Submission 2090
Submission Opposing the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Secoring the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by:
- Independent Support Worker
- Melbourne, Victoria
- 27 May 2026
To the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
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 first-hand the difference flexible, participant-directed supports make.
I strongly oppose the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. While sustainability is
Submission 2090
important, this Bill undermines the core principles of participant choice, control, and reasonable and necessary supports. It introduces measures that will severely limit my ability to maintain effective working relationships with participants and uphold their rights to independence. The changes will reduce flexibility, increase administrative burdens, and damage the trust essential to quality support work.
Ten Major Points of Opposition
-
Loss of Unused Funds on Plan Rollover The Bills rule that unspent funds do not carry over to new plans removes vital contingency buffers. As a support worker, this makes it far harder to respond quickly to participants’ fluctuating needs or emergencies without forcing rushed or inappropriate spending. It disrupts continuity of care and undermines the prudent management that allows me to sustain long-term relationships built on reliability.
-
Lack of Effective Appeals Process for Renewed Plans Automated plan renewals with reduced or standardised supports offer little or no right of
Submission 2090
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 that directly affect the quality and consistency of support I can provide.
-
Significant Barriers to Reviews and Changes of Circumstances Strict criteria, long response times, and 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.
-
Excessive Government and Ministerial Controls Broad ministerial powers to cut entire support categories, expanded rule-making authority, and centralised decision-making strip away participant choice. This level of government control reduces the flexibility I need to tailors
Submission 2090
supports creatively and collaboratively, weakening the trusting relationships essential to promoting genuine independence.
5. Tighter Eligibility Criteria and Standardised
Assessments Narrower eligibility rules and standardised assessments will disproportionately affect participants with complex, psychosocial, or fluctuating disabilities. This risks under-funding or exclusion, making it harder for me to maintain consistent support relationships and increasing the likelihood of support gaps.
6. 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 impairs my ability to facilitate meaningful community engagement and independence- building activities that form the foundation of my work.
7. Reduced Participant Choice and Control
New support lists and rigid planning frameworks
Submission 2090
- shift power to government gatekeepers. This
- restricts the collaborative, participant-led
- approach I use to empower people, making it
- harder to honour their individual preferences
- and maintain respectful, empowering
- relationships.
8. Shifting Costs onto Families, Carers and Other
Systems By limiting NDIS funding, the Bill forces greater reliance on families and under-resourced services. This adds pressure on support workers like me to bridge gaps informally, straining relationships and compromising the professional boundaries needed for sustainable support.
9. Enhanced Debt Recovery and Reduced Flexibility
Stronger debt recovery powers combined with governance centralisation create a climate of fear and administrative burden. These lesser- mentioned changes will discourage innovation in support delivery and make it riskier for independent workers to trial approaches that best promote participant independence.
Submission 2090
10. 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 inadequate impact assessments ignore the real-world effects on participants and the support workers who help uphold their rights to independence and community participation.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This Bill threatens the participant-centred foundation of the NDIS and will significantly impair my ability as an independent support worker to maintain strong, effective relationships that promote independence and dignity.
I recommend the Committee urge the Government to:
- Withdraw the Bill or make major amendments to remove punitive elements (particularly loss of unspent funds, restricted appeals, review barriers, and excessive ministerial controls).
Submission 2090
-
Extend consultation periods and commission independent impact assessments focused on lived experience and support worker perspectives.
-
Ensure all reforms uphold choice, control, and genuine co-design with participants and the workers who support them.
The NDIS is best secured by strengthening its original vision of empowerment — not by imposing rigid controls that undermine independence.
Signed,
Independent Support Worker