National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 3677

gina lloyd-thomas

Submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee re:

THE NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING

THE NDIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS) BIL 2026

Please do not pass the NDIS Amendment Bill in its current form. It removes rights, drastically reduces choice and control and will harm people with disability, including myself.

While sustainability is critical, I do not agree with the Bill in its current form. It negates true co-design in its development and consultation process, hence will do harm to the very people it is designed to support, and this is totally unacceptable.

If this Bill was designed with any ethical imagination at all, honest co-design would have been evident in every word and intention from the outset and the current consultation period would not have been so rushed.

Ethical imagination suggests walking a mile in another’s shoes; deeply listening and imagining living the life that they live. It means considering, really understanding what you may need and want if that life were your own. It means working together with those people to develop a sustainable scheme where the funding goes where it is needed, and not lost in horrendous hidden legal fees at the ART or in other bureaucratic waste. It means not exposing myriads of short lived staff to the unrelenting stress of denying people what they need according to immoral algorithms.

I cannot see any ethical consideration in the words of the proposed Amendment, let alone imagination. Instead it sings of judgement, blame and segregation of people living with disability from the remainder of society.

Passing this Bill into legislation will leave people living with disability as society’s scapegoats, just as they were prior to the NDIS scheme being launched.

As such, I am lodging my firm disagreement to the proposed changes and the extremely narrow window of opportunity to read, understand and object to these.

Yours sincerely,

Gina Lloyd-Thomas