Submission 1388

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submitted by

Riley Schafer-Wilson, Co-Founder | Director, Heart Worx, Tamworth, NSW, May 2026

Prepared by Riley Schafer-Wilson | Heart Worx | Page 1

Submission 1388

Opening Statement

I support genuine reform of the NDIS.

Fraud should be addressed. Poor providers should be removed. Public money should be protected.

But disabled people, families and frontline supports should not carry the cost of rushed reform, administrative failure or system-wide distrust.

I am deeply concerned that many of the proposed changes in this Bill will increase barriers, reduce participant choice, destabilise providers and shift more pressure onto families, carers, hospitals, housing systems and already-overloaded community services.

The people affected by these reforms are not abstract budget figures.

They are people trying to maintain housing, safety, relationships, community participation, employment, routine, recovery and basic day-to-day functioning.

If these reforms proceed without proper safeguards, the cost will not disappear. It will simply move elsewhere.

That deserves serious scrutiny before this Bill proceeds.

Executive Summary

I write as the Director and Co-Founder of a regional NDIS provider supporting participants across psychosocial disability, complex support needs, recovery-focused support, support coordination and direct supports.

From a provider and operational perspective, my concern is that this Bill attempts to improve sustainability primarily through participant-level restriction while leaving major internal NDIA dysfunction insufficiently resolved.

Working across provider operations, regional delivery, carer systems, psychosocial complexity, workforce realities and review pathways, I am concerned the downstream implementation impacts of this Bill are being underestimated.

The current system already creates significant administrative burden, workforce strain, review escalation, participant confusion and provider instability.

Further restrictions without proper safeguards risk:

• increasing access barriers
• reducing participant choice
• destabilising regional providers
• increasing workforce burnout
• increasing reliance on unpaid carers
• creating more crisis escalation and downstream service demand

The Bill should not proceed in its current form.

At minimum, participant-level reductions, access changes, commissioning changes and administrative powers should be paused until there has been proper consultation, regional impact assessment, economic modelling and stronger safeguards.

The Committee should assess this Bill not only by the wording of the reforms, but by how they are likely to operate inside the NDIS as it currently functions in practice.

Recommendations

I recommend the Committee reject or substantially amend the Bill.

At minimum, I recommend that Parliament require the following safeguards and evidence. These recommendations correspond to the main risks created by the Bill: access restriction, loss of participant choice, administrative harm, regional market failure, workforce destabilisation and downstream cost-shifting.

Submission 1388

Access and treatment safeguards - Do not proceed with tightened permanence or “all appropriate treatment” requirements unless bodily autonomy, informed consent and the right to refuse unsafe or inappropriate treatment are clearly protected in the legislation itself.

Independent and disability-informed assessments - Require assessments to consider evidence from treating professionals, providers, support coordinators, carers and people with direct knowledge of the participant’s functioning.

Protection of participant choice - Do not remove participant choice over support coordination or plan management without strong safeguards for continuity, independence, regional access and conflict management.

Administrative safeguards - Do not introduce plan suspension, revocation, automated debt creation, expanded compliance burden or reduced claim windows without strong review rights, disability-adjusted communication requirements and human oversight.

Measure existing reforms and NDIA administrative burden first - Publicly report on the outcomes and savings already created by the October 2024 support definition changes and later fraud reforms before introducing further participant-level restrictions. This should also include clearer reporting on NDIA delay, complaints, internal review burden, ART/legal costs, payment delays, overturned or conceded decisions and downstream administrative harm.

Regional impact assessment - Assess workforce impact, provider viability, thin markets, allied health shortages and participant access barriers in regional communities before implementation.

Economic modelling - Independently assess downstream impacts on hospitals, housing, mental health systems, unpaid carers, workforce participation and regional economies.

Children and early intervention protections - Do not remove children from the NDIS unless alternative systems are already funded, operational and accessible in practice.

Transparency around pricing and value-for-money decisions - Require evidence-based justification and consultation for pricing changes and assistive technology or home modification restrictions.

Meaningful consultation - Consult directly with disabled people, carers, providers, workers, regional communities and frontline disability services before implementing reforms of this scale.

