Submission Inquiry into National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Securing NDIS Future Generations) Bill 2026

Introduction

My name is redacted, and I am the sole living parent, entire informal support network and nominee for a participant who was accepted into the scheme in 2019.

Why this submission being made This submission grounded lived experience not legal brief practical about impact disabled people if proposed settings proceed stronger safeguards While reforms are proposed yet fully operational do need wait rollout identify risk already have enough from:

• Reform documents public reporting Community across disability networks Direct participants family lived experience The core simple: when reduced narrowed delayed or harder access does disappear burden shifted onto participants families unpaid carers under-resourced services no one What happening community Proposed changes causing harm at level through prolonged uncertainty struggle daily life with fear comes next recurring theme accounts contact NDIA including reassessment loss For cognitive psychosocial communication trauma-related complex behavioural needs uncertain abstract drives sustained distress hypervigilance functional deterioration least able advocate adversarial administrative settings many cases unable without sustainable support ### Why foreshadow assessment direction high-risk Relevance to Bill Addresses Schedule (New framework planning introduces provisions regarding “assessment tools” Section L), which alters how clinical evidence weighed] Concerns point model may place too much weight on standardised process little real-life complexity allied health evidence specific context Participants clinicians report that allied health given insufficient weight decisions.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Submission

In our case, allied health funding was already reduced by around 50% in a mid-2025 review. The concern is that new mechanisms could entrench or widen this pattern if safeguards are not explicit. When it comes to allied health supports, momentum is key. Participants will be eleft next to nothing terms Allied Health Supports which significantly reduces effectiveness Speech Therapy Occupational Therapies critical areas disabled people access. present materials describe major cuts social civic Community Participation including references reset October 1st 26 cut capacity-building daily activity supports earlier messaging referred lower figures adding confusion uncertainty practical effect greater isolation ordinary community life proposed assessment pathway another source considerable unrest many participants putting highly vulnerable through rigid high-stakes assessment under these conditions recipe disastrous outcomes risk greatest people:

• Have fluctuating complex needs; Struggle communication executive function distress tolerance; cannot reliably self advocate formal environments depend continuity trusted supports remain safe If process fails capture realities result ill conceived and underfunded boilerplate plans rapid destabilisation avoidable crisis escalation physical psychological harm trauma Impact arbitrary funding cuts on participants Relevance Bill Addresses Schedule Part (Section A) grants Minister power determine percentage reduce funding groups of explicitly allowing below actual costs Arbitrary funding not neutral administrative decisions change happens person’s day level risk basic stability maintained For with Complex Disability support budgets extras mechanism makes eating bathing transport medication routines behaviour regulation appointments Safe Community Access possible Funding reduced without reliable link real functional need those activities become unnecessary unsupported immediate forced rationing essential supports Participants families pushed impossible trade-offs Keep personal care drop participation; Keep Behaviour Support but supervision hours

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

Submission 2274

• Keep daytime support but lose evening or weekend coverage.
• Keep crisis response capacity but lose preventative support. These are not efficiency gains. They are risk transfers. Safety impacts can be immediate.Where there is known behavioural or psychosocial complexity reduced support can directlyincrease exposure to: • Self-harm incidents. • Escalation episodes requiring emergency intervention. • Unsafe absconding or high-risk behaviour. • Harm to relationships with co-residents workers family Functional impacts alsobuild quickly:Daily living skills regress.Increased social withdrawal.Psychological impacts are serious Participantsalready dealingwithhighsupport needs mayspend months in fear that one contact point will trigger reassessmentand loss of support.That chronic uncertaintyworsens distress andreduces their abilityto prepare evidencecommunicate needsand defend themselvesin planning processes Familycarerimpactsare predictableandsevereUnpaid hightensity care replaces funded support.Carers reduce work hoursor leavework.Financial pressure escalates.Carer mental health declinesFamily sustainability weakensIn our case cutsof this kind would createimmediate and serioussafety risks Thiswouldbeeasily corroborated byour Behaviour Support Practitioner Occupational Therapist SpeechTherapistSupport Coordinatorhealth system Psychologist and Psychiatrist supportedby hundredsincident reports made ton the NDIS QualitySafeguards CommissionHowever under new assessment guidelinesthe inputs off these professionals appear likelytobe given significantlyreduced weight.[Relevance tobeth eBill Addresses Schedule 1 Part6 Section34(1)(g) which allows then DISTo refuse funding if a support is deemed more appropriately providedorfundedbysthe existinggovernment service systems directly causingthecost shifting described below]Participantsandantheir familieswill be forced to look for help elsewhere System impactsfollow Costsareshifted into crisis mainstreamsystemsincludingemergencydepartments ambulance attendance acute mentaltha lth services anda housing instabilityresponses These systems are alreadyunder significant strain with long waitsandleminitedcapacity across emergencycaremental healthservicesandhousing responses Cuts tON D I Sfunding ar elikelyto increasepressure onthesystemsand worsenoutcomesforbothparticipantsan dthero ad er community

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

Submission 2274

Lived evidence from our case: why continuity and adequacy matter.

