National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1323
Submission to NDIS (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Senate Inquiry
NDIS Participant Nominee and Child Representative, Informal Family Carer
Introduction
I am the parent of two severely autistic and intellectually disabled young adults both of whom require 24/7 1:1 care. I have experienced life before the NDIS, the implementation of it and the ongoing changes that are happening all the time. The NDIS has been lifechanging for my children and our entire family. However, it is by no means perfect and change is required. A large number of changes in the bill proposed will dramatically impact our lives in a very damaging way. I feel the cost of the NDIS is blowing out as the provider costs are escalating year on year and auditing and reviewing claims has been non-existent in the past.
S.34 Blanket reduction in categories of support, ratios of support, classes of participants regardless of the fact the funding has been assessed as reasonable and necessary
- 50% Reduction in Social and Community Participation
Both my children either currently access or will access next year five days a week of Day Programs. These provide essential structure, access to the community in an environment that can accept and manage their behaviours of concern, opportunity for varied activities and relief of the mental load for family members to be constantly planning and managing daytime activities. A blanket reduction of this funding by 50% will directly impact their ability to leave the house and go somewhere that will tailor activities for them. If they do not go to the day programs, they will still require 1:1 care from a support worker. If this is not funded, they will be stuck at home relying on family caregivers who due to age and own health issues cannot take them out together. The NDIS was set up specifically to address disabled people being isolated in their homes without support or placing a burden on family members that is impossible to meet.
Day Program providers will experience great uncertainty of ongoing participants due to variability and uncertainty around ongoing funding at the participant level.
Participants who are given 5 year plans will have this cut in funding last for five years even if the declaration is subsequently removed by the Minister earlier than the plan end date. Five year plans were introduced to provide more funding certainty for participants not to lock in temporary budget cuts.
- Ability to lock in ratios of support
My children will soon be looking to apply for SIL funding. I am concerned that, as SIL funding is the largest cost area of the NDIS, this power in the NDIS Bill will be used by the Minister to lock in a ratio of 1:3 SIL supports even where 1:1 is necessary for safety and wellbeing. It would be impossible to appeal this decision without going to the ART which is a long and costly process with no guarantee of success. In the meantime, there would be a high risk of abuse and neglect. Again, the NDIS was implemented to address the abuse and neglect arising from disabled people being forced to live in group settings without choice and control over who they lived with or who provided their care.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1323
Only funding needs arising directly from impairments that meet the NDIS eligibility requirements will be considered
My children have multiple disabilities that combine together to amplify their inability to perform daily activities of life or access the community. This includes a diagnosis of Bipolar disorder for one of my children. How will the standardised assessment separate the impact of functional impairment arising from autism, intellectual disability or Bipolar disorder in order to get all three listed as eligible for the NDIS? If Bipolar is excluded, how will the funding assessment reflect the proper ratio of support as 1:1 when my child is affected by mood swings which makes their behaviours of concern very hard to manage? I am concerned that real funding gaps will arise from an assessment process that fails to capture the full needs of the individual as a whole. This seems to be a high risk situation that will lead to a lot of underfunding and subsequent appeals and/or unsafe situations.
Provider Quality and Detection of Fraud
- Weak NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission
The regulator has been underfunded and understaffed from the beginning. Many providers, both registered and unregistered, have been reported and the complaints have just been closed out without any action.
- No oversight of claims, especially NDIA managed claims
Until around 2024, no evidence of claims had to be provided before loading a claim into the portal. As a self-manager, I regularly find errors in provider invoices, especially mistakes around claiming for shifts that have not been provided. This is just billing system errors not intentional fraud but it happens on a fairly regular basis (eg. A shift was cancelled and was not taken out of the billing system by the provider).
NDIA managed providers are able to access the participant plans without needing the approval or the participant or nominee. There is no capacity to identify any billing errors. A lot of costs could be saved by a much better review of the claiming especially the direct payment process that is proposed. Also NDIA managed providers should still need to seek participant/nominee approval in the portal before payment is processed. Doctors can’t claim from Medicare without patient approval. Why can providers claim from NDIS plans without participant/nominee approval?
- Registration
A tiered registration system may weed out some providers who are clearly fraudulent. However, registered providers in my experience make just as many billing errors if not more than unregistered providers as they are big complex organisations. It will not be the magic wand the government seems to think it will be. It also will limit access to small providers and independent workers who often provide better value for money than the big agencies and more flexibility.
- Provider Pricing
Because of the demand for workers and therapists, we struggle to find and maintain a roster of support workers and therapists, especially given the high level of complex behaviours of our young adult participants. This means that both providers and worker agencies charge the maximum in the price guide and demand the maximum seven days short notice cancellation policy. They charge the maximum travel and kms. The NDIS was set up as a market-place where providers would compete to
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1323
provide services. There is no real competition at all and we are price-takers in the market. We are in an inner suburb of a capital city and not regional or rural so I imagine it is even harder for others. I support a review of the pricing with the understanding that whatever the pricing is set at, that is what providers will charge.
Summary
The NDIS has provided a life changing improvement in the quality and availability of supports for my severely disabled children. While I accept that the costs need to reined in for the sustainability of the scheme, the use of blanket cost cutting by the minister will cause damage to disabled people’s health and wellbeing by isolating them at home without the ratio of supports needed to keep them safe from abuse and neglect. The failure to view the functional impairments of the whole person will also cause damaging underfunding. Provider cost claiming processes, fraud investigation and a strengthened regulator are obvious and important ways to go about cutting scheme costs without placing participants at risk.