National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1073
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I am writing this submission as a person with disability, disability advocate and community leader with significant experience engaging with participants navigating the NDIS and broader disability support systems. I have also contributed to disability policy discussions through participation in the Disability Royal Commission process, the NDIS Review consultation process and peer leadership work within the disability community.
While I support the importance of ensuring the long term sustainability and integrity of the NDIS, I am concerned that aspects of the proposed reforms may create unintended consequences for disabled Australians if foundational supports and safeguarding mechanisms are not fully established, accessible and nationally consistent prior to participants being redirected away from the scheme.
My concerns are not with reform itself, but with the risk that reforms designed to improve sustainability may unintentionally create exclusion, fragmentation and reduced protections for people with disability.
Fragmentation and Administrative Burden
One of my primary concerns is the movement of participants toward foundational supports without equivalent navigational accessibility being in place.
One of the strengths of the current NDIS structure is that supports are largely centralised within a single system. Once a participant has access to the scheme, they are generally able to access multiple forms of support through one funding ecosystem, one planning framework and one primary access pathway.
By contrast, foundational supports are likely to exist across multiple systems, providers and funding arrangements. This creates a significant risk of fragmentation. Participants may be required to navigate multiple services, eligibility criteria, referral pathways and application processes in order to access supports that were previously coordinated through the NDIS.
For many people with disability, particularly those with psychosocial disability, autism, intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, executive functioning difficulties or chronic health conditions, the administrative burden of repeatedly applying for supports becomes a barrier in itself.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1073
A support system cannot be considered accessible if people are unable to realistically navigate it.
I am concerned that people may technically have supports available to them while being practically unable to access those supports due to complexity, exhaustion, lack of advocacy or confusion about where to go for assistance. This creates a real risk that people will disengage from support systems altogether.
I recommend that any transition toward foundational supports include:
● strong continuity of support protections ● minimal duplication of assessments and application processes ● nationally consistent navigation and support pathways ● a “single front door” approach wherever possible ● dedicated support navigation mechanisms outside individual NDIS plans
Safeguarding Concerns
I am also deeply concerned about the safeguarding implications for people who may be redirected away from the NDIS into foundational supports or mainstream systems.
While the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission is not without flaws, the NDIS currently provides nationally recognised safeguarding mechanisms including worker screening requirements, complaints pathways, reportable incident obligations and regulatory oversight powers.
If people are moved into systems outside the NDIS framework, it is unclear whether equivalent protections will consistently apply.
This creates a risk of a two tier safeguarding system where people with similar support needs receive significantly different protections depending on whether their supports are funded through the NDIS, a state program, a community organisation or another mainstream service.
I am particularly concerned about the impact on:
● children ● people with intellectual disability ● people with communication barriers ● isolated participants ● people reliant on personal care supports ● people at increased risk of abuse, coercion or exploitation
Safeguards should attach to the person and the support environment, not solely to the funding source.
I recommend that the Commonwealth ensure:
● nationally consistent safeguarding standards across foundational supports
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1073
● clear complaints and reporting pathways ● consistent worker screening expectations ● transparent regulatory accountability before participants are transitioned away from NDIS oversight structures
Concerns Regarding Participant Reduction Narratives
I am concerned by the increasing public framing of NDIS sustainability discussions around the idea that there are “too many people” accessing the scheme.
The original intent of the NDIS was to address unmet disability support needs and improve long term social and economic participation for Australians with disability. Growth in participant numbers should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of misuse or system failure without considering:
● historical under support ● population growth ● improved diagnosis and identification ● increased awareness of disability ● unmet need that previously existed outside formal systems
Public narratives suggesting there are “too many disabled people” risk creating stigma, undermining public trust and encouraging suspicion toward legitimate participants.
This is particularly concerning in the context of ongoing failures within mainstream systems including housing, healthcare, education and employment accessibility. Disabled Australians should not become the focus of blame for broader systemic failures.
I am concerned that participant reduction may become an implicit policy objective without sufficient evidence that foundational supports will provide genuinely equivalent accessibility, continuity and protection.
Sustainability should not be measured solely through participant reduction or expenditure containment. It should also be measured through long term outcomes, accessibility, safeguarding and social participation.
Conclusion
The long term sustainability of the NDIS is important and reform is necessary. However, reforms must not create greater fragmentation, reduce safeguarding protections or unintentionally exclude people with disability from accessing supports.
I urge the committee to ensure that:
● foundational supports are genuinely accessible before participants are redirected from the scheme ● safeguarding protections remain nationally consistent regardless of funding source ● administrative burden is recognised as an accessibility issue
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1073
● sustainability measures do not unintentionally undermine the original purpose of the NDIS
Disabled Australians deserve systems that are not only financially sustainable, but also accessible, safe, navigable and grounded in dignity and inclusion.
Submission made by Elisha Matthews Hamilton 4007 Qld