National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1937
I am writing as a concerned Australian citizen. Supporting sustainable NDIS, support action against fraud overcharging unsafe providers poor-quality services; do not support reforms making disabled people children & their families pay price failures provider regulation market design government oversight. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Securing future generations) is being presented way protect NDIs However many proposed changes risk doing opposite reducing increasing stress pushing into crisis undermining purpose helping ordinary included dignified lives deepest concern that appears treat participant supports main place find savings rather focusing first hardest fraudulent exploitative providers Fraud rorting overcharging conflicts interest targeted directly Disabled people family therapy capacity community access plan flexibility reduced because some have abused system ask Government substantially amend so reforms protect strengthen integrity preserve rights-based support system Reducing capacity funding will harm children &\ familie The proposed reduction daily activity is especially concerning Capacity not optional extra For young people it help them learn communication emotional regulation mobility living skills social participation independence As parent know sessions foundation child’s future They help participate school build relationships reduce distress develop independence avoid more intensive later cutting capacity building may look short-term saving risks creating much larger long-term costs Children early intervention and can be life changing If loses speech occupational psychology behaviour allied health input effect limited spreadsheet It affect whether communicate needs manage transitions attend safely make friends or participa in family communiti A 10% cut sound small policymakers but for already stretching plans across long waitlists, school transitions reports travel cancellations blocks means loss critical support Child with disability losing even amount of at wrong time mean regression family crisis exclusion increased reliance parents carers should not reduce funding children & young people At minimum, children youth complex communication regional remote communities participants who rely on to maintain function protected from blanket reductions.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1937
Cutting social and community participation will increase isolation
Social and community participation is often described as if it is separate from “real” disability
support. It is not.
For many people with disability,
support to access the community is the\ndifference between isolation and inclusion.
Community participation helps people build friendships,
pRACTise skills,
stay connected,
volunteer,
study,
work,
pARTICIPATE IN sport AND culture,
and maintain mental health.
for Children And young People ,it Can be THE bridge BETWEEN therapy goals AND real life . For adults,it can
prevent Isolation decline AND carer burnout.
ReducING these supports Will NOT simply encourage PEOPLE TO use cheaper group activities.some people cannot safely or meaningfully participate in GROUP settings WITHOUT individualised Support.This IS especially true FOR people WITH autism, psychosocial disABILITY,intellectual diSability complex communication needs,sensory Needs,bEHaviour support NEEDs OR trauma histories.The ndis should promote genuine Inclusion,nOT force people INTO unsuitable Group options because Individualised SUPPORT has been cut.InCLUSION iS Not achieved by reducing SUPportAnd hoping communities WILL fill The gap.
Foundational Supports and mainstream services must Be in place before ndis suppOrts are reducedThe Bill relies heavily on the idea that mainStream Services,community supPorts aNd foundational Supports will absorb some neeDs CURRENTLY met through thE NDIS. That may BE A valid long-term reform direction,BUT it is not safe to reduce INDIVidual NdIS SuPPorts BEFORE those alternatives EXIST,aRE funded,ARe accessible,and ARE proven To work.Families already know THAT schools,hElth systems,Mental hEllth SERVICES anD community programs Are under pressure.many children Cannot access timely public allied health many Schools arEnot equipped tO meet Complex disability needsmany Community Activities araNot genuinely inclusive.in regional And remote areas,options ArEven more limited.the government Should NOT remove Or reduCe NDIs supports ON THE promise THat another system Might help later.NO participant SHOULD lose Support until An equivalent ,accessible,funded AND accountable alternative IS actually available.
Restricting Unscheduled reassessments May leave PEOPLE trapped when life changes
the proposed tightening of Unscheduled reASSESSMENTS Is ANother serious concern.disability support needs do noT always change neatly On governMent timelines.families experience carer illness,sEPArAtion,Housing CHANGES,School refusal,pUberty,mEntal Health crises,bEHaviour escalation,injury,bEravement,FAMILY violence,PoVERIER collapse and sudden Changes in informal supPort.for Children with disABILITY,needs can Change quickly.A plan that worked six months ago may
become completely inadequate after a school transition,
a new diagnosis\ndevelopmentaL CHANGE or A changE IN family circumstances.restrictIng reassEssmentS too tightly MAY prevent people FROM getting HELP untiLL a crisis becomes severe.extending decision timeframes also risks leaving families WITHOUT SUPPORT WHEN they most NEED it.The SYSTEM should Prevent inappropriate provider-driven reassessment
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1937
requests, but it should not make it harder for participants and families to respond to genuine changes in need.
The solution is better evidence, triage and safeguards, not rigid barriers.
Families and carers will carry the cost of reduced supports When NDIS supports are reduced, the need does not disappear. It shifts to families, carers,
schools, hospitals, crisis services and the community. Parents already provide enormous unpaid care. Many reduce work hours, leave employment, use savings, burn through leave, or live under constant stress to support their children. Cuts to NDIS supports will increase unpaid caring responsibilities, especially for mothers and primary carers. This has real consequences: reduced workforce participation, financial pressure, mental health strain, family breakdown, and increased risk of carer burnout. A reform that saves money by silently transferring the burden to families is not fair, sustainable or humane.
