National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 252
01/06/2026
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee
NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Who we are
Endeavour Foundation is an independent, for-purpose charity established in 1951 with a vision to support people with intellectual disability at home, at work and in the community. We are Australia’s largest employer of people with intellectual disability, with over 1,700 supported employees working across 28 social enterprises and Department of Defence sites across Australia. We also support more than 600 people with disability to live independently and empower more than 890 people through learning and life skills programs across Queensland, NSW and Victoria.
Our position
Endeavour Foundation supports the intent of this Bill. To ensure the NDIS is sustainable and can keep helping people with significant and permanent disability now and into the future. We back efforts to tackle fraud, improve planning decisions and return the scheme to its original purpose.
We have long called for mandatory registration for providers with a tiered regime based on risk and size, and we agree that low risk providers such as pharmacists should not need to adhere to the same registration requirements as providers delivering higher risk and more direct supports. Similarly, we have called for pricing to be managed independently from the NDIA and welcome this step in the bill and urge the Government to hand this responsibility to the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority (IHACPA) in line with the Aged Care sector.
We also support the Government’s plans to deliver additional foundational supports outside of the NDIS in partnership with States and Territories as well as delivering funding for community led programs which will be a more appropriate and sustainable option for some people with disability.
However, we are concerned about how the Government proposes to make savings in participants plans through a Ministerial directive which would create a blunt tool to cut funding despite the needs of participants and Scheme outcomes. In our view this move goes beyond what the Minister announced in his National Press Club Address in April and seems to contradict the approach taken in this Bill to focus access to the scheme on demonstrated need rather than a blunt diagnosis.
In addition to this, we are concerned about the Government’s plan to limit unscheduled plan reassessments. While we agree with the Governments proposal to limit the reasons for a plan review to be successful and we acknowledge that this is an area where funding creep seems to occur, it is our experience that participant needs can rapidly change and the Scheme is slow to respond. Plan reviews are complex and lengthy and many people we support do not have the capacity or the tools to navigate these processes. We also find the proposed changes to wait times for plan review applications as excessive.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 252
Our recommendations
Endeavour Foundation asks the Committee to recommend the following changes:
- The bill should require that any reduction to Social, Civic and Community Participation
(SCCP) budgets be targeted and evidence-based, not applied as a uniform cut across all
participants. People with significant disability who rely on SCCP funding to live, work and
take part in community life must be protected. The goal should be to refocus SCCP
spending on genuine need, reducing overall costs where appropriate, without reducing
support from those who have no alternative.
- People living in Supported Independent Living (SIL) arrangements are not supported around
the clock, SIL funding does not cover daytime hours on weekdays. Under the current
proposal, cuts to SCCP funding would leave many SIL residents without any funded
support during those hours, creating a dangerous gap for some of the most vulnerable
participants in the scheme. The Bill must be amended to ensure this unintended
consequence is addressed before any reductions take effect.
- The Government has proposed a $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund and points to
mainstream and foundational supports as alternatives for participants whose SCCP budgets
are reduced. These alternatives do not yet exist in most communities. Funding cuts must
not be implemented until these supports are genuinely operational and accessible to
participants in their local area, not just announced.
- Disability Social Enterprises, organisations that provide supported employment to people
with disability, are financially unviable under the current model and are at serious risk of
closure. The employees most at risk of losing their jobs are those with the highest support
needs, who have the fewest alternative employment options. The Government must
develop a sustainable funding model for this sector outside the NDIS that protects the
jobs and livelihoods of people with significant disability.
- The Bill proposes to extend the time the NDIA can take to review plan reassessment
applications from 21 days to 90 days. We see this is as not being in the best interest of the
participant and the bill should be amended to keep the 21 days. Additionally, service
providers should be able to support a participant plan review applications where they
do not have family members or a delegate, and they have digital access challenges.
2
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 252
The community access cut – why a 50% blunt cut will hurt those the scheme was designed to protect
The Bill’s explanatory notes make clear the Government’s goal to curb growth in participants’ SCCP and CBDA budgets with a view to encourage participants to take up more affordable group-based activities and ensure a more sustainable cost basis for the NDIS.
