National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1633
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Committee Secretary
I write to make a brief form submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee in relation to the current inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. Public material relating to the inquiry indicates that the Bill has been referred to the Senate for inquiry and report, and that submissions should address the provisions and practical implications of the proposed legislative changes. My submission focuses on the likely implications of the proposed reform direction for Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA), associated participant safeguards, and the long-term sustainability of the good practice section of the disability housing market.
Author background
I make this submission in a personal capacity as a person with disability, informed by my professional experience in the Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) sector. I currently work as an independent consultant in NDIS housing cross-sector solutions, and I previously served as co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Specialist Disability Accommodation Alliance. Through these roles, I have worked closely with participants, providers, investors, policy stakeholders and government processes relating to the development of a diverse, sustainable and good-practice SDA market. This experience has given me a detailed understanding of the interaction between SDA policy, home and living supports, participant safeguards and market sustainability, which informs the observations set out below.
Summary of concerns
I am gravely concerned that elements of the current reform agenda, including Minister Butler’s public statements, regarding the so-called “Supported Independent Living (SIL) Commissioning” and the proposed effort to constrain Scheme growth through to 2030, may have unintended consequences for participant choice and control, market stewardship, and
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1633
the viability of the emerging good-practice, stand-alone Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) sector. These matters warrant careful scrutiny by the Committee because they go directly to the practical operation of the proposed reforms and the extent to which they are consistent with the objectives of the NDIS, the findings of the independent NDIS Review, and the recommendations of the Disability Royal Commission (DRC).
SIL commissioning and the separation of housing and support
I am gravely concerned that any NDIS Home & Living commissioning model may give large, multi-service disability providers, not only control of the in-home care supports (i.e., SIL or other personal and domestic care supports), but also effective control over these participants’ built-form accommodation decisions. If that occurs, it will greatly weaken the development of the emerging independent SDA market, potentially to the point of non- viability.
Where housing decisions become closely tied to care support provider structures (e.g., where there are not two separate providers – one for care and one for housing, or where the care provider controls the housing decision) there is a significant erosion of participant choice in practice, even where formal choice remains available on paper.
This issue is particularly important because a clear separation between housing provision and care support provision has been repeatedly identified as an important participant safeguard. In NDIS home & living models totally controlled by a single multi-service provider, it is well- documented (for example, in the Disability Royal Commission Report) that there is a resultant lack of oversight and ‘passive surveillance’ resulting in far greater risk of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of participants occurring, escalating and continuing unchecked. Such ‘closed settings’ have, and will continue to, lead to shocking and preventable participant deaths.
Conversely, it is well-documented that fully separated models reduce conflicts of interest, strengthen participant autonomy and independence building, and support better oversight where problems arise. To the extent that future implementation of the Bill, associated Rules, or related policy settings (such as the so-called ‘SIL Commissioning’) may encourage integrated provider control over both accommodation and support, the Committee should closely consider whether this would undermine those safeguards.
I also note that government regulatory and policy work in recent years has increasingly recommended and examined the separation of housing and care support functions. For example, the NDIS Review and the Disability Royal Commission both recommended mandating separation of housing and care, then in 2024 the NDIS Q&S Commission undertook significant work on development of a model to mandate separation of housing and care.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1633
Against that background, I respectfully ask the Committee to consider whether this part of the Government’s proposed reform direction (i.e., the so-called ‘SIL Commissioning’ is fully consistent with the broader objective of strengthening safeguards, participant control, Scheme sustainability, and Australia’s housing obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Implications of the 2 per cent growth target
I am genuinely concerned about the announced target of limiting annual NDIS growth to 2% through to 2030. While the objective of long-term financial sustainability is clearly legitimate, there is a risk that poor application of a rigid growth target may drive decision- making that is insufficiently responsive to participant need, market conditions, or the specific requirements for the continuing viability of the good practice SDA market.
In particular, the Committee should consider whether a strong emphasis on short-term growth restraint could lead to SDA eligibility, funding, and related NDIA home and living decisions being made at levels below what is required to ensure participant safety and stability in their home environment. Similar concerns arise in relation to associated supports, care arrangements, and assistive technology, where under-allocation in one part of the system may undermine outcomes (including long-term cost control) in another.
I am also concerned that fiscal pressure associated with the 2% growth target could discourage sensible design improvements currently under consideration through SDA Design Standard Review process. Design improvements that may appear to increase upfront cost can nonetheless improve long-term sustainability, safety, accessibility, and market quality. A narrow short-term focus risks producing poorer long-term outcomes for both participants and the Scheme’s financial sustainability.
