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

Submission 1898

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

Submitted by Central West NSW

Declaration

I make this submission in my personal capacity as a parent, carer and registered psychologist. The views expressed are my own and do not represent my employer, any professional association, advocacy organisation or any other affiliated entity. This submission draws on my lived experience as the parent of a young person with disability and my professional experience working with children, adolescents and adults with disability in regional New South Wales.

Introduction

I support the continued operation of a sustainable, accountable and high-quality National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). I also support measures to address fraud, improve consistency, strengthen safeguards and ensure that public resources are administered responsibly. However, I am concerned hat he national disability insurance scheme amendment(Securing the NDISforFutureGenerations) Bill 2026 proposes substantial changesto eligibility planning reassessment evidentiary requirementsand access tousupports without sufficient publicly available evidence thate thesemeasures willimprovelong-term outcomes fore peoplewithdisability their families andaustraliaasawhole. My concern isnotwitherform itself.Rather it istoreformsofthisscale proceedingwithout robustevidencethatarelikely toeachevethesstatedobjectivesande improvoutcomes over time.The ndiss was createdasaninsurance-based schemes promote participation independence inclusionandaqualitylifeforaustralianswithdisability¹ Reforms should therefore be assessed not only bytheir effecton spending butalsobyhowtheyare likely tooffect:

• participant wellbeing;
• educational participation;
• employment outcomes;
• community participation;
• housing stability;
• health outcomes;
• family functioning;
• carerwellbeing;ando longterm socialaneconomic outcomess.

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

Submission 1898

The Central Question: How Will These Reforms Improve Long-Term Outcomes?

The Government has stated that these reforms are necessary to secure the future sustainability —of–the nNDIS and improve consistency and accountability. ² Financial sustainabilit yisimportant.However,the N D ISwasestablisheda lifetimeinsurance scheme,informedbyactuarialprinciplesintendedto improvelongtermoutcomewhile reducingfuturesocietalcosts.“”[superscript] {1} “”[superscript] {3}

Th centralquestionismnotmerelywhetherexpendituregrowthwillbemoderated,but whethert he mechanismsproposedinthisBill will improvelongter m out com esfor participants,familiesanda ustriansociety. To date, there appears t o be limited publicly available evidence demonstrating howthese reformse xpectedtopro im e th following outcomes:

• participantwellbeing;
• educationalparticipation;
• employmentoutcome s ;
• community participation;- housingst ability;-mentalhealth outcome s ;-familyfunctioning; carer wellbeing;or-long-termeconomiccontribution. There alsoappears tolimitedpubliclyavailableanalysis ofthelikelyeffectsofthesereformsonother systems, including:- health,- mentalhe alth ,-education , -housing ,-welfare ,-child protection and-j usticesystems . A reduction in NDIS expenditure is not necessarily a reduc tion insoc ietalcost.Itmayinstead representthe transferof costfromonesystemsectororf amily toanother.Given thescaleo fther prop osedreforms,strongerlongitudina leevidenceshouldbe provided to showhow these changesareexpected top rov emiparticipantoutcomesandreduceoverall societal costs over time.Thisise speciallyimportantgiventhatthen D ISActwasenactedtosuppor tindependence,socialandeconomicp articip ation,ch icea ndcontrol,andtogive effecttoa ustr ia’sobligationsundertheConventionon therights o f Persons with Disabilities.“”[superscript] {1} “”[su pers cript] {6} AsParliamentconsidersthese reforms, itisappropriate t o asknotonlywhethertheywill restrainexpendituregrowth,b utwhethert heyremainconsistentwiththeadjectives principles oft heNDIS Actanda nthelongterm outcomesthest Scheme wasdesigned toe ach ieve.