[Relevance to the Bill: Addresses Schedule 1, Part €€ Part (€ Section) Section), which limits unscheduled reasessments.] In crisis like one described below these rigid conditions would prevent participants accessing urgent reassessment when their safety collapses] Our own participant family records show what happens risk complexity continuities handled properly My participants’ support profile includes high needs across daily living behavioural regulation domains Clinical service materials describe patterns require stable informed responsive not generic or intermittent coverage Currently participant in complex care stream SDA eligible receives SIL Community Access funding equates supports Participant experiences range comorbidities result presentation does recognise difficulties participant experiences My participant was physically assaulted registered provider mid-2025 This responsible for my participants care but as far aware they bore consequences assault failure terms duty of care When asked help took away Specialist Disability Accommodation eligibility My had move out her Supported Independent Living arrangement back me months tried establish system fight decision eventually won battle ART early Following incident we bear substantial financial psychological consequences including additional trauma collapse continue affect lives day beyond It little wonder I nominee experienced prolonged load employment disruption ongoing burden become burnt-out hermit Psychologist independent psychiatrist advised suffer chronic depression PTSD Participant approved access NDIS years already been work on Temporary Total Disability chronic depression TTD cover ran 18 months Damaged to still OK primary carer until NDIS finally included useful supports plan Still suffer chronic depression and PTDS no longer have since coverage expired at full days week “herding cats” advocating make our support system intended participant My has hundreds incidents required emergency services intervention Every is traumatic concerned We many now

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 2274

operated in continuous crisis mode driven by recurring incidents and chronic short-term uncertainty. There can be no certainty that:

• Supports will show up when needed on any given day,
• Support providers may decide there’s insufficient profit supporting complex participants; alloy health funding won’t further cut via simple actions; SDA eligibility might again remove at next review. And if these happen? funding adequacy continuity protections aren’t optional safeguards—they’re core safety mechanisms.

Consultation fairness part of participant safety The rushed submissions window doesn’t impact all stakeholders equally: large orgs mobilize quickly through teams but disabled people managing disability care coordination crises admin often cannot—creating structural unfairness weakening evidence quality for decision-makers A rush affects whether participants are heard risks understood before harm occurs.

People with disabilities self-fund support Many don’t have financial capacity to absorb cuts For DSSP income already inadequate essential living costs Reduction or delay NDIS-funded creates immediate risk unmet needs isolation loss function greater dependence informal carers systems This reality restricted most can’t purchase replacement privately gap not filled choice It’s harmed exhausted, crisis.

Fraud should target justify support cuts Relevance Bill contrasts Schedule (fraud measures) Access planning While fraud controls necessary broad participant funding reductions punish systemic provider issues Fraud misconduct serious decisively But rhetoric shouldn’t use justify restrictions If problem is abuse misuse weak enforcement response stronger regulation targeted compliance transparent accountability outcomes Cutting lawful supports isn’t a strategy burden transfer.

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

Submission 2274

What should be required before and during implementation?

• Preserve meaningful external review rights for funding outcomes.
• Require clear and documented consideration of participant-provided clinical and allied health evidence.
• Do not implement high-stakes support assessment tools without independent validation across diverse disability groups.
• Mandate continuity protections to prevent abrupt funding cliffs and forced service disruption.
• Require formal safety impact checks before any reduction to supports linked to self-harm, behavioural escalation, or housing instability.
• Separate fraud-control mechanisms from participant eligibility and support adequacy decisions.
• Set realistic, accessible consultation periods so participants, nominees, and carers can engage properly.
• Publish participant-impact indicators (safety, continuity failures, crisis escalation, dispute outcomes), not only budget metrics. Punishing disabled Australians for the fraudulent actions of others is not a solution.

Closing position

We acknowledge these are “proposed” reforms, but the government is clearly intent on pushing these through. The foreseeable risk is already clear. Participants and their families cannot self-fund support gaps. Many participants are already living with prolonged fear and uncertainty. Many participants cannot defend themselves in complex reassessment processes without sustained help. For this cohort, a rigid or under-validated assessment pathway is likely to produce preventable harm. If support settings are tightened without strong safeguards, the government has not reduced need. It has transferred risk to the people least able to carry it. People with disability are already reporting harm linked to prolonged uncertainty and reduced support continuity. If safeguards are not strengthened, foreseeable risks include serious deterioration, preventable crisis escalation, and avoidable deaths, including suicide risk among people exposed to sustained distress and repeated support failure. Disabled Australians and their families deserve better than that. Regards,