Submission

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission submitted by: Capacity Foster Carer | Mother Teacher|Disability Support Professional Concerned Citizen Location New South Wales Australia Contact redacted Date May Publication: I consent to this submission being published on the parliamentary website.

Summary This submission made individual direct long-term professional personal experience supporting disability mother foster carer child special needs been an participant several years worked schools children with disability current work organisations support adults Special Needs write strong opposition key provisions National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Securing future generations Bill concerns come lived experience navigating a system far more difficult inconsistent damaging than government’s around acknowledges.

About Submitter

I am parent fostering two children one has special needs active NDIS participant Work alongside Illawarra planning meetings documentation reviews advocacy reflection own family experiences NDIS over several years many participants families supported professionally ask Committee hear testimony someone knows granular exhausting detail how System actually operates people meant serve.

Not Working as Simply Government Claims Before addressing specific provisions of this bill want state clearly record currently accessible straightforward person-centred system described gap language policy documents reality experienced

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1885

participants and their families is vast. The proposed Bill will not close that gap. Based on my experience, it will widen it.

My son has had special needs and has accessed the NDIS for several years. Over time, without adequate explanation, his funding was progressively reduced.This occurred despite our family maintaining comprehensive folder reports specialist referrals formal diagnoses assessments clearly documented duty requirements.We were new to no unprepared We done everything asked still his plan cut. it until approximately four years ago when escalated concerns formally demanded an explanation enlisting son’s FACS worker coordinator collectively challenge reductions situation began addressed we fight persistently simply understand why child with diagnosed ongoing support receiving less year after That should never been necessary.I want Committee sit moment mother professional disability sector FACSWorker a coordinator full documentation demand answers about her son’s funding being reduced-never explained just random phone call private number saying approved Do need more money? This very confusing replied: I budget as taken input look at risk . If this someone knowledge networks capacity advocate what happening those resources? 3 What Have Witness Professionally Denial Exhaustion Exploitation My son sexperience isolated case In work witnessed patterns denial systemic dysfunction consider deeply alarming which nothing address Unjustified denial of supports equipment have seen many participants denied care equipment support degree genuinely concerning process challenging refusal wheelchair communication device hour therapy session refused complex inconsistent clear reliable explanation same type supported one participant another comparable needs inconsistency destroys trust system leaves families unable planning lack understanding acknowledges individual special variable across different ages situations capacities toll on participants mental health needs For who also have mental health burden fighting within this system souldestroying worked alongside clients become exhausted reviews paperwork waiting inconsistence their deteriorated significantly course advocating own care

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1885

This is not a side effect of the system. It is a failure of the system. A scheme designed to support people with disability should not itself be a source of harm to the people it is meant to help.

Provider price exploitation

I also wish to address the issue of provider pricing, because it is central to the question of where the NDIS’s financial pressures actually originate. I have witnessed providers triple their prices because the funding framework allows them to do so. This is not the fault of participants. Participants do not set prices. Participants do not design billing structures. Participants simply seek the services they need to function in the community, access daily life, and build independence. The pricing expectations that have driven cost growth in the NDIS were created by the regulatory environment the Government established. The fault lies with the framework, but not** *the participant. Yet it is participants whose budgets are being cut, whose eligibility is being tightened, and whose access to community participation is being halved. Providers who have exploited pricing flexibility face no equivalent reduction. This is profoundly unjust, and this Bill does not correct it.

What These Proposed Changes Mean In Practice Against this backdrop —of funding cuts without explanation,*unjustified denials,soul-destroying appeals processes,and providerexploitation—thegovernmentis now proposingto:

- Reduce social &communityparticipationbudgetsby50%fromOctober 2026.
- Introduce new functional capacity assessments todetermineNDISeligibility.
- Tighten unscheduled reassessment criteria.
- Transition children with autism&&developmental delaytoto anew Thriving Kids programthat isn't yet fully designed.`Each of these changes will increase burden onparticipants&familieswhoare already operating at limit theircapacity.Eachchangeswill make harder—not easier—for peoplegenuine,&documentedongoingsupport needsaccess care they require.&Not one them addressesprovider exploitationpricing dysfunction that has contributed significantly scheme's cost growth`

Concerns Regarding the Reset Of Social And Community Participation Budgets The proposed 50%'reduction insocial,civiccommunityparticipation budgetsnot minor administrative adjustment.For participants I know support,budgetsfund activities connect communities.These are luxuries`.For childadultwithspecialneeds, community participation inclusion.It practical expression right belong.*The isolation narrative: ‘You should stay home’

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1885

I want to name something that I have observed repeatedly when support hours for community access are reduced: the narrative shifts. Rather than asking how a participant can be supported to access their community with fewer resources, the message – spoken or unspoken - becomes that they should simply stay home. That community access is a bonus, not a right. That if the funding is not there,the solutionis withdrawal ratherthan inclusion. The narrative istrong anditisthreatening.For many adultswithdisability,a support worker issystemtheironlymeansofaccessingthecommunity.Theydonothavea partner , agroupoffriendsorafamilymemberwhocantakethemtoanappointmentacafeoracommunityevent.Whenthatsupportworkerhouriscuttheydo nofindanotherway.Theystayhome.Andovertime,thatisolat ioncompounds—theskillsdeteriorate,thementalhealthdeclines,theworld shrinks.Thecost ofthedeterioration,inhumanteamseventuallyinsuppor tterms,farexceedswhateverwassavedbycuttingthecommunityaccessbudget. Adults wit h disability ar en otaskingforextraordinarythings.Theyar easkingtod owhateveryAustraliantakesforgranted:togoout,toparticip ate,tobe partoft heircommunit y.Theframingthatthisise xcessiveoranaffordablereflectsa fundamentalmisunderstandingo f whattheNDISisto for

