National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission from an individual person with disability
Executive Summary
I make this submission as a person with significant physical disability who relies on formal supports to live safely, participate in the community, and retain control over the ordinary decisions of daily life. In my view, the proposed changes in this Bill would make the NDIS harder to access, less responsive, and less effective at protecting the independence and dignity it was designed to support. The likely result is not simply administrative change, but greater isolation, heavier pressure on families, and more unmet need being pushed into hospitals and other mainstream systems. Parliament should not proceed with these reforms without substantial amendment.
Numbered Amendment Requests
1 Amend the Bill to preserve multiple pathways to NDIS access including recognition diagnosis where clinically appropriate prohibit exclusion unless equivalent accessible elsewhere; 2 Amend clear right urgent reassessment participant’s circumstances materially changed allow limited rollover funds delays outside participants’ control;3 No new framework planning model can proceed until exposure drafts pilot outcomes consultation findings published guaranteed individualised decision-making review rights choice, decision making required independent oversight pricing commissioning decisions; 4 Prevent reductions social participation supports unless independent modelling demonstrates that will be left isolated connected worse off practice; 5 Protect genuine participant plan management coordination provider arrangements require independent oversight pricing commissioning decisions; 6 Ensure expansion includes funded transition workable self-directed pathway explicit protections continuity supported workers market failure. The six sections below set out reform amendments Committee recommend:
Restricting NDIS Access Would Put Essential Support Further Out of Reach
The proposed tightening eligibility one most serious elements bill Standardized functional assessments removal lists tighter boundaries between NDIS main stream services stronger focus treatment may alleviate impairment all point toward outcome fewer people receiving support. Government own modeling suggests reduction from 90,000 more than by end decade That is minor adjustment it narrowing direct consequences safety independence depend on being needed when necessary For with disability this fear immediate personal Australia long history many had little alternative institutional congregate living real say over lived whom daily life organized As person significant physical cannot ignore what it
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2191
would mean to move backwards from freedom, participation and self-direction toward greater dependence and exclusion. These changes would also push pressure onto families and already strained health services.
Amendments requested:
a). preserve multiple pathways to access, b). retain recognition of diagnosis where clinically appropriate,c). require genuine co-design on any functional assessment model,and d) error no person is excluded unless equivalent and genuinely accessible supports are available elsewhere.I urge the Committee to recognise that access to support is the foundation on which safety,dignity andindependence rest.
Tightening plans and reassessments would leave people unsafe when needs changeThe proposed changes to plans and reassessments may appear procedural,but they go directlyto whethersupport remains reliablewhen circumstanceschange.Ending rollovers,stoppingunspent fundsfrom carryingover,tighteningaccess touscheduledreassessmentswoulde make it harder torepond todeterioration,hospital discharge,family breakdown or changed careneeds.From my perspective,whe nthe system cannot respond quickly,p eopleare leftunsafe anda ndfamilies a releft toc arrytherisk.Amendmentrequested:a).preservea clear right t ourgent reassessment ,b)allow limitedrolloverof unsp ent fundsw here delaysar ee outside th eparticipant’s control, c )publishclear decision-making criteriaandd ).provide an independent safeguardwhere needse scalate between plan periods. I urget heCommitteeto ensurethatth Scheme canrespon d toe al realchanges inneed before preventable harmoccurs
New planning arrangements should not proceed without transparency andre enforceablesafeguards The delay tonew frameworkplanning shows these reforms arenot ready!A new suppor ts nee ds assessment processan dbudget method couldreshape participant experience,yet keydetails about fairness,review rightsandi ndividualcircumstances remainuncertain.As someone whose dailylife depends on support being tailored toreal needs,i am deeplyconcerned by any model thatbecomes morestandardised andlessresponsive.
Amendment requested:
do no l low anew plann ingmodelto pro ce ed until exposure draftspilot outcomesanda nd consultationfindingsare published,andunt il individualizeddecisionmakingreviewrightsando choiceands controlo guaranteed.I urge the Committee n ottop ermit structural reformt ooutpace transparenc ytesting anda bsics af egards.Cutting participation supports would deepen isolation a nd shift costs onto familiesa nd healthservicesParticipationsupports ar enot optional extras.Theyar eoften whatenable people toleavethe house, maintainrelationships,takepartincommunity lifeand avoidisolation.Asa person with significant physical disability ,I knowtha tbeing presentinthecommunity is part of dignity, m entalhealth an dindependence. Cuttingthes esuppo rts woulde leave manypeoplemore isolated,p laceheavierburdensonfamiliesas unpaidcarers,a ndpushmor unmetneedinto hospitalsano thermainstream services.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2191
Amendment requested:
- prevent reductions to participation supports unless independent modeling shows participants will not be left more isolated, less connected or worse off in practice.
I urge the Committee to treat community participation as essential to a life of dignity, not as a dispensable extra.
- Centralised pricing and commissioning must not override participant choice and safety The proposed pricing and commissioning changes would shift the Scheme away from participant-directed flexibility and towards greater central control. While oversight matters, these reforms risk weakening provider diversity and limiting choice. For people with complex support needs, plan management and support coordination are not administrative extras; they are what make the Scheme navigable and safe. From my perspective, a trusted support arrangement cannot be treated as interchangeable with any service on a panel.
Amendment requested:
- protect genuine participant choice in plan management, support coordination and provider arrangements,- require independent oversight of pricing and commissioning decisions.I urge the Committee to protect the real choice and continuity that make support safe and workable in daily life. Expanded registration must not break trusted support relationships: Expanding mandatory registration is intended to improve safety but without a workable self-directed option it may remove trusted workers and small providers on whom many participants rely. That risk is especially serious where people have carefully built support arrangements that are safe consistent responsive As someone who depends trust continutity suppor deeply concerned by refor could disrupt established relationshi alternative.
**Amendment requested:
a) ensure expansion includes funded transition,**a workable pathway explicit protections for continuo support wher face market failure
I urge the committee strengthen safet without destroying supe which peop depend.