Submission

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

Submitted by:

Riley Schafer-Wilson, Co-Founder and Director at Heart Worx in Tamworth, NSW; May 2026 Prepared by: Riley Schafer-Wilson - Heart Worx

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

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.`

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

Submission 1388

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 local communities.

Over recent years the system has become increasingly administrative restrictive distrust-based.Participantsare more confused.

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

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. The concerns I see across disability systems, provider practice, carer load, participant support, psychosocial complexity and review pathways matter when considering reforms like increasing reassessments or reducing access choices.

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

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 have substantially changed

citizen and provider behaviour across sectors. Providers become cautious, Claims scrutiny increases significantly. Participants experience confusion regarding what can be claimed under plans. These shifts might cut spending yet create significant admin burden. Providers lose money from good-faith supports due to stricter claims processes. Support coordinators spend time interpreting policy shifts correcting issues. Participants wait while providers absorb operational pressure before further restrictions. The Government should report: savings achieved compliance impacts team impact participant access downstream costs provider viability effects The system shouldn’t continue reforming without assessing existing ones’ outcomes. Staged evaluations matter more than less now.

Participant Choice Matters Trusted relationships in coordination plan management direct services ensure success.

For many individuals trusted workers make all the difference. Participants rely heavily for decision understanding reassessments routine maintenance early risk identification service prevention cognitive load reduction complexity handling. Commissioned models may appear efficient but reduce independence flexibility control over regional communities where choices already limited. Prepared by Riley Schafer-Wilson | Heart Worx | Page 5

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

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

Disability Royal Commission Findings Should Not Be IgnoredThe Disability Royal Commission made clear that people with disability must be able to live free fromviolence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.Those risks increase when people are isolated, unsupported, excluded from community, unable tocommunicate 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,

of move people intosystems that are not yet funded and operating risk undermining the safety, autonomy and inclusion work theroyal commission said Australia needed to build.From a provider and carer perspective this matters because when formal supports fail the pressure doesnot disappear It lands back on familiescarersworkershospitalshousing systemsand crisis services.Prepared by Riley Schafer-Wilson | Heart Worx | Page 6

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

Submission 1388

Economic and Workforce Impacts

NDIS funding supports participants but also supports workers, regional businesses, allied health services local employment broader economic participation. Reductions or increased market stability will affect:

• workforce retention
• provider sustainability
• carer participation in employment
• regional economies
• allied health access
• local business activity The Commonwealth saving is a national savings if shifted elsewhere The support need does disappear It goes somewhere.The Committee requires proper modeling before accepting participant-level reductions as genuine long-term savings.

Conclusion I support accountability Sustainability fraud prevention within the NDIS But cannot achieve increasing barriers reducing choice shifting burden onto disabled families carers communities Current already places significant strain on participants providers workers Further restrictions without safeguards risk creating more instability workforce loss crisis escalation downstream cost Before Parliament accepts further participant-level restrictions should require Government NDIA show full balance sheet: spending administrative delay complaint burden review costs legal costs region market provider viability unpaid carer load impact transfer government focus first improving internal consistency communication decision-making efficiency Disabled people not asked absorb system dysfunction Please do pass this bill current form.