Children with special needs: The weight of one outing For children,

t he contrast ise venstarker.Achildwithoutdisableness has access to sport,birthdayparties,schoolexcursionsplaydates,holidayprogramsandcasual communityactivities—a rich,varedsociallife thatbuildsfriendshipsconfidence andbelongingalmostwithouteffort. A childwit hspecialneeds mayhave accessto onesupportedcommunityouting.OneAndtha tsingleou tingcarriesaweightof planning,cost,andcoordination th atmostfamilieswillneverhavetoc onsider.I wanttobeprecisearboutwhata supportedcom m unityoutingactuallyinvolvesforeach c hildwi thspecialneeds, becauseIdonotbelievethisswell understood bythose makingdecisionsaboutthesebudget s.It isnotsimplytakingachil dto theparkItisa formalisedcarefullyplannedactivityw ithcleardutyof care obligations It accountsforthechil dspecificsensoryneedsc ommunicationrequirementsbehaviouralsuppor tssafetyconsiderations.Thepeoplepresentaretrainedtot understandtheneed sTheenvironmentischosenorprepared wit those needsin mind.Tha teventi tystructuredtogivech illdthebestpossible chanceo fsuccess— ofgenuinely participatingconnectingandenjoyings themselves safely. Forthatchild, th one outingmaybeth eonly socialexperience they have outside theirimmediatehomeandschool environment .I itmybe them onlytime thatweek—or thatfortnight-whenthey arepartoft something , whentheyfeell included whentheyexperiencewhatitistolike to simply be a childamongother children.Reducing orremovingtfhe fundingfortha toutingdoes notsaveasm all amountoff money. Itremove ssomethingirreplaceablefroma ch ildslife.Itnarrowstheir worldatpreciselyt heagewhentheshouldbexpanding TheGovernmenthasstatedthesesupportsa renotalways improvingoutcomes I wouldinviteanymember oft hisCommitteetoaccompany ach i l dwithspecialneeds ononeofthesee outings—towatchwhatitt meanstothem,toseethepreparationitin

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1885

requires, and to consider what is lost when it is taken away. I do not believe they would describe it as non-essential.

Concerns Regarding Eligibility Assessments and Autism

The introduction of standardised functional capacity assessments raises serious concerns for anyone who has worked closely with people with autism or complex support needs. P…

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1885

Recommendation 3: Ensure any new functional capacity assessment explicitly accounts for masking and variable presentation in autism, is conducted across multiple settings, and includes accessible, timely, and independent review rights.

Recommendation 4: Delay the Thriving Kids transition until legislated quality standards, escalation pathways, and provider accountability mechanisms are in place. Recommendation 5: Direct system integrity and fraud prevention efforts at providers and organisations ––not at participants––and introduce stronger pricing oversight to prevent the exploitation I have witnessed firsthand. Recommendation 6: Conduct a formal carer impact assessment before any provisions of this Bill commence, with specific attention to foster carers, kinship carers, and mothers of children with disability. Recommendation 7: Require that any NDIS planning decision, funding reduction, or eligibility ruling that contradicts or conflicts with a formal medical diagnosis, specialist assessment, or clinical recommendation must be made by a qualified professional with relevant medical or allied health expertise — not by an administrative officer alone. A ruling that goes against documented clinical evidence must be required to clearly state the medical or clinical basis for that decision in writing. Recommendation 8: Protect and strengthen the right of participants to challenge rulings that contradict their diagnosis or medical evidence. The Committee should be aware that proposed changes to legal aid funding and the tribunal system risk removing the only meaningful avenue many participants have to contest decisions made against them. A participant who cannot afford legal support and cannot access a tribunal is a participant with no rights in practice, regardless of what the legislation says on paper. The right to challenge a ruling—particularly one that defies clinical evidence—must be preserved, properly funded, and genuinely accessible. Removing complaint mechanisms and tribunal powers does not fix a broken decision. It simply makes that broken decision permanent.

Closing Statement:

The people this scheme is meant to serve are not asking for special treatment. They are asking to live. To participate. To build skills, make friends, access their community, and develop independence. My son is one of those people. The children and adults I work with every day are those people.The NDIS when it works has made those things possible But it has never worked as easily or as fairly as the Government suggestsThe proposed Bill does not fix the dysfunction that families and carers have endured for yearsIt reduces the support available to people who already have too little while leaving untouched provider behaviour pricing exploitation which has genuinely damaged the scheme.I urge this Committee recommend amendments necessary ensure this Bill does not cause serious lasting harm—and hold the government principle

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1885

that underpins the NDIS: every Australian with permanent and significant disability has the right to the support they need to live a good life.

redacted: Mother|Foster Carer|Disability Support Professional New South Wales