NDIA Accountability Project

Impact of NDIS Amendment Bill on participants, families, and support workers

‹ PrevPage 1 of 7 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 1965

Submission to the Senate Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Impact of the NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 on participants, families, and the disability workforce

Date: 26/05/2026

Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. I write as an NDIS participant, a long-term advocate, and someone with lived experience of the consequences of policy changes that do not fully consider the realities of disability, trauma, and care relationships.

While the government states that this Bill is intended to “secure the NDIS for future generations”, many of the proposed amendments risk undermining the core principles of the Scheme: choice and control, individualised supports, and the right to live an ordinary life.

This submission outlines the likely real-world impacts of the Bill on participants, families, and paid support workers, and raises concerns about the broad new powers granted to the Minister without sunset clauses or adequate safeguards.

1. The intention vs. the Bill’s actual effect

The Treasurer has publicly stated that “at some future point we didn’t want a Government of a different political persuasion with a different set of values to us to use the extraordinary growth in the NDIS as a reason to abolish it or to cut it in ways that didn’t provide that standard of care that people need and deserve”.

However, the Bill creates exactly that risk.

The Bill grants the Minister broad, ongoing powers to:

  • reduce categories of supports across many plans at once
  • impose caps, ratios, and maximum funding levels
  • redefine what is “reasonable and necessary”
  • restrict access and limit reviews
  • override individual needs through legislative instruments

These powers:

  • do not require parliamentary approval
  • do not require individual assessment
  • do not require evidence that cuts are safe or appropriate
  • do not expire — there is no sunset clause

This means a future government — even one openly hostile to the NDIS — could use these powers to make sweeping cuts with minimal oversight.

Submission 1965

This directly contradicts the Treasurer’s stated intention to protect the Scheme from future governments with different values.

Trauma, fear, and psychological harm already occurring

Even before the Bill has passed, the disability community is experiencing significant distress.

Participants, families, and workers are reporting:

  • fear of losing essential supports
  • anxiety about being reassessed under new “functional capacity” rules
  • distress at the idea of automatic plan renewals with no opportunity to advocate
  • fear of being pushed into mainstream systems that are already inaccessible
  • loss of trusted support workers
  • loss of choice and control
  • fear of losing continuity of care relationships
  • worsening mental health and trauma responses

Many participants live with trauma, chronic illness, or mental health conditions that are worsened by instability and fear. The Bill, as drafted, amplifies trauma rather than reducing it.

Real-world impacts of each major change in the Bill

Below are grounded, everyday examples of how the Bill will affect:

  • NDIS participants
  • Family and informal carers
  • Paid support workers and providers

These examples reflect typical situations already occurring — and how they would worsen under the new rules.

3.1 Stricter definition of “functional capacity”

Assessors must judge a person’s ability without supports, equipment, or environmental adjustments.

Participants

  • A person with autism who functions well because of routines, noise-cancelling headphones, and support workers may appear “too capable”, even though without these supports they experience meltdowns, sensory overload, and executive functioning difficulties.
  • A wheelchair user who is independent because their home is modified may be assessed as having “higher functional capacity”, even though without modifications they cannot safely function.

Family carers

  • Submission 1965

  • Parents may be pressured to withdraw supports so assessors can see the “true” level of impairment — a process that can be traumatic, unsafe, and harmful.

  • Carers may need to “prove” their loved one’s struggles by allowing them to fail or experience distress.

Paid workers

  • Support workers may be asked to document decline or remove supports during assessments, creating ethical dilemmas and risking participant safety.

3.2 Supports must be directly linked to the impairment used for access

Supports must arise directly from the impairment that got the person into the NDIS.

Participants

  • A person with cerebral palsy who later develops severe anxiety may be told psychology is not funded because anxiety is “not directly caused” by CP.
  • A participant with intellectual disability who needs help with parenting may be told parenting support is “not directly linked” to their impairment.

Family carers

  • Families may need to pick up supports now reclassified as “ordinary life responsibilities”.

Paid workers

  • Providers may lose funding for supports in “grey areas” such as emotional regulation, social skills, or community access.

3.3 Harder to get unscheduled plan reviews

Participants must show a significant and ongoing change in functional capacity or life circumstances.

Participants

  • A participant whose support worker quits suddenly may struggle for months because this is not considered a “significant functional change”.
  • A person with fluctuating chronic illness may be denied a review because their change is not “ongoing”.

