Opposing harmful NDIS cuts impacting participants with progressive disabilities (Participant experience) | External submission

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 107 - Supplementary Submission

Submission Opposing Harmful NDIS CUTS

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to express deep concern and opposition to the direction of recent and proposed NDIS reforms and policy changes.

The public is repeatedly being told these reforms are about “sustainability”, yet many disabled Australians are experiencing them as cuts, gatekeeping, delays, intimidation and erosion of rights.

For participants living with permanent and progressive disabilities, like myself, the current environment has created fear and instability instead of support and security.

Many people on the NDIS have already undergone years of assessments, specialist reports, functional evidence gathering, reviews and reassessments simply to prove they are disabled enough to receive support. Despite this, participants are now hearing increasing rhetoric suggesting they must continue exhausting every possible treatment, justify every support repeatedly, or risk losing access to essential services. This costs participants large amounts of money, only for the un-trained Planner to make decisions about a disabled person without reading reports or overriding medically trained allied health or medical professionals.

This is not reform. This is re-traumatising disabled people and exhausting families.

The NDIS was never intended to become a system where people with lifelong disabilities are forced into constant battles to defend medically established impairments. Participants should not have to repeatedly “prove” permanence when neurologists, specialists and treating teams have already conﬁrmed conditions are lifelong, degenerative or without curative treatment options.

I am also deeply concerned about:

• Excessive delays in plan reviews and change of circumstances requests;

• Participants being left without communication or procedural fairness;

• Increasing barriers to accessing independent review and tribunal processes;

• Attempts to reduce or reshape Supported Independent Living (SIL) without adequate safeguards;

• Pressure toward cheaper alternatives regardless of participant safety or suitability;

• Growing distrust between the NDIA and the disability community;

• Public and media narratives portraying participants as ﬁnancial burdens rather than citizens deserving dignity and support;

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 107 - Supplementary Submission

• Stopping plan reviews being done about a participant without them present.

The political language around “cost blowouts” has had real consequences. It has contributed to fear, stigma and uncertainty for disabled people across Australia. Many participants now live in constant anxiety that essential supports may be removed, reduced or delayed despite no improvement in their condition. Everytime a text message arrives on my phone, it causes anxiety, fear and heart palpitations.

Disabled Australians should not be collateral damage in budget repair strategies.

The NDIS exists because people with signiﬁcant disabilities require support to live safely, participate in the community and maintain dignity and independence. These supports are not luxuries. For many participants they are essential to survival, housing stability, health and protection from neglect or institutionalisation.

I urge Parliament to reject reforms that:

• weaken participant protections;

• reduce access to review rights;

• create additional eligibility barriers; or

• prioritise cost reduction over human outcomes.

I further call for:

Legislated protections for participants with permanent and progressive conditions;
Guaranteed procedural fairness and timely NDIA decision-making;
Preservation of independent merits review rights;
Transparent consultation with participants and disability organisations;
Recognition that SIL and complex supports are necessary for many participants and should not be undermined through indirect policy pressure; and
Accountability measures for unreasonable delays and administrative failures.

The measure of a society is how it treats disabled people during times of political and economic pressure. Australia should not move backwards toward systems where disabled people are forced to ﬁght endlessly for basic support, dignity and human rights.

I ask Parliament to listen directly to participants and families living through these impacts, rather than relying solely on ﬁnancial narratives and administrative targets.