9 July 2026
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
By email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
SUBMISSION: NATIONAL DISABIITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS) BILL 2026
Dear Committee
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. My name is . I wish to make a supplementary submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (Bill). I am making this submission as a participant in the complex needs pathway of the NDIS. I wish for my submission to be anonymous and not published or associated with my name. I am unable to upload this submission online. Please accept this submission by email. I am requesting anonymity and that both my submissions be published de-identified and anonymously. I have been informed that participants who raise concerns will be targeted for removal from the scheme and/or their funding will be cut as retribution, irrespective of their support needs and disability impacts. I am deeply concerned that any Australian Government would seek to threatened and harm vulnerable people for seeking to inform and contribute to the public interest in safeguarding the NDIS and people with disability. I would ask that the Committee speak directly to and make recommendations about the level of threat and coercion being applied by the Government to deny Australian citizens their legal right to participate in democratic processes. While I understand that the Government has taken on board some concerns about the Bill, serious concerns still remain. I again submit that the Committee recommend that the Bill should be withdrawn. In addition to the issues raised in my initial submission, I am especially concerned that the Bill seeks to impose significantly greater regulatory burdens, uncertainty and complexity on participants and does not deal with the bureaucratic and market regulatory failures which put participants and scheme at risk. This includes the risks to the health, safety and wellbeing of participants as well as their exposure to fraud, exploitation, neglect, torture, abuse and other harms including severe psychosocial injury, and unknown financial risks irrespective of the efforts made by participants to comply with their obligations. The regulatory uncertainty also creates enormous costs, market instability and high risks to participants, as well as significant imbalances in power and knowledge when attempting to access goods and services that are NDIS supports funded under this plans. When Government creates such complexity while also reducing funding for services to meet their compliance requirements, provider and participants are placed in impossible situations which result in harm to the people the scheme is meant to support. Let me give you some practical examples based on my experience as a participant: Service provider instability In the past year, the registered provider I engaged as a specialist support coordination company lost many of their staff due to burn out and psychosocial injury. This resulted in poor service delivery, uncertainty and instability which caused severe stress and re-traumatisation to me as the participant. I was not made aware of the problems being experienced by the company. Eventually, I was informed this year that the service provider was withdrawing from the NDIS market completely. The registered provider has done nothing to assist me to identify and engage a new service provider. The has resulted in a complete breakdown in support services, and my inability to use my funding to access critical support services.
The Bill does nothing to address the issues for providers to remain compliant and viable in the market and able to provide quality services to participants. The Bill does nothing to safeguard participants who receive poor quality services from registered providers, nor facilitate continuity of support which places them at high risks (as has been my experience). While I have asked my complex needs NDIS planner for assistance to identify a reputable, experienced providers, this assistance has not been forthcoming. Poor compliance with NDIS Code of Conduct and Consumer Law standards In my experience as participant, not one service provider has ever taken the time to explain their services and service agreement even though these requirements exist in the Code and legislation. Further, not one service provider has ever provided me with a service agreement that I can understand and which resembles something that might be clear, safe and fair to sign as a contractual agreement. Typically, these service agreements are roughly drafted by laypeople without any legal advice, based on general templates offered for free online. Participants are not funded to seek legal advice on the terms they are being forced to agree to for NDIS supports and this then puts them at risk of unscrupulous providers, services that are not fit for purpose, high risks, unknown costs, psychological and other harms. This is not an isolated experienced, but rather a wide spread issue affecting all participants though (more acutely) those who are the most vulnerable. These unknowns, ambiguities, power imbalances, and the trauma caused by inexperienced or bad actors who are providers, become significant barriers for vulnerable participants to access service and implement their plan – which has been my experience. Providers simply expect participants to sign up with them without any information about their legal compliance, suitability, experience, practices and fitness to provide the services. Once engaged, they simply charge for services that don’t deliver actual support or are of very poor quality and the participant is left at great disadvantage and risk and forced to start again. In an attempt to safeguard myself and manage these barriers and practices, I paid for training and templates from the Growing Space and developed a checklist of questions to ask providers prior to engagement. I cannot physically speak therefore the document helps me to communicate. My disabilities also impact my memory (short term, working, long term) and executive function. Engaging with strangers is also highly impactful for me as someone living with severe and complex PTSD, psychosocial disabilities. The checklist comprises basic questions e.g., name of the person providing services, company details, emergency contacts, how they charge. The checklist also asks general questions about their qualifications, experience, training, areas of speciality and expertise, compliance and how they provide services. Importantly, the checklist comprises questions that are recommended to be asked prior to engagement by the Growing Space, DSC and other providers generally on their websites. Out of the 30+ providers approached in the past four months alone, not one provider has been able to answer the questions on the checklist. Generally, they will want to be engaged and paid before they will disclose these basic details and even then (once engaged) it is exceedingly difficult and time consuming to get clear answers. Where I have persisted and kept asking, I have discovered providers who represent that: they are registered NDIS providers when they are not. they hold registered business names and companies when they do not they comply with and meet NDIS standards, yet bill in standard 15 mins blocks, as opposed to billing for real time service provision in accordance with the Price Schedule. they have qualifications, experience and training that they do not actually possess. I despair when I do all that I can to do everything correctly, and I am aware of best practices being promoted, yet the practical reality is that few providers are complying with these standards, no one really helps the participant to navigate these processes, there are significant power and knowledge imbalances that feel insurmountable. I cannot navigate the dodgy service agreements being forced on participants by providers.