Family carers

  • Families may be forced to fill gaps when plans no longer meet needs.
  • Carers may burn out because they cannot get extra hours approved.

Paid workers

Submission 1965

  • Workers may see participants stuck with unsafe or inadequate supports, increasing risk and stress.

3.4 Automatic plan renewals

Plans roll over for 12 months with little or no participant input.

Participants

  • A child entering puberty or transitioning to high school may be stuck with outdated supports for another year.
  • A participant who finally gets a good planner may never get another proper review.

Family carers

  • Families lose the chance to advocate for updated supports, especially for children or degenerative conditions.
  • Providers may be forced to continue delivering supports that no longer fit the participant’s needs.

3.5 Minister can reduce groups of supports across many plans

Entire categories of supports can be cut by a percentage.

Participants

  • If “community participation” is cut by 20%, a participant may lose weekly social outings that prevent isolation.
  • If therapy hours are capped, people with developmental delay may regress.

Family carers

  • Families may need to replace lost supports with unpaid labour.
  • Carers may have to reduce work hours or quit jobs.
  • Parents may leave the workforce -predominantly women
  • Support workers may lose shifts.
  • Therapists may have to ration sessions, reducing quality of care.

3.6 New “scheme sustainability” principles

The NDIS must consider fairness, efficiency, and direct impairment links.

Submission 1965

  • Supports that improve quality of life but aren’t concidered “essential” may be harder to justify.

Family carers

  • Carers may be expected to do more “ordinary living tasks” that the NDIS now considers non-disability-related.

Paid workers

  • Workers may face pressure to deliver cheaper, shorter, or group-based supports.

3.7 Changes to “reasonable and necessary”

Caps on funding, ratios, and intensity; preference for cheaper options; strict evidence rules.

Participants

  • A participant who needs 1:1 support in the community may be forced into group programs.
  • A therapy that works well for an individual but lacks peer-reviewed research may be denied.

Family carers

  • Families may need to fight harder to justify supports.
  • They may have to pay privately for therapies that work but lack research.

Paid workers

  • Therapists may be forced to justify every intervention with research citations.
  • Support workers may be required to work with multiple participants at once.

3.8 Greater push to mainstream systems

NDIS will push more responsibility onto health, education, housing, and aged care.

Participants

  • A participant needing continence products may be told to get them through the health system, which has long waitlists.
  • A child needing school-based therapy may be told the education system should provide it — even if the school cannot.

Family carers

  • Families may spend hours navigating multiple systems, repeating assessments, and facing delays.

Paid workers

Submission 1965

  • Providers may lose funding for supports reclassified as “mainstream”.

3.9 Pricing and plan management changes

Participants

  • If maximum prices are set too low, participants may struggle to find workers willing to accept the rate.

Family carers

  • Families may need to top up privately if providers charge above capped rates.
  • Workers may face lower pay, fewer hours, or pressure to deliver more for less.

3.10 Stronger fraud and compliance powers

Participants

  • Claims must be lodged within 90 days — people with executive functioning issues may miss deadlines and lose funding.

Family carers

  • Carers may need to take on more administrative tasks to avoid compliance issues.
  • Providers must keep more detailed records, increasing admin time and reducing time with participants.

4. Recommendations

I urge the Committee to consider the following amendments:

 1. Add a sunset clause to all new Ministerial powers.
 2. Require parliamentary oversight for any instrument that reduces supports.
 3. Protect choice and control by requiring participant consent for automatic renewals.
 4. Strengthen continuity-of-care protections for existing worker relationships.
 5. Maintain access to unscheduled reviews by broadening the definition of "significant"
    change".
 6. Ensure functional capacity assessments reflect real life, including supports and
    environments.
 7. Prevent cost-shifting by requiring proof that mainstream systems are accessible and
   adequate before denying NDIS supports.

Conclusion

Submission 1965

The NDIS was built on the principles of dignity, autonomy, and individualised support. The Bill, as currently drafted, risks reversing these gains and creating widespread harm.

Participants, families, and workers are already experiencing trauma, fear, and instability. Without stronger safeguards, the Bill gives future governments — regardless of their values —to the power to significantly cut supports with minimal oversight.

I urge the Committee to amend the Bill to protect participants, uphold the original vision of the NDIS, and ensure that sustainability does not come at the cost of human rights, safety, and wellbeing.