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

Submission 2346

NDIS Bill Submission

I am writing as both an NDIS participant and the parent of two disabled children. Our disabilities can be invisible from the outside, but the cumulative impact on our daily lives, health, functioning and ability to participate in society is significant and debilitating. I am concerned that the proposed reforms risk overlooking the cumulative and interconnected nature of disability within families, particularly where multiple family members require support.

One of the most distressing aspects of the current NDIS debate is repeated public statements suggesting that many participants, including children receiving early intervention supports, have only “mild to moderate” disabilities and were never intended to be supported by the scheme. It’s particularly distressing given that the NDIS was deliberately designed \nto include children\ndand early intervention supports, recognising that investing early in development, independence andfamily stabilityisbothbetterpracticeandalternativelymoreeconomicallyresponsiblethanwaitingforpeopleandanfamilies oreachcrisispoint. Thecurrentrhetoricdoesn’talignwiththelivedrealityofourfamilyandotherspeopleInowwithinthedisabilitycommunity.Weweredirectedtoapply forNDISaccessbymultiplehealthcareprofessionalsandrequiredtoprovide significant evidenceandasessmentsispermanentfunctionalimpairmentasproofwemetthesreshold.This rewriteofhistoryiscreating fear , shame anda ndstabilit yfordisabledd peoplewhoarealreadystrugglingtomaintainfunctioningsinasocietythatisanotbuiltforthem.I’mdeeplyconcernedbyproposedlegislativechangesthaappeartoreducetheimportanceoflivedexperienceindividualoutcomesconsiderationofthepersonasa wholeinfavouronarrowerevidentiaryframeworkswhilstrip awayimportantpersonalan d familycontext.Mydirectexperienc eofdisability is of cumulative an din teractinglayers o f impairment health issues caregiving responsibilitiesandsystemicbarriers.Theimpactmanagingmyown disabilitiesalongsidetheneeds mychildren anda med ical lyvulnerablepartnerledtosevereburn out,deterior ationinm yphysicalhealthandmobility,social isolation andlossworkcapacity Theeffectsoftthisgraduallysnowball throughout our famil, withmypartnerincreasinglyforcedtotake onadditionalc aregiv inghouseholdande motionalresponsibilitiesasmym own functioning deterioratedultimatelycontributingtosignificant burnoutforhim aswell. NDIS support has helped create stability so I can start to recover from burnout,andbettersupportmyfamily.Forexample schoolpickupcaused sensory overloadandexhaust ionwhichreducedmy abilityto function fortherestothe day.Having supportwith this taskhasallowedmetospendmoremeaningfultime w ithmyf amilybeginaddressing yourown he althneeds.Ihavebeenabletop helpmy childrenmeet thei r ow n therapyandeducationalgoalssuchas developingsocia l skills independence physical confidence anda nditional regulation inways that will reducetheir long term care needs.These outcomesare difficult toreducetosimplisticfinancialcalculationsbuttheya reimmensely importantton ourfamily.\ni aalsoconcernedbybroaderrhetoric surrounding these reforms.Publicdiscussionha sbe en increasingly framing disabled peopleasa financialburdenratherthanmembersof themembershipbenefitsocietyasthewhole Withdrawingdisabilitysupporthsimplytransfersfinancia land societalcoststo hospitals,mentalhealthsystemspaidcarers lostworkforceparticipation familybreakdownandworseninglongterm disability.Prior t o NDIS supporIwasadmittedtorecoveryonnumerousoccasionsdueto physica and mental healthdecline my marriage wasunder significantstrain m yrelationship withmychildren wasthe deterioratingan d Iwa sn able to work My partner wa stemptationg how h e could continue working while carrying on increasing caregiving responsibilities.

