NDIA Accountability Project

Son's social and community participation impacted by NDIS Amendment Bill

‹ PrevPage 1 of 2 · Source p. 1Next ›

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

Submission 3916

To whom it may concern,

Privacy Preference: Private

  • My submission cannot be published online with my name

We are very thankful to have NDIS funding. My son gets help for every day needs that we would otherwise not be able to afford.

It is very expensive being disabled.

PLEASE DO NOT PASS THE NDIS AMENDMENT BILL IN ITS CURRENT FORM. IT REMOVES RIGHTS, REDUCES CHOICE AND CONTROL, AND WILL HARM PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY.

The Minister can cut your plan by instrument, with no review (redacted).

A percentage of funding can be removed from a support category by legislative instrument.

The first part is already scheduled: social and community participation, phased in from 1 October 2026 as plans renew.

The same power can apply to any support category to any level in future.

My son struggles with crowds and people as a whole.

We are transitioning him to live independently.

His social and community participation for personal outings are limited to accessing professionals, basic supermarket shopping or if able to manage - a short drive.

Assistance attending appointments with OT, Physiotherapist, Exercise Physiologist, Podiatrist, Pedorthist, Audiologists, Dietitian and GP are all so very necessary for his overall health and well-being.

Funding for necessary orthotics has been cut for the past 3 years.

Unscheduled reassessment becomes much harder (s 48A):

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

Submission 3916

Possible considerations

  • Retain the 21-day decision timeframe for unscheduled reassessment requests
  • Restore the “deemed decision” safety net for missed deadlines
  • Remove the “unanticipated” qualifier on informal-support changes.

Claims

Change from two years to 90 days ($s$ 45A(5)(a)). Request consideration for at least a minimum 6 month window for claims. Nominees face a new civil penalty under $s$ 80(5) for knowingly breaching their duty. The $$ss$$ 73ZSH(2), 73ZSI(2) and 73ZSJ(2) protect against infringement notices, compliance notices and enforceable undertakings - but not against a direct civil-penalty order in court. As a Nominee, I am an unpaid family member who is trying my best to provide necessary support for my son. We already have enough to contend with.

Possible considerations

  • Remove $s$ 80(5), or in the alternative
  • Add a “reasonable steps” defence and explicit protection from direct civil-penalty orders where the nominee is acting in good faith without remuneration.

Unscheduled Reassessments

Possible considerations

  • Keep the 21 day decision timeframe for unscheduled reassessment requests
  • Restore the “deemed decision” safety net for missed deadlines
  • Remove the “unanticipated” qualifier on informal supports changes