9 July 2026
Submission to the Inquiry into the
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Dear Committee Secretary,
Thank you for the extended opportunity to make a submission to this vital inquiry. I am writing to you as an NDIS participant from Queensland, and I strongly oppose the proposed changes within the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
While I understand the espoused intent to ensure the Scheme’s long-term sustainability, I am deeply concerned that the Bill as drafted shifts the NDIS away from a rights-based framework toward a model of rationing care. I fear these changes will lock vulnerable disabled Australians out of the Scheme and strip away essential supports, ultimately causing severe, long-term harm.
Below, I have outlined the primary issues I have noticed within the Bill that directly threaten my well-being and the safety of the wider disability community.
- The redefinition of “Permanence” and “Appropriate Treatment” The tightening of the definitions surrounding what constitutes a permanent disability is deeply alarming. Under the proposed framework, access will only be granted if the NDIA determines that “all appropriate treatment to remedy or alleviate an impairment has been undertaken” and that no further treatment is likely to “materially improve, reverse, or alleviate” its impact.
- The Issue: The term “alleviate” is an incredibly low bar. If a new, temporary therapy or medication offers even minor or fleeting relief, the Agency could argue that a participant’s condition is not “permanent.” Furthermore, forcing individuals to exhaust “all appropriate treatments” before accessing support fails to consider the structural barriers disabled Australians face. It does not account for whether a participant can afford these treatments, or if they even exist in regional, rural, or remote areas. This shift will make getting support incredibly inaccessible for the most vulnerable. I myself struggled deeply with providing extensive evidence for the many attempted treatments for my various organ issues and mental health challenges. It took multiple years and extensive reports from many professionals for me to access the scheme under the initial rules, and the future tightening of these definitions would unreasonably restrict required support.
- Radical changes to the “Reasonable and Necessary” Funding
Framework
The Bill significantly alters the foundational “reasonable and necessary” criteria of the NDIS Act. Under this Bill, the NDIA is instructed to heavily weight Scheme sustainability and
Page 1 of 3
equity across NDIS participants when determining funding allocations. Concurrently, Schedule 3 grants the Minister expanded delegated powers to use automated decision making and Part 4 to use a “support determination” to cut funding across entire categories of support without needing further legislative oversight.
- The Issue: The government has already indicated plans to use these powers to slash funding for social, civic, and community participation supports by 40%, and capacity building daily activities by 10%. For me and many others, these supports are not optional luxuries—they are the baseline requirements for daily survival and community inclusion. Removing these essential funds will isolate participants, strip away their independence, and place immense, unsustainable pressure on informal family carers and the overstretched public hospital system. I am not being hyperbolic here and I know from direct and recent experience as my plan was cut by 40% a year ago which has meant I have had extensive difficulties loosing my independence and becoming more isolated. I have lost access to members of my long term support team and been forced to over-rely on informal supports which have proven unsustainable. Informal supports are not and cannot be an adequate replacement for formal clinical support services with specially educated providers. Additionally human overview is key for having nuanced decisions made that support the often complex needs of disabled Australians. Reducing administrative tasks to automated processes risks participants having to endure sudden funding loss and immense changes whilst simultaneously obligating them to work hard to gather evidence for appeal. The basis of Reasonable and Necessary being undermined in this Bill is a terrifying change to what was initially a hopeful and empowering framework when the NDIS was initially envisioned and enacted.
- A Flawed “Functional Capacity” Assessment Model The Bill introduces a new definition of “functional capacity,” which requires assessments to judge a person’s ability to undertake activities “excluding, as far as possible, the impact of their environmental and personal circumstances.”
- The Issue: Assessing a disabled person in a vacuum, completely divorced from their real- world environment, is fundamentally flawed. If a person’s ability to function independently relies entirely on their wheelchair, an assistive communication device, or a trained support worker, assessing them without those context pieces paints an inaccurate picture. This clinical isolation will result in inadequate plans that fail to reflect the practical realities of living with a disability, undoubtedly leading to additional harm.
- Separation of Intersecting Conditions The Bill proposes that funded supports must be “directly related to a participant’s eligible impairments.” If an individual lives with multiple diagnoses as I do, funding will only cover the specific impairment that independently met the strict new eligibility tests.
- The Issue: Disability is rarely neat or singular. Many participants like myself live with complex, overlapping conditions, such as a physical disability combined with an acquired brain injury or psychosocial conditions. The impacts of my impairments are inseparable and compounding, this proposed model will not account for the overlapping compounding aspects of my disabilities, which are both physical across a number of body systems as well as psychosocial. Stripping away holistic planning and refusing to acknowledge how multiple conditions compound a person’s daily struggle will result in fragmented care and severe gaps in safety.
Page 2 of 3
Conclusion
Now I am afraid for the future, whereas a mere three years ago I was in the best supported position of my life thanks to the NDIS. Due to adequate support in the past I was able to undergo a series of critical surgeries to help ease some of my suffering, and had been planning a future I was hoping for. This was only possible given the level of care I had at the time, which unfortunately is no longer available to me due to cuts that have already been implemented to my plan. These cuts were made unexpectedly, two years before I was due for my next review and without any consultation with me. I then worked hard for months with my OT, support workers, extended care team, and informal supports, to submit an appeal that was crushingly rejected. Bafflingly the rejection claimed there was no evidence for my stated needs, despite there being nearly 40 pages of detailed OT reporting covering the relevant evidence backed up by additional sources. It was as if the NDIA didn’t consider the evidence submitted, and by the looks of this bill it seems there are further plans to enshrine this kind of harmful approach in our laws. We must not allow this to happen.
The NDIS was designed to provide choice, control, and reasonable supports to disabled Australians. If passed in its current form, this Bill will continue to transform the Agency into a rigid, cost-cutting bureaucracy that prioritises bottom-line metrics over human lives. The removal of needed supports will cause active harm to participants who rely on this scheme to survive.
I urge the Committee to recommend that the Bill be substantially amended or withdrawn until authentic, co-designed consultation with the disability sector has taken place. Disabled Australians deserve the consideration of our input being held as paramount to the systems that are built for us. These systems must have the rules written to enable us to be fully humanised and engage in lives of dignity.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Sincerely with hope,
ANONYMOUS NDIS PARTICIPANT
Queensland
Page 3 of 3