Submission 1961

Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submitted by: Leeanne McAdam

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed changes contained within the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026 and the likely impact these changes will have on my daughter, our family, and many other disabled Australians whose independence depends on relatively modest but essential supports.

My daughter currently lives independently in her own home and works part-time as an Inclusion Teacher Aide despite significant disability-related challenges and ongoing health conditions. Her current NDIS supports assist with cleaning, home organisation, shopping, attending medical appointments, maintaining routines, and managing the practical demands of daily life.

These supports are not excessive. They are preventative and foundational.

Her current NDIS funding totals $53,205.70 across two years for all supports including daily living assistance, therapy, transport, and employment-related supports. This is not excessive funding. These are modest supports that allow her to maintain employment, manage her health conditions, avoid crisis, and live independently rather than relying entirely on family.

I am deeply concerned that the proposed legislative changes place this independence at significant risk.

The proposed amendments appear to substantially increase the discretion of the Minister and the NDIA to redefine what supports are considered appropriate or fundable under the NDIS. This includes broader powers relating to funding decisions, reassessments, support substitution, and the narrowing of what may be considered “reasonable and necessary” supports.

I am concerned the proposed changes will narrow interpretations of “reasonable and necessary” supports in ways that disproportionately impact people requiring ongoing functional assistance to maintain independence.

Of particular concern are provisions that appear to:

• Increase the focus on “sustainability” and cost containment
• Allow greater restriction of supports considered everyday living expenses
• Increase reliance on informal supports and mainstream systems
• Create additional barriers for participants needing ongoing functional supports
• Require participants to demonstrate exhaustion of treatment options before support access or continuation
• Expand ministerial rule-making powers with reduced parliamentary scrutiny
• Increase uncertainty around future plan reassessments and funding reductions

For people like my daughter, these changes create enormous fear and instability.

Submission 1961

On paper, supports such as cleaning assistance, shopping support, home organisation, appointment assistance, and support maintaining routines may appear minor or non-essential. In reality, they are the exact supports preventing deterioration.

Without these supports:

• employment may no longer be sustainable
• medical appointments may be missed
• home environments may become unsafe or unmanageable
• burnout and mental health decline may increase
• physical health deterioration may worsen
• dependence on aging family members will significantly increase

The proposed legislation appears to assume families can absorb this gap in care.

In our case, this is simply not realistic.

The NDIS documentation itself acknowledges that my husband previously assisted with domestic tasks and maintaining the home but is increasingly unable to continue due to aging and his own health issues. It also records that I underwent a double knee replacement in 2024 and cannot provide physical support.

Despite this clearly documented evidence, these proposed reforms risk shifting care responsibilities back onto elderly parents under the assumption that informal support will compensate for reduced funded support.

This ignores the reality facing thousands of aging carers across Australia.

We are retired. We have our own health conditions, physical limitations, financial pressures, and exhaustion. We cannot indefinitely absorb the responsibilities of disability support workers, cleaners, transport supports, coordinators, and carers.

The proposed reforms also appear inconsistent with the foundational principles and objects of the NDIS Act 2013 (Cth), particularly:

• section 3(1)(a), which supports the independence and social and economic participation of people with disability
• section 4(11), which recognises that reasonable and necessary supports should assist people with disability to pursue goals and maximise independence
• section 4(17), which recognises the role of families and carers while also acknowledging the need to support their sustainability and wellbeing

These changes also risk undermining Australia’s obligations under Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which recognises the right of people with disability to live independently and be included in the community.

My daughter’s current supports directly assist her to maintain employment, manage burnout and fatigue, maintain community participation, and sustain independent living. The supports being discussed in current reforms are not luxury supports. They are precisely the supports enabling those legislative objectives to occur in practice.

Submission 1961

I am also concerned that the proposed changes create increased risk for people who may appear “high functioning” during assessments while requiring significant structured support to remain stable and avoid collapse.

Many disabled people survive because of carefully balanced support systems that prevent crisis. When these lower-level supports are removed, the result is often:

• hospitalisation
• mental health deterioration
• loss of employment
• housing instability
• carer burnout
• increased long-term government expenditure through crisis responses

This is not sustainable policy.

It is cost-shifting.

The burden is simply transferred from the NDIS onto families, emergency systems, hospitals, GPs, mental health services, and aged carers who are already struggling.

I ask the Senate to carefully consider the real-world consequences of these proposed amendments and ensure the NDIS remains a scheme focused on human rights, independence, participation, and early intervention rather than one driven primarily by cost reduction and restrictive eligibility interpretations.

Removing supports that keep disabled people stable, employed, and independent is not sustainability. It is the creation of future crisis.

Leeanne McAdam Concerned Carer of a Person With Disabilities