I am frightened to engage anyone. I am still without a support coordinator provider, and other critical support services, unable to use my plan and access critical services, and my situation has become one of crisis due to the lack of stable and experienced disability support. The Bill does not address these vulnerabilities which are the cause of so many complaints by participants, waste of funding, harm being caused to participants and waste of funding. The Agency does not support vulnerable participants either. Participants are being forced into a legal and regulatory minefield without any professional expertise, advice and support. I cannot feasibly engage lawyers for every service agreement I see – this is not economically feasible for participants, many of who are no longer working, and who have enormous disability costs they are already bearing that are not being covered by NDIS funding. All of the messaging by the Safeguards Commission and ACCC are meaningless in addressing these issues. Reporting and record keeping obligations for participants The Bill imposes onerous new record keeping obligations on participants. These obligations are extraordinary, unsustainable and impossible for the most vulnerable to comply with. These obligations requires technological resources I do not have and typically cannot use or remember. The obligations are ableist and assume a level of functional capacity, time and resources I do not have and which is not funded as a NDIS support. The obligations put me at risk of financial penalties which I cannot reasonably and practicably comply with nor afford as a condition for accessing essential and critical services I need to live a simple ordinary life. No provider, in my experience, provides me with shift notes, file notes, proper records which leaves me at a serious disadvantage. The stress and demands on a severely limited functional disability and energy envelope is extraordinary and causes very real harm. I am aware of the psychosis and psychological harm being caused, the burnout and deterioration being thrust upon me. These obligations and the complexity are odds with a scheme that is supposed to be supportive and safe for vulnerable people. And they are oppressive and at odds with the environment and support I require to support my disabilities and safeguard my health, wellbeing and safety. Cuts to Community Access and Participation The Bill proposes extraordinary powers be given to the Minister to make widespread, arbitrary and unpredictable cuts to funding for community access and participation. While I understand that some concessions have been made to safeguard for health appointments and work, these shifts are insufficient to meet the needs of participants and should be rejected in full. For instance, I need support to access the community to make enquiries with health care and other insurers, go to the bank and access funds (I cannot engage in online activities including financial transactions at all). I need support to go into the community to access businesses to ask questions, select and purchase underwear, personal items, white goods, technology, aids, household appliances, taps, bedding and other general goods and services like any other ordinary person. I need support to go for walks and exercise, access fresh air and movement, to prevent further deterioration in my function, balance, strength, flexibility, manage the progression of osteoporosis, and to maintain lung and heart function. I need support to learn how to cope with environments outside of my home, people, build genuine connection, informal networks, friends and belonging. Connection, movement and exercise, connection with nature, is vital to human health and wellbeing, safeguarding and combatting the harms of extreme isolation and loneliness. That the Government would even consider proposing these arbitrary cuts to such vital funding for critical support of this nature is grossly negligent, cruel and will knowingly cause severe functional decline for participants, disadvantage and crisis, as well as emergencies that would be otherwise avoidable. I will not be able to pay my bills, access the most basic and essential goods and services, comply with my care plans to help me to manage my disabilities and safeguard my disability and energy envelope. I fear I will be forced into institutional care and I will lose the ability to live independently and manage my own affairs because these supports will not be available to me. My health, wellbeing and safety will most decidedly deteriorate rapidly. These proposed cuts should be rejected in the strongest possible terms. Automated decision-making
The move to automated decision-making is unacceptable for people with severe, complex disabilities. People with disabilities deserve confidence that decision affecting their lives are fair, accessible, person-centred, trauma-informed, accountable and can be challenged when mistakes are made. Technology should never replace huma engagement and human oversight. Regulatory uncertainty My understanding is that Parliament is being asked to vote on laws when rules and regulations are not yet available. Some of the biggest changes in the Bill will be determined by Rules that the disability community and Parliament still have not seen. Without them, no one can properly understand how the legislation will work in practice. This does not represent sound legislative procedure and competent decision-making. Before any vote takes place, the people most affected, the market and legislators deserve transparency and information to make informed decisions. The Bill should be voted against and rejected in its entirety. Yours sincerely,