National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3043
Submission regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
From: A participant from Adelaide (anonymous)
I am an NDIS participant living with Rheumatoid Arthritis. I have been a participant for 3 years. I require continuous support for personal care, mobility and access to therapies and assistive technology. I live in a small town with limited services available.
Summary of concerns I strongly oppose changes in the Bill that would reduce funding for support categories, narrow what is considered “reasonable and necessary,” increase reliance on unpaid family carers, impose stricter permanence criteria, force participants to try treatments even when harmful, expand automated decision‑making, and limit choice of plan managers or providers. Combined, these measures would put my safety, dignity and life at serious risk.
How NDIS supports keep me safe and alive
-
My NDIS funding covers my personal care (help with showering, toileting, meal preparation), mobility supports, required assistive technology and the therapies that help prevent deterioration.
-
These supports enable me to attend medical appointments and essential therapies; they also allow limited social participation with my children and family when I am able.
-
Without these funded supports I would be unable to get out of bed most days, including help with showering, toileting, meal preparation and my quality of life would plummet. I could require hospitalisation, I would lose independence, face severe isolation and severe mental health challenges.
Concrete risks if the Bill’s changes proceed
-
Reduced funding or tighter “reasonable and necessary” tests: I would lose essential personal care and therapy hours. This would directly threaten my safety (basic daily living), health and mental wellbeing (deterioration without therapy) and dignity (inability to shower or prepare food).
-
Greater expectations of family carers: my husband who has limited health and our working adult children have left home. There is no family network who can safely provide my daily care. Increasing reliance on my husband, unpaid carers is not realistic and would dangerously increase carer burnout, risk to my safety and deteriorating of spouse relationships.
-
Stricter permanence criteria and requirement to try all appropriate treatments: some recommended treatments are harmful to people with RA. I cannot be forced to undergo treatments that cause deterioration, forcing such treatments would risk permanent harm.
-
Automated decision‑making and new planning processes: my condition is permanent and affects me holistically, every day. Automated assessment and short in‑person assessments (for example, a single three‑hour assessment) cannot capture the complexity of my disability. This increases the risk of unfair or unsafe decisions.
Examples of when NDIS worked
- When my plan allowed access to experienced therapists, regular personal care and appropriate AT, I maintained mobility, avoided deterioration and could spend time with my family.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3043
What people without disability may not realise
-
NDIS funding is not discretionary “extras.” For many of us it is the difference between surviving safely at home and being hospitalised or entirely housebound.
-
We do not have family backups for care in many cases. Suggesting families can fill gaps ignores people with partners in essential work, single participants, and households without local supports.
-
Treatments and therapies are not one‑size‑fits‑all. Some historically recommended treatments are now contraindicated; forcing them risks severe harm.
Recommendations (prioritised)
-
Require an independent review mechanism for any major changes to funding, eligibility or planning rules before they are implemented, and require transitional protections for current participants.
-
Guarantee funding for core participation, personal care and therapy supports necessary to prevent deterioration, maintain dignity and enable community access.
-
Limit the use of automated decision‑making in eligibility and planning. Any algorithmic tools must be transparent, subject to independent audit, and there must be a clear, timely human review and appeal process.
-
Clarify and strengthen the definition of “reasonable and necessary” to explicitly include episodic and fluctuating conditions, and the need for specialist providers, and ensure therapeutic recommendations shown to cause harm cannot be imposed as a condition of access.
-
Strengthen safeguards for unpaid carers, including recognition of reasonable limits on family responsibility and stronger support when carers are unavailable or at risk of burnout.
-
Preserve participant choice over plan managers and support coordinators or allow for exemptions where specialist knowledge is required to safely support a participant.
Conclusion
The NDIS must protect the most vulnerable participants. For people like me, supports are not optional extras — they are essential medical and daily‑living needs that keep us safe, prevent deterioration and allow some connection with family and community. I urge the Committee to reject or substantially amend provisions that reduce funding, narrow “reasonable and necessary,” impose harmful treatment requirements, expand automated decision‑making or restrict choice of trusted providers. At minimum, adopt independent review, guarantee funding for core supports, limit algorithmic decisions, and strengthen safeguards for unpaid carers. Thank you for considering my submission. I ask that my identity remain anonymous in any public documents.