National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1625
My name is and I am an NDIS participant living with C5 quadriplegia and high physical support needs.
I support the long-term sustainability of the NDIS and agree there should be appropriate measures to address fraud, exploitation and unsafe practices within the system.
However, I am deeply concerned that many aspects of the proposed reforms risk creating further fear, instability and administrative burden for genuine participants with complex disabilities.
A lot of the public conversation around the NDIS has increasingly focused on “blowouts”, “rorting” and participants costing too much money.
What is often missing from this discussion is the lived reality of people trying to survive safely within the system while dealing with permanent disability, medical complications and ongoing reassessments.
I have personally spent years fighting simply to access appropriate housing and supports.
I waited over two years for approval and access to a Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) apartment. Even after finally obtaining SDA approval and identifying a suitable property, I experienced further denials, implementation delays and service booking issues.
At the same time, I was on extended bed rest for over 8 months due to pressure injuries.
During this period, I was also attempting to navigate: • SDA implementation, • assistive technology applications, • automation requests, • allied health reporting, • plan reassessments, • funding concerns, • and NDIA administrative processes.
Many of the automation supports required to safely use my SDA apartment were initially refused or significantly delayed.
This included basic functional supports such as: • opening doors, • allowing support workers into the building, • controlling blinds, • and environmental access within the home.
These are not luxury supports. They are essential supports required for independence, safety and daily functioning.
One of my major concerns with these reforms is the increased focus on reassessments, administrative powers and system controls without enough recognition of the cumulative psychological impact this already has on participants.
Living with severe disability is already exhausting physically and mentally.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1625
But many participants are also living under constant fear that: • funding may suddenly reduce, • supports may be reassessed, • assistive technology may be refused, • or services may become inaccessible through administrative decisions.
The stress of repeatedly needing to justify your disability, your risks and your support needs creates enormous psychological strain over time.
Participants should not feel like they are constantly defending their right to basic safety and independence.
I am also concerned about the expansion of automated administrative actions and tighter reassessment frameworks.
The reality is that disability support needs do not pause while reviews or reassessments are occurring.
Pressure injuries continue. Support needs continue. Health complications continue.
During one period of reassessment and system delays, my core funding became critically low while I was actively attempting to seek assistance and clarification from the NDIA and local political representatives.
Despite this, essential supports still needed to continue daily.
The practical reality for many participants is that “budget management” is not as simple as reducing discretionary spending.
Many supports relate directly to: • personal care, • manual handling, • pressure care, • safe transfers, • community access, • and preventing hospitalisation.
I also believe there needs to be balanced discussion around providers and independent support workers.
There are absolutely poor providers operating within the system.
However, there are also many highly compliant providers doing the right thing while managing enormous operational pressure, workforce shortages and increasing complexity of care.
Registered providers carry significant operational and compliance obligations, including: • SCHADS Award obligations, • workers compensation, • insurance, • compliance systems, • training requirements, • quality and safeguarding responsibilities, • rostering, • emergency staffing, • and management of complex participant risks.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1625
Independent support workers do not carry the same level of overhead, compliance responsibility or operational risk as registered providers.
Because of this, I believe there should be clearer guidance or capped pricing structures for independent support workers that more closely reflect SCHADS Award rates while still fairly accounting for contractor costs and flexibility.
This would: • create clearer market distinction, • improve transparency for participants, • help participant funding stretch further, • reduce pressure on plan budgets, • and better reflect the differing responsibilities between independent workers and registered providers.
This is not about saying support workers deserve less.
Support workers absolutely deserve fair pay, recognition and safe working conditions.
However, the current system often creates situations where participants are paying near full NDIS price limits regardless of whether they are using a highly compliant registered provider or an independent worker operating with substantially lower overheads and responsibilities.
I believe a more balanced and transparent pricing structure would improve long-term sustainability while still supporting worker flexibility and participant choice.
I also believe there should be some form of worker registry or minimum compliance framework for independent workers providing complex care, including: • police checks, • WWCCs, • appropriate insurance, • mandatory training, • and clearer recognition of the difference between social support and high- intensity disability care.
I also believe there needs to be greater education and guidance for participants regarding their responsibilities when engaging support workers, particularly in complex care environments.
There are situations where participants, often out of fear of losing independence or supports, may ask workers to perform unsafe manual handling, unsupported high- intensity care or tasks beyond their training and competency.
This places both participants and workers at risk.
Support workers should not feel pressured into unsafe practices because they are afraid of losing work or because clear boundaries and responsibilities have not been properly explained within the system.
Participants should also be encouraged and supported to provide clearer care information and risk management documentation for the supports they expect workers to deliver.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1625
Workers should not be walking blindly into complex support environments without: • clear support expectations, • manual handling guidance, • relevant risk information, • appropriate training, • and documented care plans where required.
This is especially important in high-intensity disability support settings involving: • transfers, • pressure care, • personal care, • use of assistive technology, • medication assistance, • and complex physical support needs.
A stronger focus on participant education, worker protections and clear care planning would improve safety outcomes for everyone involved while also helping reduce injuries, complaints and long-term system costs.
I also believe there should be further review of the different NDIS fund management models, particularly regarding the safeguards and oversight surrounding self-managed funding.
While self-management can work well for some participants, it also places significant financial responsibility and administrative burden onto individuals who may themselves be vulnerable, isolated or experiencing cognitive, psychosocial or complex physical challenges.
In my experience, I have personally observed situations where self-managed funding arrangements appeared to lack appropriate oversight, accountability and transparency regarding how supports were being claimed and utilised.
I believe plan management often provides a safer and more balanced option for many participants because it introduces an additional level of financial monitoring, invoice review and administrative oversight while still preserving participant choice and control over providers and supports.
Rather than transferring large sums of funding directly into participant-controlled accounts with minimal external oversight, stronger safeguards and accountability mechanisms should be considered to better protect both participants and the long- term sustainability of the Scheme.
I believe there should be greater discussion around: • improved financial safeguards, • clearer participant education, • monitoring of high-risk claiming patterns, • and whether some participants may benefit from mandatory plan management depending on the complexity or scale of funding being administered.
The goal should not be to remove participant choice, but to ensure participants are properly supported to manage funding safely, responsibly and transparently.
Finally, I ask that policymakers remember that most people with disability are not asking for luxury.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1625
We are asking for: • safe housing, • essential supports, • appropriate equipment, • reasonable independence, • and the ability to live with dignity.
The NDIS absolutely needs sustainability and accountability.
But sustainability cannot come at the cost of creating fear, instability and ongoing trauma for genuine participants who already spend much of their lives fighting simply to access the supports they need to survive safely.