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

Submission 1898

Disability Support Should Not Depend on Exhausting Treatment Options

One of my principal concerns is the increasing expectation that participants demonstrate they have pursued treatment options before receiving disability supports. As a psychologist, I regularly work with people whose functioning improves with intervention. However, improvement does not negate disability or remove the need for support. Many people benefit from therapy, rehabilitation, medication or other interventions while continuing to experience substantial and enduring disability-related impairment. Disability support and treatment are not interchangeable. Both may be necessary simultaneously. The reforms raise important questions:

• What constitutes a reasonable treatment pathway?
• How much treatment is enough?
• What if treatment improves functioning but disability remains?
• What if treatment is unavailable? What if waiting periods are years long?

• What if treatment is unaffordable?

What if the individual lives in a region where services are simply unavailable?

Participants should not be left between systems, required to continue pursuing treatment

while disability supports remain inaccessible,

, delayed

or uncertain.

A person should not have To prove that every treatment avenue has been exhausted before receiving the supportsNecessary to live safely and participate fully.

Mainstream Systems Cannot Be Assumed to Meet Disability Needs The proposed reforms place greater emphasis on whether supports may be available through health education or other mainstream systems² In principle disable systems should not duplicate services available elsewhere however this principle assumes alternative systems adequately funded accessible responsive Many Australians already experience significant barriers accessing main stream services These barries include:

- Workforce shortages;- Lengthy waiting period; affordability constraints geographical limitations fragmented service system inconsistent availability Availability paper genuine access practice participants should lose disabili support because another system could theoretically provide assistance which isn't available reality Without substantial investment into mainstream foundational supports there real risk people with disabilities will fall between systems costs consequences displaced elsewher

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

Submission 1898

Regional and Rural Australians Face Additional Disadvantage

Many assumptions underpinning the proposed reforms appear to rely upon timely access to treatment, specialist services and alternative support pathways. In regional and rural Australia, these assumptions often do not reflect reality. Families may travel several hours to access specialist assessment, therapy or medical services. My family, for example, regularly travels four hours each way for specialist assessment and treatment. Provider choice is limited or non-existent, waiting periods are longer than in metropolitan areas, and workforce shortages are common. Reforms that assume timely access to alternative services are likely to disproportionately disadvantage “rural”andregionalAustralians.Any implementation framework should therefore expressly assess the impact of these reforms on regional,rural and remote communities before access pathways are altered. Maintaining Function Is a Legitimate Outcome Much discussion of disability support focuses on improvement,recoveryorincreasing independence.However,fors many participants,the primary purposeofsupportis tomaintain function anda prevent deterioration.Thisisperticularly relevantfor people living with physical disabilities,chronicillnesses,degenerative conditions,intellectualdisability ,autism,pyschosocialdisableityandaquireddisabilities.Appropriate supportsmayprevent:

• hospitalisation; mental health deterioratiion;family breakdown;social isolation;educational disengagement;loss o employment ;an premature institutionalisation.A participant whose functioning remains stable ma reflecta successful outcome rather thana lacko progress.Inmany cases,maintaining stability isp precisely what prevents more intensiveando costly interventions later.Future policyshouldexpresslyrecognise themaintenanceoffunctionandal preventionodeteriorationas legitimatevaluable outcomes.More broadly,policy success shou not be measured primarily by reductions in suppor expenditure, butbytheextentto which deteriatio is prevented,functioning i maintained an future costs acrosshealth education,housingandsocia lsuppo r systemsare avoided.Existing Participants Face Increased UncertaintyThe proposedreforms affectnot onlyfutureparticipantsbut also manycurrentparticpants through reassessment,revised planning approaches and altered suport frameworks.²

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

Submission 1898

Many participants have organised their lives around existing supports. Families have made decisions about employment, housing, education, transport and care arrangements on that basis. Increased uncertainty about future eligibility and support levels may itself create instability, undermine planning and erode confidence in the Scheme.

The Scheme should provide certainty wherever possible, particularly for individuals living with permanent and lifelong disabilities.

