Submission 2191
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
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
- Amend the Bill to preserve multiple pathways to NDIS access, including recognition of diagnosis where clinically appropriate, and prohibit exclusion from the Scheme unless equivalent and genuinely accessible supports are available elsewhere.
- Amend the Bill to preserve a clear right to urgent reassessment when a participant’s circumstances materially change and allow limited rollover of unspent funds where delays are outside the participant’s control.
- Amend the Bill so that no new framework planning model can proceed until exposure drafts, pilot outcomes and consultation findings are published and individualised decision-making, review rights and choice and control are guaranteed.
- Amend the Bill to prevent reductions to social and community participation supports unless independent modelling demonstrates that participants will not be left more isolated, less connected, or worse off in practice.
- Amend the Bill to protect genuine participant choice in plan management, support coordination and provider arrangements, and require independent oversight of pricing and commissioning decisions.
- Amend the Bill to ensure that any expansion of provider registration includes a funded transition, a workable self-directed pathway, and explicit protections for continuity of support where participants rely on trusted workers or face market failure.
I oppose those aspects of the Bill that would narrow access to the NDIS, reduce flexibility in planning and supports, and weaken meaningful choice and control. As a person with significant physical disability, I do not experience these proposals as abstract policy settings. They would shape whether I can live safely, leave my home, manage daily life, protect my health, and remain part of the community. Sustainability matters, but it cannot be achieved by shifting cost, risk and distress onto people with disability, our families, unpaid carers, and mainstream systems already under pressure.
The six sections below set out the reforms of greatest concern and the amendments I urge the Committee to recommend.
1. Restricting NDIS access would put essential support further out of reach
The proposed tightening of eligibility is one of the most serious elements of the Bill. Standardised functional assessments, removal of diagnosis lists, tighter boundaries between the NDIS and mainstream services, and a stronger focus on whether treatment may alleviate impairment all point toward one outcome: fewer people receiving support. The Government’s own modelling suggests a reduction from more than 900,000 participants to around 600,000 by the end of the decade. That is not a minor adjustment. It is a substantial narrowing of access with direct consequences for people whose safety and independence depend on support being available when it is needed.
For people with disability, this fear is immediate and personal. Australia has a long history in which many people had little alternative but institutional or congregate living, with no real say over where they lived, with whom, or how daily life was organised. As a person with significant physical disability, I cannot ignore what it
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.
Amendment 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) ensure 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 and independence rest.
- Tightening plans and reassessments would leave people unsafe when needs change
The proposed changes to plans and reassessments may appear procedural, but they go directly to whether support remains reliable when circumstances change. Ending rollovers, stopping unspent funds from carrying over, and tightening access to unscheduled reassessments would make it harder to respond to deterioration, hospital discharge, family breakdown or changed care needs.
From my perspective, when the system cannot respond quickly, people are left unsafe and families are left to carry the risk.
Amendment requested:
a) preserve a clear right to urgent reassessment,
b) allow limited rollover of unspent funds where delays are outside the participant’s control,
c) publish clear decision-making criteria, and
d) provide an independent safeguard where needs escalate between plan periods.
I urge the Committee to ensure that the Scheme can respond to real changes in need before preventable harm occurs.
- New planning arrangements should not proceed without transparency and enforceable safeguards
The delay to new framework planning shows that these reforms are not ready!
A new support needs assessment process and budget method could reshape participant experience, yet key details about fairness, review rights and individual circumstances remain uncertain. As someone whose daily life depends on support being tailored to real needs, I am deeply concerned by any model that becomes more standardised and less responsive.
Amendment requested:
- do not allow a new planning model to proceed until exposure drafts, pilot outcomes and consultation findings are published, and until individualised decision-making, review rights and choice and control are guaranteed.
I urge the Committee not to permit structural reform to outpace transparency, testing and basic safeguards.
- Cutting participation supports would deepen isolation and shift costs onto families and health services
Participation supports are not optional extras. They are often what enable people to leave the house, maintain relationships, take part in community life and avoid isolation.
As a person with significant physical disability, I know that being present in the community is part of dignity, mental health and independence. Cutting these supports would leave many people more isolated, place heavier burdens on families as unpaid carers, and push more unmet need into hospitals and other mainstream services.
Submission 2191
Amendment requested:
- prevent reductions to participation supports unless independent modelling 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 toward 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, and
- 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 and responsive.
As someone who depends on trust and continuity in support, I am deeply concerned by reforms that could disrupt established relationships without a workable alternative.
Amendment requested:
a) ensure any expansion of registration includes i. a funded transition, ii. a workable self-directed pathway, and iii. explicit protections for continuity of support where participants rely on trusted workers or face market failure.
I urge the Committee to ensure that safeguards strengthen safety without destroying the support relationships on which people depend.
Conclusion
In my view, this Bill should not proceed in its current form. It requires stronger safeguards, genuine co-design, transparent impact modelling, and enforceable protections for participants and families. The NDIS was created to expand freedom, dignity and inclusion.
Parliament should not endorse reforms that, in practice, narrow those gains and push people with disability and our families back toward crisis, exhaustion and dependence.