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

Submission 3886

My name is , and I am a proud Australian worried about the changes to the NDIS via the NDIS Amendment Bill. I ask my government to amend this bill to better protect the vulnerable people it will affect.

I learnt about this bill amidst general frustration from other people online about the new federal budget. I have serious concerns about how this bill may negatively impact the lives of the many disabled people in my personal community and across Australia.

My concerns

While I have many issues with this bill, I have only laid out in detail the main problems I have with it that I feel I understand. My other concerns, of which I feel less certain in my ability to critique meaningfully, have already been expressed by other Australian’s submissions in more detailed than I could give. These other concerns mainly revolve around Schedule 3, which gives pricing decision making power to the Minister and introduces the automation of administrative decision making. I find both of these concepts dangerous and worthy of extreme caution, and I ask my government to ensure there are precautionary measures to these parts of the bill that limit the ability for them to harm vulnerable Australians.

Schedule 1, Part 1 – Defining functional capacity

I find the stated intention of this proposal in the digest as a “shift to a more needs-based approach to assessment” to be commendable, however I fear that in practice this specific implementation will take support away from those that need it most.

This new definition of ‘functional capacity’ contradicts the World Health Organization’s definition, as it specifically excludes the person’s environmental characteristics (section 9B(1)(b)). This aspect is a key part of WHO’s definition (mentioned in the digest for the bill) and I ask my government that it be included in the definition the NDIS provides. Without this, the NDIS ignores the ways that hardships compound on each other, and how the same disability could be much more harmful to someone in a bad environment than to someone in a good environment. To assess disabilities in a vacuum is to ignore reality, and under this bill would mean taking support away from those who already live in inaccessible and harmful environments.

While I do not agree with it, I understand the reasons for trying to achieve lower participant numbers, but cutting Australia’s most vulnerable people is not the way to do it. Cuts should be made top down, not bottom up.

Schedule 1, Part 2 - Limit unscheduled plan reassessments

In the spirit of my concerns for this bill, I do commend the fact that Item 21, subparagraph 48A(1)(b)(ii) allows for participants to request a plan reassessment amidst changes to their “personal or environmental circumstances.” However, I am concerned by the use of the word “unanticipated” in subsection (3), which provides extra conditions for (1)(b)(ii). The use of “unanticipated” appears, at first, to avoid many circumstances where it would be very

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

Submission 3886

reasonable for a participant to genuinely need extra support, but as the changes were anticipated the plan reassessment would not be approved.

Interestingly, some of the Explanatory Memorandum examples for this item (specifically Sophie and Fatima) show participants having their plan reassessment requests approved in situations that I believe the average person would see as anticipated (an elderly mother going into aged care, commencement of employment). These events would surely be planned ahead of time (I think it is fair to assume that Fatima did not get a job accidentally). I am therefore assuming that there is some intended definition of ‘unanticipated’ that is not being conveyed by the proposed bill, which I have already seen confuse several people and would only confuse them more if it is passed without amendment.

I ask my government to rephrase or clarify this subsection to prevent possible misinterpretations that would prevent participants from receiving their necessary supports.

Schedule 1, Part 8 - Tightening meaning of permanence to reduce access where an impairment can be treated

Once again, while I do not agree with it, I understand the desire to reduce participants of the NDIS both in an effort to reduce fraud and to keep the scheme sustainable. Specifically, though, I am concerned with Item 92 on page 35-36 of the bill, in the proposed paragraph 25A(2), where a treatment can be considered “appropriate treatment… regardless of whether the person’s individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment.”