Professional Context

I write not only as the Director of a regional disability support service, but also as someone with long-term carer lived experience within family life.

I was a long-term foster carer for two children who were NDIS participants and I remain an informal support in their adult lives. I am also a long-term carer and practical support for my wife, and have supported close family and loved ones through disability, mental health complexity, hospitalisation, crisis points and system navigation.

That experience has not been theoretical. It has meant helping hold together daily routines, emotional load, appointments, systems, crisis points, practical care, family responsibilities and the ongoing pressure that sits behind closed doors when formal supports are missing, delayed or not trusted.

It has also meant seeing how much unpaid labour families carry before a system ever recognises the need. When formal supports are reduced, restricted or made harder to access, the need does not disappear. It lands back on families, carers and households that may already be stretched past capacity.

That carer perspective shapes how I understand the real impact of support instability, burnout, cognitive load, inconsistent systems and the pressure placed on families when formal supports fail or become harder to access.

I also write from the perspective of someone operating a regional disability support service inside the NDIS every day.

I see the impact policy decisions have not only on participants, but also on families, workers, provider sustainability and local communities.

Over recent years, the system has become increasingly administrative, restrictive and distrust-based.

Participants are more confused.

Submission 1388

Providers are spending more time navigating compliance complexity and unpaid administrative burden.

Workers are burning out.

Families are carrying more pressure.

Regional services are becoming harder to sustain.

At the same time, participant needs have not reduced.

In many cases, participants are already struggling to use the supports they have because of workforce shortages, long waitlists, inconsistent decisions, reassessment stress and difficulty navigating the system.

These concerns are not theoretical from my perspective. They are operational realities I see across regional disability systems, provider practice, carer load, participant support, psychosocial complexity and review pathways.

These realities matter when considering reforms that increase reassessment complexity, reduce choice, tighten access or increase administrative pressure.

Core Position

The Government appears to be attempting to reduce long-term Scheme costs without adequately addressing the internal drivers of waste and escalation.

Many current pressures inside the NDIS are being created by:

• inconsistent decision-making
• poor communication
• avoidable reassessments
• delayed decisions
• unclear guidance
• workforce instability
• excessive administrative burden
• review escalation caused by preventable NDIA decisions

Those costs do not disappear when supports are reduced.

They shift onto providers, carers, mainstream systems and participants themselves.

A sustainable NDIS should reduce waste and fraud without increasing preventable harm.

The public is repeatedly shown the cost of participant supports. It is not shown, with the same clarity, the cost of NDIA administrative failure, review burden, delay and downstream transfer.

1. This Bill Cannot Be Assessed in Isolation

The Bill sits within a broader reform environment that includes commissioning changes, provider registration expansion, digital payment systems, pricing changes, tighter claiming rules, reassessment changes and budget restrictions.

Viewed individually, some reforms may appear administrative.

Viewed together, they represent a significant redesign of how participants access, manage and maintain support.

Parliament should not pass a Bill that leaves core concepts such as functional capacity, assessment thresholds, methodologies and exclusions to future executive-made Rules without clear safeguards in the legislation itself.

The combined effect may include:

• less participant choice
• fewer independent supports
• increased provider consolidation
• less regional flexibility

Submission 1388

• increased workforce loss
• tighter access pathways
• reduced continuity of support
• greater reliance on unpaid carers

For participants with complex or fluctuating needs, these changes are not minor administrative adjustments.

They directly affect stability, safety and daily functioning.

Existing Reforms Already Created Significant Change

The October 2024 support definition changes and later fraud reforms already substantially changed participant and provider behaviour across the sector.

Providers are more cautious.

Claims are scrutinised more heavily.

Participants are experiencing increased confusion around what can be claimed and what is considered “in accordance with the plan”.

These changes may reduce spending, but they also create significant administrative burden.

Providers can lose money for supports delivered in good faith.

Support coordinators and plan managers spend increasing amounts of time interpreting policy shifts and correcting administrative issues.

Participants are left waiting while providers absorb the operational pressure.

