Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Submission to the Inquiry:

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

CONFIDENTIAL

NAME only obe suppressed for privacy

Submission

Submission to address aspects of the proposed legislative changes to the NDIS Bill.

Introduction:

I am aged 80 years and am the mother, nominee and disability advocate of a 51-year-old daughter who was born with Spina Bifida including hemiplegia (a one-sided disability with no feeling or movement in one leg, and the same arm also affected.) My daughter lives independently in her own unit where she has resided for over 22 years. She worked for 18 years in mainstream workforce but her health has deteriorated significantly over the past ten years. She is now at high risk of pressure injuries and surgical intervention, she requires assistance from support workers during transfers together with ceiling hoist use due to power wheelchair dependency; Her needs are categorized as High Dependency using some references professional publications there two key aspects I would like addressed: • Reduce social civic & community budgets by fifty percent Only limitation Minister regard safety participants decision cannot be appealed• Are we returning banishing severely permanently disabled participants society not seen heard So much progress achieved since made choice control part scheme Disabled people out about workforces volunteering being community Doctors Occupational therapists Physiotherapists general public welcomed valued inclusion.

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

Submission 1596

• For those severely disabled, categorized as High Dependency who live independently and require assistance to access the community, will they now be restricted – unable to attend a football match, go to a pub where a band is playing, dine in a restaurant, or go to their local supermarket or attend medical appointments with the necessary support?

The extent to which the health and safety of participants would be affected if this budget were cut by 50% is of great concern. For the disabled and most especially for those with High Dependence care needs, it would result in a risk of harm — physically, exceptually and psychologically.

denying a disabled person sufficient community access constitutes profound physical and emotional harm.It drastically increases the risk of severe psychological distress, anxiety and clinical depression.^[1]

Prolonged social isolation impacts physical health leading to higher risks of chronic conditions like heart disease loss independent living skills accelerated cognitive decline^_[2]’.
As marginalized group within society people disabilities are at high risk low social connectedness lack interactions participation activities meaningful connections due barriers. This can negatively impact mental life.^_[3] Reducing this budget 50 could potentially have an impact reducing participants High dependency bed-bound invalids subject them negative health outcomes increased pressure injuries

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

Submission 1596

• hospitalization,
• social isolation,
• increased time in bed – associated pain” reduced quality life.

Studies confirm that increasing social participation people physical disabilities leads improved health well-being reducing mental illness greater satisfaction higher quality .

Recommendations:

• The Bill Reduce social civic budgets by % amended exclude High Intensity supports. High intensity participants already restricted from participating due day-to-day limitations affecting daily life. Participants should supported achieve high levels despite condition. A limited allocation those with High Intensity ought not implemented specific risks harm- physical emotional psychological. Supermarket shopping assistance to attend medical appointments be counted as community participation These activities of living necessary support significantly permanently disabled unable do themselves individually circumstances environment age participant family need considered previously informal supports no longer able fill gap reduction social community participation – parents grandparents either aged deceased dealing own issues.

Value For Money

[footnote]Enhancing Social Participation People Disabilities Networks Support Psychology Town[/footnote]

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill

Submission 1596

Value for money assesses whether the benefits of a service, project or investment justify the costs involved. *Within the NDIA, value-for-money has been used as justification to cut participants’ plans. This has necessitated further Review of Decision and/or progression to Administrative Review Tribunal * to obtain satisfactory outcomes. In this scenario: The associated coststotheNDIahasbeenverysignificant,surely notcosteffective nor valueformoney,havingeffectively wasted large sumsofmoneycasusedenormousstressandanxietyfornoticipantsandas their families. Functional CapacityAssessmentscarriedoutbycompetentprofessional Occupational Therapists oughtto suffice in first instancewith recommendations adhered-to. Social return oninvestment (SROI) is amethodforexploringbroader conceptsofthetotalvaluetoaninterventionbysocialenvironmentaland economic-costsandbenefits.[^5]

Recommendations: When evaluating Value For Money take into account these statements:

• The relative importance-of quality-life dimensions for people with disability differs from those without. Quality lifeisakeyoutcome foreconomic evaluation and assessing impact ofdisability care policypracticeinAustralia internationally.It ist important that effectiveness-interventions measured valued ways fully reflective-qualitylife preferencespeople-with-disabilities[^6].

[1] Evaluation &ValueForMoney|Australian InstituteFamilyStudies [2] Assessing therelativeimportancekeyqualitylifedimensions-forpeoplenewith-andwithouta disability-an empirical ranking comparison study -PMC