Opposing NDIS Bill due to impact on participant independence (Provider experience)

‹ PrevPage 1 of 7 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission Opposing the National Disability

Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for

Future Generations) Bill 2026

Introduction

I am an independent support worker supporting several NDIS participants with complex needs. In this role I assist people to maintain their independence, exercise choice and control, and live meaningful lives in the community. I work closely with participants on a day-to-day basis and witness firsthand difference flexibleparticipantdirectedsupports make.

Strongly opposed: The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (

Securing the NDIS for Future Generations)

Bill 2026While sustainabilit

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

Submission 2090

Ten Major Points of Opposition

  • Loss of Unused Funds on Plan Rrollover The Bill’s rule that unspent funds do not carry over to new plans removes vital contingency buffers. As a support worker, his makes it far harder to respond quickly to participants’ floating needs or emergencies without forcing rushed or inappropriate spending.It disrupts continuityofcareandunderminestheprudent anagementthatallowsmetosustainlongterm relationshipsbuiltonreliability.- Lack of Effective AppealsProcessforRenewedPlansAutomatedplanrenwalswithreducedorstandardisesupportsofferlittleornoiright

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

Submission 2090

appeal. This removes my capacity to effectively advocate for participants when plans fail to reflect real needs.* Without meaningful appeal rights, I am left unable* to challenge decisions * directly affectthe quality *and consistencyof supportI can provide*.* 3. Significant Barriers to Reviews and Changes of Circumstances Strict criteria,* long response times,** high thresholds for proving “significant and ongoing” decline make it extremely difficult to request timely plan reviews.“ For participants with fluctuating conditions,“ this creates dangerous delays.* As their support worker*, ““i am hindered in my role of identifying changing needs and securing adjustments that preserve their independence.4. Excessive Government and Ministerial Controls Broad ministerial powers to cut entire support categories*, expanded rule-making authority,”, centralised decision-making strip away participant choice.* This level of government control reduces (\text{the flexibility I need}*) to tailor

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

Submission 2090

  • Supporting creatively and collaboratively, weakening the trusting relationships essential to promoting genuine independence.
  1. Tighter Eligibility Criteria and Standardized Assessments narrower eligibility rules and standardized assessments will disproportionately affect participants with complex, psychosocial, or fluctuating disabilities. This risks underfunding or exclusion, making it harder for me to maintain consistent support relationships and increasing the likelihood of support gaps.
  2. Cuts to Capacity Building and Social/Community Participation Supports reductions in these critical areas limit participants’ opportunities to build skills and connections. As a support worker, this directly impair[s] my ability to facilitate meaningful community engagement and independence-building activities that form the foundation of [my] work.
  3. Reduced Participant Choice and Control: new support lists and rigid planning frameworks

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

Submission 2090

  • Shift power from participants directly involved. This restricts my collaborative work, making it hard to respect people’s choices or build trust.

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

Submission 2090

Section: Failure to Uphold Human Rights and Genuine Co-Design

The Bill prioritises cost savings over CRPD obligations and meaningful co-design. Short consultation timelines and inadequatetimpactassessmentsignorethe rea-lworld effectsonparticipants antheadsupportworkerswhohelpupholdtheirrightstoindependence anda-communityparticipation.

Conclusion and Recommendations ThisBillthreatenstheparticipantcentrefoundationofofthenNDISandsignificantlyimpairemyabilityasanindependentsupporthworkermaintainstrong,

effectiverelationshipsthatappromoteindependenceanda-dignity.IrecommendtheCommitteeurgetheGovernmentto: •WithdrawtheBillormakemajoramendmentstoremovepunitiveelements(particularlylossofunspentfundsrestrictedappealsreviewbarriers,andexcessiveministerialecontrols).

  • Extend consultation periods and commission independent impact assessments focused on lived eexperienceandsupportworkerperspectives.
  • Ensureallreformsupholdchoicecontrol,and genuino designwithparticipantsandthe workswhosupportthem.TheNDISisbestsecuredbystrengtheningitsoriginal visionofempowerment—notbypimposingrigid controlsthatundermineindependence.Signed, independentsupportWorker