National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3937
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations)
Bill 2026
I write as the redacted year old, single mother of a redacted year old daughter born totally blind from birth with a severe intellectual delay, physical and deteriorating curvature of the spine issues (redacted), epilepsy and some additional but medical issues (redacted).
My concern is that the blindness disability does not have the loud voice that high incidence disabilities like Autism have, however, most sighted people believe they can imagine or observe the “problems” being experienced. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I listened to Hon Mark Butler at the Press Club and supported his logic and changes but now am so scared at the provisions in the Bill especially under 45C.1. I have observed through many Facebook groups the growth and dilution of the original NDIS and have been surprised at how people have interpreted and used NDIS funds and lack of vigilance of invoices received and claimed by them. Something did have to happen.
45C Maximum amounts payable under the National Disability Insurance Scheme—funding not managed by participants
(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine the maximum amount, or the method for determining the maximum amount, for the acquisition or provision of an NDIS support or class of NDIS supports.
Personally - Because my daughter has three different and not necessarily related disabilities - sensory, Intellectual and Physical disability in the same person – I am concerned that an across the board cut to Social Inclusion will not understand that the world is not equipped for blindness ( push button screens, obstacles on foopaths, tactile tiles not installed for road crossing. Lack of Braille signs,no talking signs, Waitresses that dump your drink on the other side of the table etc etc} This means that life requires an interpreter in order to be out in the community she belongs to. That comes under Social but is really a Daily Skill. The current budget has an across the Board cut. This Bill has an arbitrary continuing ability to just slice “mathematical” hours. The reality of the Bill and the budget means that she will have to cut out either \
e. volunteer work at the Child care centre ( which is an education for the children and an opportunity for them to ask questions and interact.) b. Walking in the community for exercise which cuts down on Physio & Ep hours c. Supermarket shopping and choice of meals and outings. d. Day Service ( interaction with other disabled participants)
She requires Support workers in order to access all of these because of the intellectual Delay and the Blindness combination.
BTW she currently gets Transport allowance $189.00 per 4 weeks. Out of this she pays $132.00 to community transport plus between $redacted-$600$ to the main provider because we live in a rural area with limited facilities. That is over $$500`` not counted in the plan (we see the need and support paying reasonable “normal ” expenses) Obviously as her GAB Administrator I do monitor closely that all travel is justified and “coffee shop & meaningless drives” are banned by me.
All activiites she undertakes are meaningful which is not easy when you have no sight and very little speech in a country town.
My worry is a “cookie cutter” approach under the instrument that only looks at one of the disabilities ($probably the blindness) and compares to other blind participants not the individuals impairments and how they interact with each other. Or alternately judges her intellect and does not take into account
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3937
the limitations that we live in an increasingly technical world that makes no allowances for flat screens and individual apps on mobile devices. This is exemplified in redacted.
Just by way of where the concern comes from. In 2021 and 2024 I had to go to the AAT & ART for Exercise Physiology and Orientation and Mobility training because her physical condition had now deteriorated to Osteoporosis and EP was required to slow the progression and prolong the best possible quality of life. Both times we were looking at less than $7000 in the plan. Both times common sense prevailed with a win for her (individual 1:1 to ensure that without mirrors the correct posture was being used at all times in the exercises,) Incorrect posture would exacerbate the curvature of her spine – this was not a skill that could be taught to a support worker within minutes and handed on at a buddy shift. Incorrect posture = stooped posture = breathing difficulties added to the currentl disabilities). The cost of the lawyers and staff involved was way more than $7000. I bear no ill will because I am pretty sure that the APS 4 or LAC probably saw that it was not “typical” for Blindness and did not have the understanding to interpret the reports provided. We do need to make sure that Plans are fit for purpose not solely based on Primary Disability. ART is not the best way to do this I think an interim Allied Health Tribunal would have resolved this more cheaply and quickly. However ART is the only and extremely costly option and it is imperative that there is a chance to be heard.
The S100 has always acted more like a “named officer” complaint than a chance to put your case. Unless the planner made a glaring error then they will be exonerated and the appeal will move to ART. At ART you finally have a chance to put forward the individual need.
Hence my concern of the following Legislation and how it can be enforced and manipulated in the years that follow.
Division 5 — Automation of administrative action
59B Automation of administrative action plus
59E 5 Oversight and safeguards for automation of administrative action
There has to be human oversight. AI is moving so fast that the provision of redacted to not be in breach when a computerised decision has been made but not acknowledged is very worrying and should not be enshrined in the legislation.
In closing, the current budget proposes to take 16% off the Social and Inclusion budget in order to meet a financial target. That 16% of time has to be found by myself - the mother, plan nominee, centrelink contact, bank contact, Administrator appointed by Guardianship Board, financial supervisor, medical contact and appointment maker, Advocate with service providers, Digestor of Legislative changes. For your information -I am 70 years old, in the past 4 years I have had a Mastectomy, removal of a cancerous Melanoma, Heart Attack and currently trying to force an auto immune Neurological Condition into remission. The saving to the NDIS currently is enormous but I don’t have the health or time to take on that extra 16%. There is no immediate family available to take over from me. Some of the Social activities are in fact scheduled to cover the Intravenous treatments that take 6 hours when I am not available for a sweet girl that does require 24/7 supervision. Not full on care but she unfortunately cannot problem solve nor voice here needs and therefore needs redacted. I have no fear that time and money wasted re-assessing her disabilities that she has had for 40 years will come up with any answer other than that she is eligible to stay on the NDIS scheme for the rest of her life.