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

Submission 2346

he’d have had to leave the workforce; it would have led to devastating financial consequences for our family. increased costs to taxpayers due to lost workforce participation & increased reliance on income support/crisis services. NDIS has helped stabilize our family, given me hope with right supports; may eventually return as secondary maths/science teacher to address critical shortages while providing lived experience/supporting students w/disability. The prospect losing these threatens not just stability but rebuilding health/independence/future workparticipation. Our family’s NDIS funding also supports employment within this community: current casual workers incl one who is an NDIS participant. disability support flexibility allows us provide opportunities requiring understanding,flexibility,support in own lives. This reflects another often-overlooked aspect: NDIs does more than isolate participants—sustains employment/community connection/economic partipation many others too! significant cuts scheme could ripple effects beyond individual participants. Concern reinforced both original Productivity Commission rationale for ndis and subsequent economic modelling surrounding its benefits of investing disability early intervention. Per Capita/National Disability Services suggested every dollar invested returns approximately $2.25 Australian economy through increased employment activity same modeling estimated that every 1 billion removed from Scheme reduce economic by approximtely$2.25billion result loss over jobs when considered against government’s proposed cut range between When these figures are considered the potential economic consequences become staggering during cost living crisis economically reckless introduce changes shift costs onto already overstretched downstream systems threatening hundreds thousands job impacts will occur isolation disproportionately affect sectors under immense pressure including healthcare education mental health &disability support services alongside workforce predominantly female risk pushing women out paidemployment back into unsupported caregiving roles transferring costs directly families while reducing workforce participation long-term productivity much public discussion about nDis focused on shonks fraudsters rorts”and cost blowouts has shifted suspicion towards participants with “cost containment landing not bad actors but disabled people theirfamilies little scrutiny directed toward conduct decision-making practices NDIS itself In my own experience I was directed an NDIs assessor obtain two specialist reports costing more than $1,000 access decision made before report completed had to cancel therapies would have benefited son accommodate this expense another occasion planner arbitrarily decided override therapy team recommendation for physiotherapy favour exercise physiology despite being clinically inappropriate similar stories abound in disability spaces raise serious concerns administrative waste inefficiency appropriateness unqualified decision-makers overriding specialist therapeutic recommendations within community increasing reports of unexpected plan reductions highly adversarial review processes significant cuts believed informal checkins rather formal reassessment People reported told relinquish care children

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

Submission 2346

seeking respite and describe living in a constant state of fear and instability, uncertain whether essential supports may disappear with little warning. I was initially hesitant to submit this at all due to concerns about being identifiable within a system my family depends upon. I have seen members of the disability community openly express fears of retaliation, and those concerns are difficult to dismiss entirely within the climate of fear that has been created. This fear is not occurring in a vacuum. There have already been highly publicised cases in which medically necessary supports were reduced or withdrawn with devastating consequences, including participant deaths following the removal disability providers have described situations where they felt ethically unable to leave participants unsupported once funding ended; some resorting ambulance call-outs because no safe alternative care existed These examples demonstrate life-preserving care. particularly concerning context proposed legislative changes would give ministers broad powers restrict remove categories across scheme appears assurance legislation itself essential or life-preserving supports protected from broad funding restrictions A system designed around increasingly narrow centralised discretionary risks creating more indiscriminate harms by losing sight actual human realities these funding categories represent psychological impact growing instability should underestimated Within there increasing discussion hopelessness despair surrounding potential loss independence safety dignity Some actively discussing plans VAD success NDIS measured solely short-term expenditure reduction but disabled people families safer healthier stable better able participate society long term NDIS does need reform Fraud exploitation inefficiency harmful NDIA practices addressed wherever occur However current Getting Back Track bill instead targets participants ways cruel economically counterproductive profound difference improving system destabilising lives disabled rely for safety dignity participation society Increasingly feels conversation lost this distinction Society ultimately judged economic metrics how treats during periods vulnerability dependence original vision of recognised early intervention individualised supports investment participa compassionate socially responsible Supporting not simply moral investment Economic one sustained enabling education employment independent broader economic that otherwise impossible while helping prevent costly outcomes such burnout health deterioration ICU admissions hospitalisation premature entry residential care and workforce participation What concerns most is this bill the culture focussed suspicion scarcity prevention stability wellbeing Moving away preventative model toward adversarial, centralised crisis-driven approaches creates far greater costs As both a disabled person parent fear consequences only recognises value support after people have already collapsed.