Before introducing further participant-level restrictions, the Government should publicly report on:

• savings already achieved
• compliance impacts
• workforce impacts
• participant access impacts
• downstream administrative costs
• provider viability impacts

The system should not continue layering reforms without properly measuring the effects of the reforms already introduced.

The system is already undergoing substantial operational tightening and behavioural change from reforms introduced in October 2024. That makes staged evaluation more important, not less.

Participant Choice and Trusted Relationships Matter

Support coordination, plan management and direct support relationships are not interchangeable administrative functions.

For many participants, trusted support relationships are the reason support works at all.

Participants often rely on trusted coordinators, workers and providers to:

• understand decisions
• navigate reassessments
• maintain routines
• identify risk early
• prevent service collapse
• reduce cognitive load
• coordinate complex systems

Commissioned models may appear more efficient administratively, but they also risk reducing independence, flexibility and participant control.

In regional communities, choice is already limited.

Submission 1388

Further restrictions may reduce market diversity even more and leave participants with fewer safe or trusted options.

Regional Areas Will Carry Disproportionate Risk

Regional areas already experience:

• thin provider markets
• workforce shortages
• allied health waitlists
• limited specialist access
• confidentiality concerns
• long travel distances
• fewer replacement options when services collapse

Policy settings designed around metropolitan assumptions often operate very differently in regional practice.

If participant choice is reduced while reassessment complexity and administrative pressure increase, regional communities are likely to experience disproportionate harm.

Unspent funds should not automatically be treated as reduced need.

In regional areas, underspending may reflect workforce shortages, unavailable supports, illness fluctuation, service withdrawal or lack of capacity to coordinate supports.

Administrative Harm and Automation Risks

I am concerned about any expansion of suspension powers, revocation powers, automated decision-making or debt-related processes without strong safeguards.

Many participants already struggle with:

• communication barriers
• cognitive overload
• executive dysfunction
• housing instability
• fluctuating mental health
• digital exclusion
• inconsistent contact pathways

Failure to respond should not automatically be interpreted as disengagement or reduced need.

The disability system should not replicate the harms already identified through previous automated government compliance systems.

Human oversight, disability-adjusted communication and accessible review pathways are essential.

Disability Royal Commission Findings Should Not Be Ignored

The Disability Royal Commission made clear that people with disability must be able to live free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.

Those risks increase when people are isolated, unsupported, excluded from community, unable to communicate safely, or forced to rely on informal systems that are already under pressure.

This Bill should be tested against the Royal Commission’s findings before it proceeds.

Reforms that reduce community participation, restrict choice, centralise control, or move people into systems that are not yet funded and operating risk undermining the safety, autonomy and inclusion work the Royal Commission said Australia needed to build.

From a provider and carer perspective, this matters because when formal supports fail, the pressure does not disappear. It lands back on families, carers, workers, hospitals, housing systems and crisis services.

Submission 1388

Economic and Workforce Impacts

NDIS funding supports participants, but it also supports workers, regional businesses, allied health services, local employment and broader economic participation.

Reductions in participant funding or increased market instability will not only affect participants.

They will also affect:

• workforce retention
• provider sustainability
• carer participation in employment
• regional economies
• allied health access
• local business activity

A Commonwealth saving is not automatically a national saving if the cost is shifted elsewhere. The support need does not disappear. It goes somewhere.

The Committee should require proper economic modelling before accepting participant-level reductions as genuine long-term savings.

Conclusion

I support accountability, sustainability and fraud prevention within the NDIS.

But sustainability cannot be achieved by increasing barriers, reducing participant choice and shifting the burden of reform onto disabled people, families, carers and regional communities.

The current system already places significant strain on participants, providers and workers.

Further restrictions without proper safeguards risk creating more instability, more workforce loss, more crisis escalation and more downstream cost.

Before Parliament accepts further participant-level restrictions, it should require the Government and NDIA to show the full balance sheet: participant spending, administrative delay, complaint burden, review costs, legal costs, regional market risk, provider viability, unpaid carer load, workforce impact and downstream cost transfer.

The Government should focus first on improving internal NDIA consistency, communication, decision-making and administrative efficiency.

Disabled people should not be asked to absorb the cost of system dysfunction.

Please do not pass this Bill in its current form.