Submission 2290
Dear Senators,
I am wriƫing to share my perspecøve on the proposed NDIS 2026 Bill, and to ask that, as you consider this legislaøion, you keep firmly in mind the people at the heart of the scheme — the parøipants and their families — whose lives will be directly shaped by the decisions made in Parliament.
My family is one of the many whose lives have been transformed by the NDIS. Our son has been able to thrive, develop independence, and conøinue learning and growing, even while navigaøng illness, social upheaval, and significant changes within our family. The NDIS has not removed the everyday challenges that come with disability — nor should anyone assume that disability somehow replaces the normal pressures of health, family, and life. But it has provided stability, dignity, and the supports that allow him to parøipate in the world with confdence.
It is from this place of graøitude, and from lived experience, that I raise the following concerns.
- I support many parts of the Bill — and I want the NDIS to remain sustainable
I agree with the intent behind several elements of the 2026 Bill. I want the NDIS to be strong, fair, and financially sustainable so that it can conøinue supporøing Australians with disability for generaøons to come. Families like mine rely on the scheme, and we want it protected — not hollowed out.
However, sustainability cannot be achieved by cuƫng essenøal supports flrst and planning the replacement systems later. Sustainability must be built on evidence, consultaøon, and a deep understanding of the lived realiøes of disability.
- The pace of reform feels rushed — and risks repeaøng past mistakes
My fear is that the government is moving too quickly, without fully understanding the consequences for parøipants. We have seen what happens when disability systems are restructured without adequate planning: people fall through the cracks, families burn out, and vulnerable Australians pay the price.
If these reforms are rushed, we may find ourselves back here in a few years discussing yet another round of major changes and cuts — again asking the most vulnerable to bear the burden of budget pressures. We cannot afford to repeat this cycle.
- Extraordinary ministerial power with no guaranteed right of appeal
The Bill proposes giving the Minister broad authority to determine what is “reasonable and necessary,” while limiøng or removing avenues for appeal. This is a profound shiŌ away from the rights-based foundaøion of the NDIS.
Families like mine are asking: Does any minister truly understand what it is to live with disability — any disability? What qualificaøons, what lived experience, what daily proximity to disability informs these decisions? Because the people who will feel the consequences are not policymakers — they are parøipants whose supports are not theoreøical, but essenøal.
- Cuts to supports that have already been assessed as reasonable and necessary
Many of the projected “savings” appear to come from reducing supports that parøipants currently rely on. The proposed 50% reducøon to social and community parøipation funding is one of the most concerning examples.
Submission 2290
For our family, this would mean our son going from four days a week of structured learning and support to just two. This is not a minor administrative adjustment — it is a fundamental loss of routine, skill-building, social connection, and stability. It also places enormous pressure back onto families who have already sacrificed employment, superannuation, and financial security to care for their loved ones.
5. The assumption that state-based supports can simply “take over”
When the NDIS was introduced, state disability services were dismantled. Families were told that the NDIS would be the national system of support. Now, under the 2026 Bill, people may be pushed back toward state-based systems that do not currently exist.
This creates a dangerous gap where participants may lose essential supports before any replacement system is built, tested, or staffed.
6. The public narrative does not reflect reality
Much of the public commentary surrounding the NDIS has been shaped by misleading headlines. The NDIS does not pay for haircuts, movie tickets, café lunches, or entertainment. It pays for the support worker time required for a participant to access the community safely. These misconceptions have contributed to a narrative that undermines public understanding and risks justifying cuts that will harm the very people the scheme was designed to support.
7. Who is speaking for participants?
At the grassroots level, families are frightened. Participants are anxious. We are watching decisions being made about us, without us, and often without any meaningful understanding of what daily life with disability actually looks like.
The NDIS was created to give people with disability choice, control, and a fair go. The 2026 Bill, as currently drafted, risks reversing many of those principles.
I ask that you consider not only the financial modelling, but the human impact. Consider the families who rely on these supports to keep their loved ones safe, engaged, and connected. Consider the participants whose progress, independence, and wellbeing depend on continuity of care. And consider whether the proposed concentration of power, reduction in rights, and cuts to essential supports align with the values on which the NDIS was founded.
8. Sustainability must come from targeting fraud and organised crime — not cutting essential
supports
I want the NDIS to remain sustainable. I want it to be strong enough to support future generations. But sustainability cannot be achieved by reducing the supports of people who genuinely need them and who rely on them every day.
If the government is seeking savings, then the priority should be clear: target fraud, target organised crime, target the groups exploiting the scheme — not the families and participants who depend on it for basic quality of life.
Families like mine are not the problem. Participants attending day programs, receiving therapy, or accessing community supports are not the problem. The problem lies with those who deliberately misuse the scheme for profit, and with the systems that have not been adequately resourced to detect and prevent that misuse.
Submission 2290
Cutting legitimate supports while criminal exploitation continues is not sustainability — it is simply shifting the burden onto the most vulnerable.
Proposed Section: People Removed from the NDIS Still Need Support
Much has been said about “taking people off the NDIS,” and I agree that the scheme should be reserved for those who genuinely need disability-related supports. However, people who are deemed ineligible for the NDIS do not suddenly stop needing help. Many will still require allied health, therapy, or functional support to maintain their health, independence, and participation.
If the intention is to transition some individuals out of the NDIS, then there must be a clear, well-funded alternative. One option could be strengthening the primary care system — for example, extending access to allied health through enhanced care plans for people with formal diagnoses, asessed by GPs. Without such pathways, we risk creating a situation where people lose essential supports with nowhere to turn, placing further pressure on families, health services, and already stretched community systems.
Reform cannot simply remove people from the NDIS without ensuring they have access to equitable, evidence-based supports elsewhere.
Thank you for your time and for your commitment to ensuring that the NDIS remains a system that upholds dignity, fairness, sustainability, and genuine support for Australians with disability.
Yours sincerely