Submission 2796
ATTN: Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs
RE: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Sunday, May 31, 2026
Thank you for the opportunity to present this parliamentary submission regarding the
proposed amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS, the Scheme)
currently outlined in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (the Act).
My interest in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS
for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the Bill) can be attributed to my intersections as a health
practitioner and a spouse and primary carer of a NDIS participant.
The NDIS provides vital support to over 700,000 people living with a disability and
connects them with over 300,000 approved service providers1. In excess of one million
Australians are expected to be impacted by these proposed amendments.
I understand and recognise that amendments to the Act are necessary to ensure scheme
longevity and continued support for our most vulnerable citizens. However, it must not fall upon
NDIS participants, their families, carers and nominees to recoup the fiscal responsibility.
If the Bill is to pass as it currently stands, people living with a disability may be exposed
to an increased risk of harm, restrictions that diminish their capacity and control, and
exclusionary automated decision-making processes.
Submission 2796
Respectfully, I must acknowledge the time restraints to research and digest the proposed
amendments to the Act. Therefore, I have only included two of my concerns regarding the
proposed changes listed below, accompanied by potential negative outcomes (including how my
family will be impacted) if the Bill proceeds as is.
Schedule 1 – Access and planning measures
Part 1 – Defining functional capacity: Moving the goalpost for what is
considered “substantially reduced functional capacity” disproportionately affects
Australians living with complex and dynamic disabilities – such as Autism spectrum
disorder (ASD) and psychosocial conditions. People belonging to these groups are more
likely to experience distress2 and stigma3 relating to their conditions, which can
significantly impact their presentation of functional capacity during an assessment. I
recommend further consultation with occupational therapists, physiotherapists,
psychologists and medical specialists4, as well as people living with disabilities and their
advocates, prior to amending the definition of functional capacity.
My husband lives with ASD level 2 and is a NDIS participant who experiences
fluctuating deficits in all six categories that the Scheme assesses for functional capacity.
Environmental, social, psychological and physical factors can impact the severity of his
disability – and therefore, impact the assessment of his impairment and eligibility for
NDIS support. Changing the definition of functional capacity as a method to “safeguard”
eligibility for NDIS supports threatens to exclude my husband and around 300,000 other
Australians living with Autism5.
2 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-025-00695-9 3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2025.101927 4 https://www.ndis.gov.au/applying/types-assessments/functional-capacity-assessment 5 https://dataresearch.ndis.gov.au/reports-and-analyses/participant-dashboards/autism
Submission 2796
Schedule 1 – Access and planning measures
Part 7 – Plan suspension etc.: Revoking participant status without insight
regarding the person’s current wellbeing or circumstances is irresponsible governance
masqueraded as fraud prevention. This amendment introduces risks to people with
disabilities who rely upon the vital support of the NDIS to maintain fulfilling, safe and
dignified lives. We know from previous cuts that cancellation or reduction of participant
support creates uncertainty, loss of control and systematic isolation from communities6.
A person who does not live with a disability may acknowledge that 90 days is ample time
to respond to contact from a government agency. However, I suggest that this is not
realistic for NDIS participants, many of whom have already proven their reduced
functional capacity regarding communication, self-management and social interactions.
My husband was not eligible for a plan manager on the grounds that he has
informal supports perfectly capable of managing his NDIS plan – me. My concern
regarding the Bill’s no-contact plan suspension is the increased carer burden and fatigue
that would be introduced. The proposed amendment does not take into consideration the
physical and emotional toll that informal carers experience without additional time
restricted administrative tasks. Like many Australians in a similar situation, my health
and wellbeing are adversely impacted by my status as an informal carer7. The proposed
risk of having my husband’s NDIS support revoked because I overlooked emails or
phone calls from a private number deeply frightens me and will impose unnecessary
anxiety in my daily life.
6 https://www.advocacyforinclusion.org/a-cut-is-a-cut-ndis-participants-speak-out/ 7 https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/informal-carers
Submission 2796
Gathering information and preparing this submission was an additional task that I deemed
absolutely necessary in the name of civic duty, inclusion and advocacy. I implore the committee
to critically consider the concerns that I have addressed and decide against proceeding with the
Bill.
It is undoubted that people living with disabilities, their families, carers and advocates
will welcome consultation from the committee to draft a more inclusive amendment to the Act
that is based on the principles of self-determination, independence, choice and control.
The NDIS has facilitated participation, enjoyment, safety and community for hundreds of
thousands of Australians living with a disability since its establishment – work with us to ensure
the Scheme can truly be secured for future generations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind regards,