National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 161
Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I am making this submission to strongly oppose and give feedback on above legislation in its current form, which is now before Parliament. I am writing this submission as both a disabled person with C-PTSD, Autism Spectrum Disorder and ADHD, as well as a single parent and primary carer of my 16-year-old daughter, who has been a NDIS participant since 2016.
My daughter lives with multiple disabilities: an acquired brain injury, Cerebral Palsy, Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 2, hemianopia, and epilepsy. Her functional assessments consistently show she performs below the bottom 1% across all areas. Despite being 16, she relies completely on adult support for all aspects of her daily life, personal care, safety, regulation, communication, supervision, and community participation.
I want the Committee to understand what the NDIS has made possible for her—and what this Bill threatens to take away.
What NDIS Support Means for My Daughter
Her capacity building funding gives her access to fortnightly psychology, physiotherapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, and hydrotherapy. These therapies help her learn new skills and maintain her mobility and strength.
Her Core funding covers assistance with daily life—personal care, help with washing her hair, toileting, showering, dressing, pushing her wheelchair, practising life skills, and the verbal and visual prompting she needs to complete everyday tasks. Her consumables budget covers continence products, orthotics, and adaptive clothing and shoes.
But the funding category that has most transformed her life is Social, Civic and Community Participation. This funding has taken her from a life of social isolation to one where she is supported to communicate, develop friendships with other teens who share similar interests and challenges, and participate in the community. It allows her to go to the shops, follow a shopping list, handle money, order at a café, navigate new environments, stay safe, and be toileted when away from home.
These are things non-disabled people take for granted. For my daughter, they require support—and that support has given her a life worth living.
Concerns About Specific Provisions
The Parental Presumption — s 34(1G)–(1J)
This provision presumes that parents of children with disability provide “substantial care and support” as a matter of course and allows the NDIS to reduce funding on that basis.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 161
I can tell the Committee directly: carers are already carrying unsustainable burdens.
Many families like mine are surviving, not coping. The emotional toll of caring for a child with complex disabilities—while constantly fighting systems, gathering evidence, attending appointments, managing crises, coordinating supports, and fearing future cuts—is immense.
The NDIS was meant to support disabled people and their families. This provision risks quietly transferring more responsibility back onto unpaid carers under the language of “capacity building.”
I am a sole parent. I am also disabled. There is no second adult in this household to share the load. Presuming that I am already providing substantial care and using that to justify funding cuts ignores the reality of what I am already doing—and the cost it is taking on my health, my capacity, and my ability to survive financially.
Ministerial Powers and Class-Based Determinations
I am deeply concerned by the expansion of Ministerial powers in this Bill—particularly the ability to make determinations regarding classes of participants.
Supports should be determined through individual evidence, clinical need, and participant circumstances—not broad administrative powers that may shift according to political priorities or budget pressures. These changes risk undermining participant trust in the Scheme and weakening safeguards that were originally intended to protect disabled Australians.
Funding Below Total Cost — s 34A
The provision allowing the NDIS to fund an amount “less than the total cost” of a support, if a cheaper alternative is judged reasonable and necessary, concerns me greatly. My daughter’s needs are complex. Cheaper alternatives often do not meet her actual needs. Funding supports that are inadequate by design is not sustainability—it is cost-shifting onto families and participants.
The Human Cost
We have already experienced what reduced funding means.
My daughter’s plan has already had a decrease in Core funding—funding that was paying for support workers to provide personal care in the mornings while I worked 10 hours a week to supplement my Carer Payment income.
That reduction meant I could no longer keep my employment. I am now solely reliant on the pension. We are in severe financial strain.
If further cuts come—particularly to her Social, Civic and Community Participation funding—the consequences will be serious. She will lose the community connections and friendships she has worked so hard to build. She will lose the support she needs to stay safe in public. She will lose the structured opportunities to practise communication, money handling, and navigation skills.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 161
She will be isolated again.
And I will be left to fill the gap—alone, disabled, and already stretched beyond my limits.
The reductions in funding and changes in this legislation will lead to high levels of social isolation for participants. Improperly funded participants will put more pressure on health systems as their capacity and health declines—and could ultimately result in deaths.
What I Ask of the Committee
I respectfully urge the Senate to:
Preserve genuine individualised assessment and planning processes. Remove or significantly restrict powers enabling blanket funding caps, support intensity limits, or class-based determinations. Ensure “reasonable and necessary” supports remain centred on functional impact and individual need. Prevent parental responsibility and informal supports from being used to justify reducing disability supports. Recognise the realities faced by disabled carers and single-parent families. Strengthen safeguards and oversight regarding Ministerial powers. Protect participant choice and control as core principles of the Scheme. Consult meaningfully with disabled people, participants, carers, and families before implementing major reforms.
Conclusion
The original vision of the NDIS was based on dignity, autonomy, individualisation, and participant choice and control. I worry that these reforms risk changing the culture of the Scheme from one centred on people to one centred on cost management.
My daughter’s disabilities are permanent. Her support needs are real. Her dependence on support is not temporary or exaggerated.
Living under the constant fear of cuts, reassessments, changing interpretations, and administrative restrictions creates enormous emotional harm for families already under pressure.
Disabled Australians deserve security, dignity, and a system that recognises their humanity.
I ask the Committee to ensure the long-term sustainability of the NDIS does not come at the expense of the wellbeing and safety of disabled Australians.