Further, I ask the Committee to consider the implications of this 2% growth target for future SDA Pricing decisions, including the scheduled 2028 SDA Pricing Review. Pricing should be based on what is required to sustain a functioning long-term market across all different SA4 regions, Build types, and New Build SDA Design Categories. An arbitrary constraint on pricing growth (such as 2% or similar), if adopted in order to align with broader savings settings, would significantly weaken investment confidence, reduce the availability of appropriate housing options, and see institutional capital and good practice SDA Providers flee the market.
Implications of Section 4 Bill changes
I am concerned about the potential implications of the Bill’s proposed Section 4 changes relating to ministerial determinations about funding categories. As I understand the proposed amendment, it may permit the Minister to set limits on the amount of funding available to all participants, or to a specified cohort of participants, within a particular support category. I
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1633
also understand that this mechanism is intended, at least in part, to support reductions in all participants Social and Community Participation funding as part of the broader effort to contain Scheme costs.
If that reading is correct, the mechanism may be capable of applying more broadly across NDIS support categories than the categories currently identified in public discussion. In that context, I ask the Committee to consider whether the Bill should more clearly define and constrain the scope of any ministerial power of this kind, particularly where its exercise could affect essential home and living supports or the conditions necessary for participants to obtain and retain appropriate housing.
In relation to SDA, I am concerned that any future use of this mechanism to impose a funding ceiling could have very serious consequences for participants who live in, or require access to, New Build SDA. If funding were constrained at levels materially below what is required to sustain appropriate New Build SDA supply (for instance ~$30K/annum), most providers would be unable to continue offering housing, and some participants would likely face loss of their housing and an inability to access alternative suitable accommodation. In those circumstances, there would likely be significant downstream effects on hospitals, because where appropriate SDA is unavailable, most participants, due to their high and complex support needs, would likely need to remain in hospital. If this occurred at scale (as it likely would, at this example funding cap), it would place extreme additional pressure on hospital bed capacity and greatly affect the capacity of hospitals to respond to other urgent clinical needs of the wider Australian populace.
Even if such a mechanism were not immediately used in relation to SDA, the existence of a broad and uncertain power of this kind would itself affect market confidence. The development and operation of New Build SDA depends on long-term investment decisions, including participation by institutional and other large-scale investors. Where there is uncertainty as to whether future governments could impose category-wide funding constraints by determination, there is a risk that investment appetite will weaken, project risk will increase, and the supply of appropriate SDA will be reduced over time. That uncertainty may also contribute to higher capital costs, which would further affect the long-term sustainability of the sector.
For those reasons, I respectfully ask the Committee to examine closely whether this aspect of the Bill should be amended to provide clearer statutory limits and stronger safeguards, particularly where ministerial determinations could affect essential supports connected to home and living outcomes, participant housing security, or the viability of the new build SDA market.
Recommendations I respectfully ask the Committee to recommend that the Bill, associated Rules and any related implementation measures be clarified or amended to achieve the following outcomes:
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1633
- that the Committee recommend against any legislative, Rules-based or administrative settings that permit or encourage care support providers to exercise effective control over participants’ housing or SDA decisions;
- that the Committee recommend an explicit policy and regulatory commitment to the mandated separation of housing provision from care and support provision, in order to strengthen participant choice, reduce conflicts of interest and improve safeguards and long-term Scheme financial sustainability;
- that the Committee recommend that SDA eligibility/funding, home and living decisions, related supports, and assistive technology decisions continue to be determined by reference to participant need, safety and functional requirements, rather than by reference to a rigid expenditure target;
- that the Committee recommend that the current SDA Design Standard Review and 2028 SDA Pricing Review be conducted on an evidence-based basis, with regard to long-term market sustainability, safety, accessibility and quality, and not be constrained by arbitrary savings assumptions or growth caps;
- that the Committee recommend transparent market stewardship arrangements for SDA Pricing, including consideration of regional variation across SA4 markets, build types and design categories, so that pricing and policy settings support a viable stand- alone SDA sector;
- that the Committee recommend amendment of the Bill so that any ministerial power to set category-wide funding limits cannot be applied in a manner that undermines SDA viability or restricts access to essential home and living supports required for participant safety and housing stability;
- that the Committee recommend that any ministerial determination power of this kind be subject to clear statutory limits, transparent publication of reasons, consultation with the disability community and relevant markets, and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny before taking effect; and
- that the Committee seek clear evidence from Government as to how the proposed reform direction is consistent with the recommendations of the NDIS Review, the Disability Royal Commission, and Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Conclusion
I support efforts to improve the integrity, quality and long-term financial sustainability of the NDIS. However, I respectfully submit that these reforms should not proceed in a way that weakens participant safeguards, reduces genuine choice and control, or undermines the development of a sustainable stand-alone SDA market. I therefore encourage the Committee to examine these issues closely when considering the Bill and any related implementation framework.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1633
Yours faithfully,
Melanie Southwell