Changes to eligibility and functional capacity assessments must not exclude people unfairly Moving from diagnosis-based access to functional capacity assessment may sound reasonable, but it carries significant risk if implemented poorly. Disability is complex.functional capacity can vary across environments over time depending on availablesupports many children mask at school collapse home some appear capable one setting cannot function safely without extensive support another.FunctionalcapacityassessmentsmustbeadministeredbyOccupationalTherapistsorequivalentlyqualifiedprofessionalsunderstanddisabilitydevelopmentdailylivingskills sensoryneedscommunicationbehaviourfatigueregulationfamilycontextrealworldimpactofdisability.Theseassessmentsshouldnotbereducedchecklistorshortadministrativeprocess.Theymustbecompletedpeopleprofessionaltraining understand how disability affects person’s life acrosshome,schoolworkcommunityandrelationships.Thisespeciallyimportantchildrenpeoplautismintellectualdisablepsychosocial disableacquiredbraininjurycomplexcommunications needsfluctuatingconditions peopleswhose needsonlyvisible poor assessment could wrongly suggest a person more independent than they really are leadingto supports reductions cause harm.Standardised assessments should become blunt tool used reduce participant numbers They must be transparent evidencebased culturally safe trauma informed developmentally appropriate open review.Mustconsider real world environmenta person lives in artificialsnapshot.Participants haveaccess reasons evidencereview meritsreview Automated or algorithmic decisionmaking never use denyreduce supports
without meaningful human oversight.
Tightening “reasonable and necessary” risks creating gaps between systems
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1937
Many participants have complex and overlapping needs. Disability, health, education, mental health, behaviour, communication and daily living needs cannot always be separated neatly. If the NDIS narrows what it will fund while mainstream systems remain under-resourced, participantswill fall throughthe cracks. Theis especially riskyforpeoplewithintellectualdisability,a utism , psychosocial disabilit y, c hronic he alth issues acq uired brain injuryandcomplexcommunicationneeds.Families shouldnotbe forcedto fight multiple systemswile each one says anothersystem is responsible.The Governmentshould strengthen sys tem boundariesonly after clear service guarantees are in place.There mustbenogapwherea personneedssupportbutnosystemaccepts responsibility.
Ending plan rollovers andreducing flexibility may punish people fore workforce shortages\nan daccess barriersParticipantsdo notalwaysunderspendbecause theydonot need support.Theymay undersp end because providersare unavailable therapistshave long waitlists workerscancel familiesar ein crisis children ar ewell reportsaredelayed orsuitableservices do no texist locally .Removing unspent funds without considering these realities m aypunishparticipants for problemsoutside their control.Forchildren therapyoften happensblocks around school terms assessmentsreports anda ndcapacity.Arigid approach torollover a n du tilisation w illno r reflect real life. TheNDIS shou ldm an i fflexible enought o respond toi ndividualcircumstances
Provider fraud and poor practice sho uld be the main targetTheGovernmentist right tob econcern aboutfraud, rotingexploitationandsafeproviders.Thoseissuesdam age participants und ermine public confidencei nt he NDIS.Butthe answeris tore gulateandprosecutebadactorsnot reduc esuppor tsforpeoplewithdisability.T h egovernment should prioritise:
- stronger provider registrationan de nlrolment; -real-time payment monitoringanda ndata matching ; -stronger action against overcharging inducem entsa ndconflicts of interest; better auditingofhigh-riskprovider s; p enaltiesf or fraudulentor unsafepr oviders; stronge rw hisleblower protections; pc erticipant-accessibl eco mplaints pathways; pm ublic reporting on complianceaction;a ndsupportforethical providerswhodeliver high-quality ,participant-centred care.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1937
At the same time, provider regulation must be proportionate. Many excellent allied health professionals are sole practitioners or small providers who work directly with participants and families. These providers should be able to become registered NDIS providers through a simpler, lower-burden registration pathway that is appropriate for sole providers, while still maintaining strong standards for safety qualifications insurance complaints handling professional accountability.
The registration process for a sole Occupational Therapist Speech Pathologist Physiotherapist Psychologist other allied health professional should not require the same level red tape as large organisation multiple employees subcontractors complex governance structures If the registration process too expensive slow administratively heavy good sole practitioners may leave NDIS market choose not works with NDIS participant That would reduce choice control family make harder access quality therapy The Government should it easier qualified sole allied health providers register making hard fraudulent unsafe exploitative providers operate fair system reduces unnecessary bureaucracy trusted professionals increases scrutiny actual risks highest if problem fraud target fraud overcharging target overcharging exploitation target exploit people Do solve misconduct cutting therapy capacity building community participation disabled person 10 Bill amended before proceeds I ask government Parliament amend so removes substantially limits broad powers support budgets category protects capacity funding especially children young prevents blanket reductions social community supports necessary inclusion safety mental independence ensures no NDIS withdrawn until equivalent mainstream foundational keeps reassessment pathways accessible when needs genuinely change protects from unfair automated standardised decision-making preserves choice including access appropriate strengthens anti-fraud rorting provider regulation measures requires transparent public reporting impacts reforms and embeds genuine co-design disability families carers representative organisations The NDIS sustainable but must also safe fair humane Sustainability cannot mean reducing life chances of disabled children It means isolating adults communities shifting more unpaid care exhausted families
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1937 cannot mean treating disabled people as the cost problem while fraudulent providers remain the target only in principle. Pleas eprotect th en DISby fixingtheparts o fthesystemthatarefailingparticipants:fraud, p rovidermisconduct,poormarketoversight,inconsistentplanningandlackofmainstreamsupport.P leasedo n otprote ctthen D ISb ycuttingthestopports t hdisab ledpeoplerelyontolive,l earn ,communicateparticipat et andbelong.Regards,,NSW