change in circumstances”.

Page 1of 7

Submission 2659

Examples of such changes include employment, housing, education, informal supports, or deterioration in functional capacity.

A 90-day response timeframe carries serious risks. During this period, a participant may:

• Lose the ability to participate in the workforce, impacting financial stability
• Experience housing insecurity, potentially resulting in homelessness
• Face serious health deterioration or life-threatening situations A delay of this length shifts burden onto other systems, including income support, hospitals, homelessness services, and crisis care. The current 21-day timeframe is su3icient to determine eligibility for reassessment. Importantly, this timeframe only governs approval—not the reassessment process itself.

For individuals with fluctuating or degenerative conditions, such as autoimmune arthritis:

• Functional capacity can deteriorate rapidly

• Support needs can change unexpectedly Restricting reassessments will:

• Delay access to urgent supports

• Increase risk of injury, isolation, and crisis

• Create additional pressure on other government systems Part 3—Strengthening the Link Between Impairment and Support

The requirement that supports must be directly linked to a person’s impairment is deeply concerning.

In reality, disability does not occur in isolation. In my situation:

• Mobility limitations arise from the interaction of blindness and arthritis
• These are compounded by environmental factors such as rural isolation, lack of transport, and limited infrastructure

Under the proposed change:

• Supports may be denied if barriers are attributed to environment rather than impairment

This risks:

• Removal of transport, mobility, and access supports
• Ignoring the interaction between disability and environment The likely outcome is increased isolation, reduced participation, and greater reliance on already overstretched systems such as healthcare, housing, and employment services.

Page 2of 7

Submission 2659

This approach fails to reflect the lived reality that disability is context-dependent. It also risks increasing reassessment requests, as participants are forced to repeatedly demonstrate that their needs arise solely from impairment.

Disability cannot be understood in silos. Multiple impairments, environmental conditions, health status, and available supports must all be considered to ensure appropriate and e3ective assistance.

Part 4—Support Determinations

The proposed amendments allow the Minister to reduce funding for categories of supports across multiple plans to ensure “financial sustainability”.

These reductions can apply even where they result in insu3icient funding to meet a participant’s reasonable and necessary supports.

The introduction of broad, group-based funding reductions without regard to individual circumstances is highly concerning. When combined with:

• Funding caps
• Funding periods
• Limited service availability in rural and regional areas There is a real risk that participants will be left without the foundational supports necessary for daily living and participation.

This will inevitably shift burden onto:

• Informal carers
• The healthcare system
• Other government services

Part 5—Plan Renewal

The Bill introduces automatic plan “renewals”, where an existing plan rolls over for 12 months as a “new plan” by force of law. These renewals may retain the same supports and structure, with limited opportunity for participant input.

One-o3 or temporary supports are not carried over. The Minister may determine what changes are applied, and many reassessment dates will instead become automatic renewal points. The contents of renewed plans will not be reviewable or appealable.

The implications of this change are significant:

• It removes meaningful, person-centred review processes
• It assumes participant needs remain static, which is not reflective of real life
• It risks locking participants into outdated or inadequate plans
• It removes key safeguards such as appeal rights Page 3of 7

Submission 2659

For participants with complex or changing needs, including those with degenerative conditions or caring responsibilities, this creates substantial risk.

In my situation:

• My needs and my child’s needs evolve over time

• A static plan may quickly become inadequate Additionally:

• Loss of one-o3 supports may remove critical assistance still required

• Changes in capacity or caring demands may go unrecognised

• Participants may remain on inadequate plans for extended periods This shift prioritises administrative e3iciency over responsiveness and participant wellbeing. It undermines the core NDIS principles of choice, control, and individualised support.

Part 6—Reasonable and Necessary Supports

The Bill introduces mechanisms to impose maximum funding levels, service intensity limits, and participant-to-worker ratios.

It also expands expectations of what families, carers, and communities should provide, e3ectively increasing reliance on informal supports.

This creates significant emotional and practical impacts. As a participant:

• I already experience guilt regarding the burden my disability places on others

• I actively minimise my needs to reduce strain on relationships Increasing this burden risks:

• Carer burnout

• Breakdown of relationships

• Greater isolation My son is also a3ected. As a child with disability and a disabled parent:

• He already adapts in ways most children do not

• Reduced supports will impact his education, social engagement, and wellbeing This creates long-term risks, including increased reliance on government systems later in life.