Clinical Expertise Should Continue to Inform Decision-Making The reforms place greater emphasis on peer-reviewed evidence and standardised approaches to support determination and planning.^². Evidence-based practice is important and should remain central to decision-making.`

However, disability populations are heterogeneousand individual needs vary considerably. Some interventions may not havextensive research evidencede despite demonstrating meaningful participant-specific benefits.Clinical judgement,participant experience , functional outcomes must continueto be considered alongside traditionalevidence hierarchies.A systemthat privileges generalised evedence while discounting participantspecific outcomerisks overlooking genuine need anda diminishing responsiveness toi ndividual circumstancesFamilies and Carers Cannot Absorb Unlimited Additional Responsibility The reforms strengthen consideration of informalsupports family involvement^`².Familiest alreadyprovide substantial unpaid labour including:

• Care coordination; advocacy; - supervision;- emotionalsupport;-transport;-appointmentmanagement;crisis intervention; assistancewith dailyliving .Many carers reduce their workforce participationandexperience significant impactsontheir ownwellbeing. In myown case I can work only reduced hours tosupportmy child This places pressureonyfamilyaffects thebroadercommunity contributingtoworkforce shortages, longer waitlistsreduced availabilityof a specialised service. Reducingsupported doesnot remove needit transfers responsibility elsewhere A sustainable NDISmust therefore consider nolonlythesustainability ofgovernment expenditurebut alsothe sustainabilityo familiescarers whoalready shouldersubstantialresponsibility.

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

Submission 1898

Recommendations

I therefore urge the Committee to:

• Require robust evidence that the reforms will improve long-term participant options.
• Require independent longitudinal evaluation of impacts on wellbeing, education,* employment*, family functioning,** health service use**,and whole-of-government costs.*
• Publish outcome measures and evaluation frameworks before major implementation*
• Assess the reforms against whole-of-government costs, notN DIS expenditure alone. *
• Ensure disability support is not contingent upon exhausting treatment pathways .*-
• Require evidence that mainstream and foundational supports are genuinely accessible before reducing disability supports . -Assess impacts on regional,rural,and remote communities before implementation.-Recognise maintenanceof function and preventionofdeterioration as legitimate support outcomes*-Preserve meaningful weightfor clinical expertise , participant experience and individual circumstances-Assessthe reform’s impactonfamiliesunpaidcarers,-Assess allreformsagainstthegoalsprinciplesNDISActAustraliaobligationsunderConventionRightsPersonsDisabilities**ConclusionThe NDLS was established because Australia recognisedthatdisabilitysupporthouldnotdependcharity geographyfamilycapacityorpersonalfinancialresources. The Scheme reflects a national commitmentto participation inclusion dignityequal opportunity.I supportevidence-based reformation accountabilityandsustainabilityHowever sustainability should no be assessed solely by reference toexpenditure growth.The ultimate questionis whether these reforms will improve livesAustralianswith disabilitylearningstrengthening Australias long-term social economic future.At present I remain unconvinced sufficient evidencenot presented demonstrate specific reforms proposed in this Bill achieve thoseoutcomesI respectfully urge Committee ensure anyfuture reforms guidedby evidence transparencyparticipant outcome*disabilityexpertiseandlongtermsocietal benefitThank you for theopportunity provide submission considering perspectives people with disabilities families carers frontline professionals evaluatingtheseproposed reformsSincerely,

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

Submission 1898

References

• National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (particularly ss [Objects & General Principles])
• Bill: NDIS Amendement: Securing The NDIS For Future Gen, Explanatory Memorandum.
• National Disabiliy Insurace Agency, Insurance Principls & Annual Financial Sustainability Reports.
• Australian Government Dept Health and Aged Care, Legislative Changes & Securing The NDIS For Future Generation Reform Materials.
• Independent Review Of The NDIS ([year here])(#), Working Together To Deliver The NDIS.
• United Nations Convention On The Right Of Persons With Disabilities.
• Attorney-General’s Department Rights of People with Disability – Public Sector Guidance.