National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2382
I am the brother of an NDIS beneficiary who requires one-on-one support 24 hours a day for his own and others’ safety. The NDIS has benefited my brother greatly through its provision not only of the necessities of his required care in the form of supported living and robust housing, but it has also allowed him to flourish within his community, to the extent he is able, through community participation funding.
My primary concerns regarding the proposed changes are focused on:
- The proposed cut of up to 50% to all participants’ community participation funding;
- The proposal to more strictly restrict funding solely to a participant’s primary qualifying impairment; and
- Administrative errors within the NDIS and how they impact individuals.
Community participation funding is the critical support system that allows my brother to have a life outside of his home. Restricting or cutting this funding would mean that he would no longer be afforded the ability to, under supported supervision, participate in basic physical activity (walking with support workers), engage with his community (delivering to his local recycling depot), or visit his local café.
These may seem like simple activities, but they are the freedoms and connections that allow him to live a life connected to the community around him and to grow his capacity to manage his disability in extremely tangible ways. I fear that a cut to this funding would not only result in the loss of the benefits these activities provide and his connection to his community, but would also erode the resilience he has built as a result of them.
I would urge the committee to include provisions allowing any individual to request a review of a decision proposed to reduce their community participation funding, such that, where appropriate, that funding can continue to benefit those most in need of it.
The concept of a primary qualifying impairment is a blunt tool that does not adequately assess the needs of an individual. NDIS funding is intended to assist individuals according to their needs. My brother has severe non-verbal autism (including learning impairment), combined with debilitating OCD causing movement impairment that fluctuates in intensity in response to his gut microbiome, necessitating extreme dietary and hormonal management.
The reality of his condition is that he requires 24-hour-a-day, one- on-one supervision within a robust supported living arrangement. In addition, he is not merely a list of diagnoses; he is an individual with his own psychological needs. For example, he has previously shown an absolute refusal to engage with other intellectually disabled individuals, leading to rapid isolation and regression in his mental and physical wellbeing.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2382
If, as a result of funding cuts, he were forced to live with a second supported living recipient, it would likely lead to catastrophic outcomes, potentially ending in a slew of physical confrontations and endangerment of support workers. Due to the support provided by current NDIS funding and his present living arrangement, this is thankfully not the case, and he is living his best life.
With the blunt tool of “primary qualifying impairment,” there is a possibility that he could be lumped together with individuals who have vastly lower care requirements, given the highly varied nature of autism diagnoses. I would urge the committee to include mechanisms by which more representative qualifying criteria may be used in cases involving individuals with complex funding requirements.
An assessment by qualified medical and/or psychological professionals for complex, multifactorial disabilities ought to qualify an individual more accurately than reliance upon an isolated “primary qualifying impairment.” I would propose that such a category be made available for individuals who meet those criteria.
While this is a broader point, the NDIS has, in my own experience, made a multitude of administrative errors in the past that have either had no clear administrative recourse for correction or have required lengthy review processes to resolve. While I accept that changes need to be made to maintain NDIS funding for future generations who are truly in need of it, I would caution against any decision being made without including a process through which individuals or advocates can request a review of that decision in light of their individual circumstances.
This is necessary not only because individual needs may be overlooked, but also because, in a governmental system of this scale, administrative errors are bound to occur. The consequences of these errors can be debilitating for individuals like my brother, who rely heavily on the funding provided.
There ought to be processes in place allowing individuals to rectify these errors through a timely review process (within one month) should they occur.
In conclusion, I would ask the committee to consider the needs of those individuals who rely greatly upon NDIS funding for their ability to live their lives. While I agree there may be many cases in which the NDIS has been exploited by individuals who ought not to qualify for the degree of funding they have previously received, the use of sweeping powers to reduce costs across the board could lead to suffering among those the NDIS is intended to assist.
There should be mechanisms allowing individuals and advocates to seek reviews of decisions affecting those who genuinely rely on that funding. Thank you for the committee’s consideration.