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

Submission 3932

Points to Consider:

(1) I have requested complete anonymity because of a fear that the NDIA could weaponise a submission, using it to disadvantage a participant in the future - a lack of trust has already begun to permeate the various communities living with a range of disabilities

(2) A lack of trust especially began to develop with the end of the consultation period and many participants (involved in consultation) now realising that their advice and feedback were ignored

(3) Some participants have discovered that funding for community participation has been restricted to the weekdays, while the majority of their community participation (E.G.: religious / sporting) occurs on the weekend (especially if they are working). How can any participant trust any proposed legislative change when this has already occurred?

(4) A doctor will always tell a patient that the patient has to take full responsibility for surgery (and must sign accordingly). The doctor will derive financial benefit from the surgery, whether it succeeds or whether it fails - no matter the odds of success. On the other hand, a patient must first be able to afford the surgery and also be able to live psychologically with an adverse outcome. If a patient cannot afford surgery (or if the odds of success are poor or the patient cannot psychologically live with an adverse outcome) does this mean that such a patient (regardless of their particular circumstances, but just because a doctor offered surgery) would no longer be considered to be permanently disabled?