National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1850
To the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee,
My name is . I am an NDIS participant, a parent of two children who are also on the NDIS, and a part-time IT worker living in regional Tasmania.
The NDIS is not an abstract policy issue for my family. My current plan supports my ability to keep working, build self-care and parenting skills, improve relationships at home and in the community, and access therapy and strategies that help me function more independently. My wife also provides daily informal support with planning, organising, self-care routines and making sure my needs are met. The NDIS is part of the structure that helps me stay employed, stay connected, and contribute. It is also part of what keeps pressure from falling entirely onto my family.
I am concerned that this bill proceeds with major eligibility and funding changes before foundational supports are actually in place. The 2023 independent review made 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions, and the government itself said careful sequencing was needed so the most important foundations were in place before broader reforms occurred. That is the issue. If people are moved out of the NDIS before real supports exist elsewhere, they are not being transitioned. They are being dropped.
That matters in my situation because I do not have spare capacity sitting unused. My plan is not luxury spending. It funds the supports that help me maintain work, parenting, relationships, and independence. If supports are reduced or access is narrowed, the impact does not disappear. It moves to my wife, to my workplace, to health services, to schools, and to crisis systems that are already stretched. Cutting NDIS plans may look like a saving on one budget line, but it is not a saving if the same need reappears in hospitals, mental health services, housing stress, family breakdown, or unpaid care.
I am also concerned by the lack of democratic authority for changes of this scale. The proposal to remove large numbers of people from the scheme and reduce average plans was not taken to the Australian people at the 2025 federal election. People with disability and their families made life decisions based on a public promise that once access was granted, the scheme would provide lifelong support according to need. That promise matters. It should not be quietly rewritten through budget pressure and administrative redesign.
The NDIS does need integrity, clarity and sustainability. I support action against fraud and poor providers. But fraud should be dealt with directly, using evidence, enforcement and transparency. It should not be used as a general justification for reducing supports to people who are legitimately disabled and relying on the scheme to live ordinary lives.
I ask the committee to answer three questions before allowing this bill to proceed. The foundational supports the review described as necessary preconditions do not yet exist. On what basis is the government proceeding with eligibility changes before they are in place? What has Treasury modelled as the downstream cost to hospitals, mental health services, housing, education systems and unpaid family carers if the NDIS withdraws support? And given these changes were not taken to the Australian people at the 2025
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1850