Submission on the NDIS Amendment Bill
I am a: ☑ Disabled person ☑ Family member / supporter ☐ Clinician / researcher ☑ Advocate ☐ Other: ___________________
- Introduction / my connection to this issue (Who you are and why you are submitting)
I am a current NDIS participant, who has been on the NDIS since 2022. I am a queer, multiply disabled person in my mid-thirties who lives in a capital city. I am on the NDIS for psychosocial disabilities but have multiple physical and neurological disabilities for which I do not receive funding. While I am a disability advocate, I am choosing to be anonymous for this submission because of concerns around repercussions to my NDIS plan if I make a public submission.
I do not support the NDIS bill and think it should be rejected in its entirety. This bill has not been designed by or with disabled people and no amendments can reduce the harm this bill will cause. The bill removes the foundational principles that the NDIS was based on. Rather than focus on the real problems within the system, this bill seeks to make support for disabled people conditional on the financial sustainability of the scheme.1
- My overall position on this Bill ☐ I support it ☑ I do not support it ☑ I have serious concerns
Reasons for my opposition
I have far more concerns than what I have mentioned in my submission. Because of the short submission window, I do not have enough time to outline them all. Instead, I have chosen what I believe are the most consequential issues.
1 Full text of the proposed NDIS bill, page 23, 60 Paragraph (3) (d),
My key concerns include:
- Section 9B: New definition of functional capacity
- Removing people from the scheme before alternative systems are established
- Repeal and replacement of paragraph 34 (1)(aa) I strongly oppose the passing of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
- My Key Concerns Section 9B: New definition of functional capacity One of my biggest concerns is the impact that the new definition of functional capacity will significantly reduce the number of current and new participants who can access the scheme from 2028 onwards. Requiring that definition of functional capacity involves “in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances” will prevent multiple people from accessing the NDIS scheme. Furthermore, the proposal that all current participants will need to be reassessed under the new eligibility requirements is causing significant distress to existing participants, their household members, and their families.
I worry that this definition of functional capacity is far too narrow and ignores the real day-to-day living conditions of each disabled person as an individual. Many of us disabled people are debilitated by our environmental circumstances, whether they are our financial circumstances, our home environment, or the broader community around us. Our support needs depend on our individual personal and environmental circumstances. For example, one applicant could be a wheelchair user who lives in poverty and lives in an area where the local buses or trams all have steps and are therefore not accessible. Consequently, they would need to hire a wheelchair accessible taxi or hire a support worker to drive them if they wanted to visit their local shops. Meanwhile, there could be a second applicant who is a wheelchair user who could afford to buy a wheelchair-accessible vehicle. In addition, they lived in an area where the local public transport was fully wheelchair accessible. Both applicants could have the same diagnosis and both use wheelchairs. However, applicant one faces additional barriers and therefore has greater support needs than applicant two.
Section 9B: Functional Capacity Assessments
Section 9B also refers to “an assessment of a person’s ability to undertake an activity”. There is no information within the bill that states exactly how a person’s ability to undertake an activity will be assessed. The explanatory memorandum outlines that the
functional assessment process has not been developed yet.2 While these new rules relating to scheme eligibility will not take effect until 2028, I believe that greater clarity is needed on what assessments will be used. Furthermore, any assessment will be severely compromised because of how the proposed definition of functional capacity does not consider an individual’s personal and environmental circumstances.
Any assessments may discriminate against people with fluctuating health conditions. While all my disabilities are permanent, as in lifetime-long conditions that are untreatable and incurable, the severity of these conditions fluctuate. That is to say, some days my health conditions barely impact me, while other days I cannot leave the house and end up spending most of the day in bed. There are multiple factors that can impact my functional capacity. Random factors like the barometric pressure or temperature can affect severity of one of my physical health conditions. How long I need to stand up affects the severity of two of my physical health conditions. Severe chronic pain can exacerbate my psychosocial disabilities, as can periods of prolonged stress and uncertainty when events are out of my direct control (such as, say, watching a purely awful bill be tabled in parliament). If for instance, the assessment relies upon my ability to complete specific tasks in a face to face meeting at a single point in time, then the dynamic nature of my multiple disabilities will not be captured.
My own application could have been rejected in 2022 if the impact of my personal and environmental circumstances were excluded. At the time of my application, I could not rely on my partner for consistent and regular support because she worked full-time. Nor could I rely on my parents or siblings to provide the support that I needed. I was unemployed and was ineligible for Jobseeker in 2022 because my partner earnt above the partner income threshold. I did not have enough money to pay support workers when I desperately needed help.