Importantly, my circumstances must be considered holistically:

• I am a single parent with disability
• My child has disability
• Certain supports (e.g. transport, personal care) cannot reasonably be provided by me This must be reflected in both our plans.

Page 4of 7

Submission 2659

The Bill also expands how e3ectiveness of supports is assessed, placing emphasis on evidence-based approaches. However:

• It underweights lived experience
• It risks delays between research and real-world application
• It does not adequately account for complex or intersecting conditions In cases where research is limited, participants risk being denied supports that are demonstrably e3ective in their own lives.

Part 7—Plan Suspension

The Bill allows the NDIA to suspend a plan if a participant does not respond within a specified timeframe, following a “reasonable” attempt at contact.

Concerns arise around:

• What constitutes a “reasonable” attempt

• Whether communication is accessible

• The appropriateness of response timeframes Participants may be unable to respond due to:

• Inaccessible communication formats

• Illness, hospitalisation, or temporary relocation

• Delays in obtaining required documentation Plan suspension should be a last resort. Clear definitions, accessibility requirements, and multiple contact attempts must be mandated to prevent harm.

Part 8—Tightening the Meaning of Permanence

The Bill requires that participants must have undertaken all appropriate, evidence-based treatments that are regularly used in Australia and expected to improve their impairment.

Crucially, the NDIA cannot consider whether a participant’s circumstances limit access to these treatments, including financial or geographic barriers.

This change will:

• Exclude individuals who cannot access treatments due to cost or location
• Disproportionately impact regional and low-income participants
• Create inequitable access to the NDIS For someone in my situation, access to treatment may be limited by location, cost, or physical capacity. Removing consideration of these factors fundamentally undermines fair access.

Part 9—Eligibility Based on Access to Other Services

Page 5of 7

Submission 2659

The Bill requires decision-makers to consider whether supports should instead be provided by mainstream services.

However, these systems are often:

• Overstretched
• Inaccessible
• Non-existent in some areas Many community supports that existed prior to the NDIS no longer operate without NDIS funding.

In regional areas:

• Public transport is minimal or absent

• Health and support services are limited

• Informal support networks may not exist In my situation:

• There are no viable alternative services to meet my needs

• Redirecting responsibility e3ectively results in no support Any transition to alternative systems must ensure those systems are fully funded, accessible, and operational before participants are redirected.

Schedule 2—Fraud Measures

Registration of NDIS Providers

The Bill allows expansion of mandatory provider registration but does not define how this will apply.

This lack of clarity creates significant uncertainty for participants and independent support workers.

For me:

• Independent support workers are essential to my functioning and safety
• These relationships enable my participation in community and unpaid advocacy work Removing this flexibility would significantly impact my quality of life and my ability to support my child.

The Bill also permits automated decision-making for administrative actions, with a very broad definition of what constitutes such an action.

This raises serious concerns:

• Risk of errors and unjust outcomes
• Lack of transparency
• Inability of automated systems to understand complex, nuanced circumstances Page 6of 7

Submission 2659

Given the absence of detail, these measures create understandable anxiety within the disability community.

Summary

While the intent of the Bill—to ensure sustainability and integrity—is acknowledged, the cumulative e3ect of these changes is concerning.

They result in:

• Narrower eligibility

• Reduced flexibility

• Increased reliance on inadequate systems

• Reduced responsiveness to change For participants like me, this creates real risks:

• Loss of independence

• Increased isolation

• Inability to meet caring responsibilities

• Greater risk of harm

Recommendations

I urge that the legislation explicitly:

• Considers personal circumstances and environmental context in all assessments

• Recognises lack of infrastructure as relevant to “reasonable and necessary” supports

• Retains timely access to reassessments for significant changes

• Requires planners to consider parenting roles, informal supports, dependent children with disability, and complex intersecting needs

• Accounts for cumulative and environmental barriers in defining functional capacity Disability cannot be assessed in isolation. Supports must reflect real-life circumstances.

For people in situations like mine, the NDIS is not simply a program—it is the di3erence between:

• Participation and isolation
• Safety and risk
• A life lived and a life endured Page 7of 7