National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 186
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee
Inquiry into the NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024
Submitted by: K Capacity: NDIS Participant and Support Coordinator Date: 23 May 2026
Introduction I am making this submission in two capacities: as an NDIS participant, and as a Support Coordinator working within the NDIS ecosystem. Both roles give me direct, lived insight into what the NDIS means for people with disability — and what is genuinely at stake if this Bill is passed in its current form.
I am strongly opposed to this Bill. It represents a fundamental shift away from the principles that made the NDIS transformative: individualised support, genuine choice and control, and the recognition that disability is not a one-size-fits-all experience.
I note that the time provided for community consultation on this Bill has been wholly inadequate given the scale of its proposed changes.
Access to the NDIS The proposed changes to eligibility — including the new definition of functional capacity and requirements around “appropriate treatment” — will result in a significant number of people losing access to the Scheme entirely. This is not a marginal risk. It is a predictable outcome of narrowing criteria in ways that fail to account for the complexity of real lives.
As a Support Coordinator, I see daily how the NDIS enables people to participate in their communities, maintain their health, and live with dignity. The state-based systems that are meant to absorb those who exit the NDIS do not currently exist at the scale required. Pushing people toward treatments they cannot access — due to cost, geography, or Medicare gaps — does not reduce disability. It simply erects new barriers to support.
Individualised Plans The NDIS works because it recognises that two people with the same diagnosis can have profoundly different support needs. My own experience as a participant makes this clear: the supports I rely on are specific to my circumstances, my living situation, and the particular way my disability affects my capacity to function day-to-day.
A framework that funds only “accepted” disabilities, or that applies population-level evidence to individual plans, will systematically fail people whose needs do not fit a narrow template. That is not reform. That is rationing dressed up as policy.
Reductions in Support The prospect of the Minister being able to reduce plan funding at will — including cutting Social and Community Participation budgets by up to 50% — is deeply alarming.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 186
For me personally, this is not abstract. The supports I currently have are what allow me to work, access my community, and live independently. Without them, my capacity to do any of those things would diminish significantly. I would become increasingly reliant on informal supports for day-to-day tasks I currently manage. The human cost of that — to my wellbeing, my relationships, and my ability to contribute — is real and measurable. My own parents who are in their 70’s have told me that the reason that they travel is because they know I am supported and gives them some comfort.
Substituting group programs for individual community participation funding is not an equivalent alternative for many participants. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what participation actually requires.
Choice and Control
The proposed restrictions on unregistered providers and the concentration of power in the Minister’s hands represent a direct attack on the choice and control principles that underpin the NDIS.
Support Coordinators and Plan Managers must work for participants — not for the government. The moment that relationship is inverted, the Scheme stops serving the people it was designed for. Participants’ ability to engage trusted, known support workers — including independent and unregistered workers — is not a loophole to be closed. It is frequently the difference between supports that work and supports that do not.
How the NDIS is Run
The NDIA’s proposed investigative and punitive powers — including the ability to enter homes, demand information, and issue substantial fines — are disproportionate and will create fear among the very people the Scheme is meant to support. Algorithmic decision-making over complex individual needs is similarly concerning.
Neither of these changes addresses the administrative dysfunction that has already eroded trust in the NDIA. They add coercive mechanisms on top of a system that has still not resolved its foundational problems of inconsistency, error, and poor communication with participants.
Conclusion
This Bill, in its current form, should not be passed by Parliament.
It will strip people of the support they depend on to survive and participate in society. It concentrates power in ways that undermine the rights of disabled Australians. And it does so without adequate consultation, without credible evidence that the proposed changes will achieve their stated aims, and without genuine regard for the human cost.
I urge the Committee to recommend that this Bill not proceed without substantial revision — revision that is developed in genuine partnership with disabled people and the sector that supports them.