Repeal and replacement of paragraph 34 (1)(aa): The explanatory memorandum establishes that the repeal and replacement of this paragraph is in response to Federal Court and Tribunal decisions. Tying the provision of a support to whether the needs of the participant arises directly from an impairment recognised in the disability requirements or early intervention requirements is deliberately cruel and could disproportionately affect those on lower incomes.
Many of us disabled people have multiple and often co-occurring disabilities, which are not properly recognised by the scheme. In my case, only two of my impairments meet the disability requirements and many others do not. I am a person with multiple
2 Explanatory memorandum, page 14.
disabilities. It is not always possible to establish whether my particular needs are due to the NDIS-recognised impairments or those that aren’t. The emergent effects which is my life would be missed if I must label exactly which needs arise from which impairments. I’m a whole person; I cannot break myself into pieces and easily state Need A arising from Condition 1, Need B arises from Condition 2, Need C arises from Condition 3. The complexity of how multiple disabilities interact is completely missed by the repeal and replacement of paragraph 34 (1)(aa).
In reality, it is difficult to prove which impairment is “the direct and immediate source, cause or origin of the need for support as opposed to a contributory cause of the need.” 3 For instance, I find that my need for cleaners to assist with housework arises from a combination of my psychosocial, neurological and physical disabilities. What happens in the case where my psychosocial disabilities are NDIS-eligible impairments and my physical disabilities are not? Should my plan cover the full cost of my fortnightly cleaner visits or only a portion of them?
I am already in the position where I could benefit from mobility aids due to my physical health issues, but those conditions are not NDIS-eligible. I cannot afford to pay privately.
Those on lower incomes are likely to be disproportionately impacted by the repeal and replacement of paragraph 34(1)(aa). The NDIS provides essential, reasonable and necessary support that many of us would not be able to access if removed from the scheme.
Any cost-saving of the proposed NDIS bill simply shifts costs to other sectors of society. Disabled people may have to rely on friends or family to meet their care needs. Emergency admissions to hospitals are likely to increase as will the number of people relying on crisis support. I am not an economist but even I can understand that any ‘savings’ made through cutting the NDIS will be felt by other parts of the economy.
Paragraph 34(1), insertion of (g): Removing people from the scheme before alternative systems are established I am concerned that the 241,000 people who are projected to be removed from the NDIS by 2031 under the proposed reforms will be left without any alternative supports.
3 Explanatory Memorandum, p 25.
There are no existing Foundational Supports or other programs for people who lose access to the NDIS. Removing disabled people from the NDIS before alternatives are available is cruel.
No one should be removed from the scheme until and unless adequately funded replacements are immediately available. Participants who are removed from the NDIS and onto Foundational Supports need to have no waiting period before accessing other programs. If there is a waiting period between programs then many participants will be forced to go within support for weeks or months at a time.
We need to know that we will receive equivalent supports if directed to other programs. There cannot be a waiting period between losing access to the NDIS and having other supports take their place. Waiting weeks or months to receive equivalent support is unreasonable and potentially harmful. Alternative programs need to be fully established and immediately available before any participants is removed from the NDIS.
- My lived / professional experience Entering the NDIS and having consistent access to supports has greatly improved my health and my overall quality of life and wellbeing. Before the NDIS, I was unemployed, struggling to look after myself and barely accessed my broader community. Now I am looking after myself well, can access my community and contribute to the workforce. I have been working part-time for 2 years now, which is only possible because of my continued access to the NDIS. I know though that my improved wellbeing is fragile without my current level of support I would be back where I started before I accessed the scheme.
I cannot privately fund the same level of support that I can currently access. My weekly income doesn’t cover the cost of my support worker hours, let alone the cleaners, and allied health services that my NDIS plan pays for. My partner’s income is not enough to cover our living expenses and the disability supports I need. The funding of disability supports aren’t optional extras that are nice to have, they allow many of us to live independently and to participate in society.
- What I believe this Bill gets wrong
This bill destroys the original vision of the NDIS, and treats disabled people as economic burdens to be controlled and policed. In addition, the bill ignores the individuality of each disabled person. Even when we have the same disability, each of us has differing needs and unique supports.
-
What needs to change or be protected The original purpose of the NDIS to provide autonomy, dignity and inclusion needs to be protected.
-
Final statement Disabled people are not unworthy or expendable, simply because of our disabilities. We all deserve to live fulfilling lives. We all deserve the support we need to live well, regardless of whether we can participate in the work force. Our lives have meaning and we deserve autonomy and respect.
I ask the committee to consider my lived experience when reviewing this Bill.