Submission 1402

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 a Support Coordinator working with NDIS participants in Victoria, SA & WA. My connection to the scheme is direct and practical. Every day I work with people who rely on the NDIS to stay safe, stable, and connected to their communities. My role is to help participants understand their plans, coordinate their supports, and prevent small issues from becoming crises. I see firsthand what happens when the system works — and what happens when it doesn’t.

I am making this submission because the proposed changes in this Bill will significantly affect the people I support. Many of my participants are already receiving letters about reviews, receiving reductions in their plans, having coordination removed with no replacement services or changes they do not understand.

I am already seeing the impact in my day–to–day work. One of my participants recently had a plan review completed without the NDIS contacting them at all. They had no opportunity to speak, provide evidence, or even understand what was being changed. Support Coordination was removed completely and handed back to a LAC, who had not assisted the client in the 18 months prior to myself being engaged as the Support Coordinator. I also have multiple participants whose funding has been reduced even when we were requesting an increase to support basic social participation and access to community-based learning groups focused on reading, writing, and arithmetic — activities that were listed as their goals. Even when we find appropriate providers or council programs, the reduced hours mean they simply cannot attend. Another participant had requested an increase in support hours, due to being a falls risk, also received a reduction in their NDIS funding. This resulted in not one, but TWO, long term hospital admittances. Now at home, and still having minimal services, due to funding constraints. These are people who want to build skills and be part of their communities, and the system is making that harder, not easier.

The 2023 independent review set out a clear roadmap with 26 recommendations and 139 actions, and it stated plainly that these reforms must be implemented as a whole. Foundational supports were described as a non–negotiable precondition before any tightening of eligibility or reductions in plans. Those foundational supports do not exist. Yet the government has proceeded with major changes to access and funding without explaining why it abandoned the review’s instructions. As someone who works on the ground, I can say clearly: the systems that were meant to catch people outside the NDIS are not there.

The scale of the proposed cuts is also deeply concerning. One hundred and sixty thousand people are expected to be removed from the scheme, and average plans reduced by $5,000. None of this was taken to the Australian people at the 2025 federal election. There was no mandate for changes of this size, and families and workers like me are now left trying to manage the consequences.

The justification for these reforms has also been inconsistent. Fraud accounted for just 1.05 per cent of the projected savings, yet a third of the savings came from removing children from the scheme. On 2 July 2024, a minister told parliament that billions were being rorted. At that time,

Submission 1402

the confirmed fraud figure was $34.5 million across 72 active cases in a $42 billion scheme. Those two statements cannot both be true, and the evidence behind the claim has never been required to be tabled. In March 2026, the government voted down a Senate inquiry into NDIS fraud – the very issue it had used to justify these cuts. This has left workers like me with serious concerns about transparency.

The consequences of underfunding are not theoretical. Noah Johnston died in December 2025 after his ventilator tube became dislodged overnight because the NDIA had not funded a registered nurse to be present. Four–year–old Koa Gibson died after her nursing support was reduced to three hours per week and her mother’s request for emergency funding was declined. These tragedies show what happens when essential supports are treated as optional.

People with autism make up nearly four in five new entrants and around half of all NDIS participants. The Productivity Commission – the body that designed the scheme – identified autistic people as exactly the population the NDIS was created to serve. The claim that they were never meant to be covered is false, and hearing it repeated has caused distress and confusion for many of the families I support.

The economic argument for cuts also does not hold. The NDIS returns $2.25 to the Australian economy for every dollar spent. Cutting it does not save money; it shifts costs into hospitals, emergency departments, mental health services, homelessness systems, and onto unpaid family carers – most often women. I see this shift happening already.

Given the seriousness of these reforms, I believe the committee must require the government to table the full evidentiary basis for the July 2024 fraud claims and explain how the statement that billions were being rorted can be reconciled with the confirmed fraud figure of $34.5 million. I also ask the committee to explain on what basis the government has proceeded with eligibility changes when the foundational supports the review described as essential preconditions do not exist. Finally, these changes were not taken to the Australian people at the 2025 election, and I believe the committee must ask on what democratic basis the government claims authority for reforms of this scale.

In closing, I ask the committee to pause or reject this Bill until foundational supports are in place, require full transparency of the evidence used to justify these reforms, and uphold the rights and commitments that were made to people with disability when the NDIS was created. The people I support cannot absorb the consequences of these changes. The systems around them cannot absorb them either. I ask the committee to consider the real–world impact on the lives behind these decisions.

Thank you for taking the time to read through my submission.

Submission 1402

Margaret Rowlands