Submission 2101
Submission regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the
NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
To whom it may concern,
I am writing as both a parent of an NDIS participant and as an independent disability support
worker. I wish to express my deep concern regarding the proposed changes under the National
Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
and the impact these reforms may have on vulnerable Australians.
I am a single mother raising an autistic child who currently receives support through the NDIS.
Like many families, the NDIS has been life-changing for us. However, I am now deeply
concerned that my son’s funding and supports may be reduced or removed due to widespread
funding cuts and tightening access to the scheme.
For the past eighteen months, my son has attended regular speech therapy, occupational
therapy, and psychology sessions. Prior to receiving these supports, he struggled significantly
with emotional regulation, sensory processing, communication, and learning. During his first
year of school, he was suspended six times because he could not regulate his emotions or
behaviour within the classroom environment.
Without the support funded through the NDIS, I genuinely do not know where we would be
today. Within months of receiving access to therapy and intervention, I saw remarkable
improvements in my son’s ability to communicate, regulate his emotions, participate at school,
and engage positively with others. These supports have not only changed his life, but have also
greatly improved our family’s quality of life.
I live on the northern end of the NSW Central Coast, and my son is only 8 years old. His
therapies are essential, but they are also extremely expensive. Psychology sessions cost
approximately $250, while occupational therapy and speech therapy sessions cost
approximately $220 each. He attends these therapies fortnightly, which totals close to $1,400
per month. Without the NDIS, these supports would simply be completely unaffordable for me
and my family.
As a single mother, I work limited and flexible hours in order to meet my son’s needs and attend
his appointments. Without this flexibility, I would not be able to ensure he receives the therapies
Submission 2101
and support essential to his development and wellbeing. Many parents of children with disabilities are placed in similar positions, forced to reduce work hours or leave employment entirely in order to care for their children.
The NDIS gave my child the opportunity to access early intervention during the most critical developmental years of his life. My greatest fear now is that because my son is progressing well, his supports may be reduced or removed entirely. Improvement should not be viewed as evidence that supports are no longer required. In many cases, participants are doing well precisely because they are receiving consistent and appropriate support. Removing those supports risks undoing years of progress and placing children and families back into crisis.
My son is proof that early intervention works. He still requires ongoing therapy and support to continue developing the skills necessary to navigate school, relationships, emotional regulation, and daily life. Autism does not disappear because a child has improved with therapy.
I am also deeply concerned about the increasing rhetoric surrounding “parental responsibility” in relation to disability supports for children. While parents absolutely have responsibilities toward their children, disability-related care often extends far beyond what is reasonably expected of a parent without support.
If funding and supports are reduced under the justification of “parental responsibility,” what practical support will families receive in return? Are parents expected to leave the workforce entirely? Will adequate income support be provided to replace lost employment income?
Current support payments available to carers are already far below what is required for families to survive financially.
These proposed changes risk forcing parents, particularly mothers, out of the workforce in order to provide full-time care for their disabled children. This directly contradicts broader government messaging encouraging workforce participation, self-sufficiency, and economic contribution through employment and taxation.
Personally, I have never sought funding for a support worker for my son, as I recognise his needs are different to those of many others with higher support requirements, and I am lucky enough to be able to work around his therapies. However, additional support is something I would have considered in the future to enable me to return to full-time employment. At present, I can only maintain work because I have unusually flexible working arrangements that allow me
Submission 2101
to attend my son’s appointments and therapies. Many families are not fortunate enough to have
this flexibility. Parents of children with disabilities are already experiencing significant burnout, emotional exhaustion, financial pressure, and mental health strain. Reducing supports further will have devastating consequences for many families. It will increase stress, crisis presentations, family breakdowns, and mental health deterioration for both carers and children alike. Policymakers must approach these reforms with empathy, compassion, and a genuine understanding of the realities faced by families living with disability every day.
In addition to being a parent, I also work as an independent support worker. Throughout my career, I have worked for multiple disability support companies and ultimately left each one due to concerns surrounding excessive charging, poor practices, and what I believe, in some cases, amounted to unethical or fraudulent behaviour. I currently support one participant independently for sixteen hours per week. She is an incredible woman living with multiple mental health diagnoses. When I first met her four years ago, she rarely spoke and would seldom leave her home. She had no confidence to do much of anything or go anywhere. Through consistent, individualised support, she has made enormous progress in her confidence, independence, communication, and overall wellbeing. However, her mental health conditions are ongoing and lifelong. She now lives in fear that her funding may be reduced or withdrawn completely. I share this fear because I genuinely believe that without consistent support, she is at serious risk of deteriorating and requiring hospitalisation again.
I hold a Certificate IV in Mental Health and have extensive experience supporting individuals with complex mental health challenges. I intentionally charge my client significantly below the NDIS recommended rates so that she can access more hours of support, because that is what she genuinely needs to remain safe and well. We chose to move away from larger providers because too often we witnessed funds being consumed by administration fees and middle-management structures rather than direct participant support. My client’s family and I have submitted complaints regarding questionable practices and potential fraud by previous providers, yet no meaningful action was ever taken.
It is my belief that the focus of reform should not be on cutting participants from the scheme or reducing essential supports. Instead, the government should focus on stronger regulation, accountability, and oversight of providers and organisations engaging in overcharging, misuse of
Submission 2101
funds, and fraudulent conduct. This is where reform is genuinely needed - not through removing
vulnerable people from the scheme altogether.
While I acknowledge there are providers and individuals who misuse the system, it is deeply
unfair that genuine participants, families, and hardworking support workers are paying the price
for failures in regulation and oversight. There will always be individuals who exploit systems, but
that should never justify punishing those who rely on these supports to survive and participate
meaningfully in society.
I also believe there has been significant misinformation presented publicly regarding the cost of
the NDIS without equal recognition of the enormous social and economic benefits it delivers.
Landmark economic modelling has shown the NDIS returns approximately $2.25 to the
Australian economy for every $1 invested. The scheme supports a workforce of more than
270,000 disability workers and providers, enables participants and carers to remain in or return
to employment, and stimulates local economies through participant spending and increased
workforce participation.
The NDIS absolutely requires reform. Greater oversight, stronger safeguards, and accountability
measures are necessary to address overcharging and exploitation within the sector. However,
reform should target unethical providers and systemic misuse - not disabled children, participants, families, and frontline workers who depend on these supports every day.
People living with disability should not have to live in constant fear of losing the support that
allows them to function, participate in society, remain mentally well, and live with dignity.
Families should not be punished because early intervention has been successful, nor should
vulnerable Australians bear the consequences of corporate greed and regulatory failures.
The NDIS was created to support Australians with disabilities to live safer, healthier, more independent lives. I urge Parliament to ensure that future reforms protect participants and families rather than making access more difficult for those who genuinely rely on these supports every day.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Sincerely,