The explanatory notes acknowledge that a variety of other options were considered but ultimately not pursued either because they would not generate significant long-term saving or because they would have a detrimental impact on people with significant disability and/or those living in ‘thin markets’.
However, the explanatory notes don’t assess the significant negative impact that the suggested changes would have on people with disability. In our view three groups are going to be impacted the most:
-
Individuals with significant intellectual disability who rely on the Scheme for almost all aspects of their daily living, and who require constant one-on-one support;
-
Individuals who have extremely limited support networks, aging parents or simply no known family or friends in their lives to take on unfunded support and keep them connected with their community;
-
Individuals who already have limited NDIS budgets, whose only option to save money is simply not to engage services at all, at significant personal detriment.
As part of our submission, we have included several de-identified case studies of participants, Endeavour Foundation supports at home, at work and in the community to illustrate the impacts of the proposed changes in their lives. How community participation funding is used
Community participation funding flexibly helps people with disability get out of the house, maintain employment, pursue hobbies, build skills, and engage socially through 1-on-1 or group activities based on an individual’s interest and needs. This was the original intent of the NDIS – social and economic participation for all people with disability. For many of the people we support, particularly those with intellectual disability, this is the main funding source for social and community contact, to maintain paid employment, and stay safe in and outside of the home.
Importantly, these budgets are also used flexibly to cover things like help with dispensing medication, travel to appointments, cleaning, and personal care, especially where a participant doesn’t have a separate budget for those needs. Cutting this funding by 50% won’t simply reduce the number of outings; It will create gaps in basic daily support that participants will then need to find funding for elsewhere in the scheme or will likely go without.
Case Study #1: An adult man with complex disability who relies on his SCCP budget for basic supports
Content warning: this story includes mentions of suicide, suicidal tendencies and other mental health related topics
David is a man in his 50’s who lives independently in social housing, he recently transferred to Endeavour Foundation after his previous NDIS service provider ceased all NDIS services. David transferred with a NDIS package that did not meet his complex needs.
David became disabled after a failed back surgery which severely limited his mobility, he uses a wheelchair and is at high risk of falls and further injury. On top of his physical
3
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 252
disability, David has also been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, he experiences a range of mental health issues such as paranoia and suicidal ideation, and he has a history of suicide attempts.
Due to his disability David very rarely leaves his home. He is estranged from his family and therefore relies entirely on his funded supports to assist with basic tasks such as shopping, meal prepping, attending medical appointments, dispensing medication, and other medical supports. He structures his community participation budget in combination with other support funding to ensure he has almost daily check ins by his support workers. This way support workers act like a welfare check to ensure he has not had a fall overnight or overdosed on his medication requiring hospitalisation, which he has a history of doing.
In addition to this, support workers also bridge a gap in his unfunded supports while he awaits a plan review. Staff currently deliver a range of services including wound dressing and other nursing tasks which are not funded in his package.
If David’s package was reduced by 50% he would not have this support and would be very high risk of self-harm and ultimately would require more frequent admissions to the state health care system and a more stable supported independent living arrangement which would be at a far greater cost to the scheme and the Government.
Group based activities are not always a genuine alternative
The Bill’s explanatory notes suggest to accommodate the budget cuts; participants can shift to group-based supports/activities at lower cost to make the cuts work. We understand the logic, but in practice this won’t work for many:
- In regional and rural areas, thin markets and workforce shortages mean there simply aren’t enough group-based services available, this in part, is why we see so many participants not fully utilise their budgets.
- For some participants in the scheme their disability or behaviours do not allow them to engage in group-based activities and require 1 on 1 supports or even 1 to 2 supports which are not available to them in group settings.
- Many States have no foundational support systems yet. Participants can’t be directed to mainstream supports that don’t yet exist. Additionally, while we support the Government’s $200 million investment into the new Inclusive Communities Fund (ICF), we question the ability for community organisations who will be funded through the ICF to take on the responsibility of supporting NDIS participants with complex needs, especially those that require full time one-on-one supports.
Case Study #2: Two adults with acquired brain injuries for whom group setting are inappropriate
Stuart is a 62-year-old man living with an acquired brain injury sustained at birth. He is non- verbal and has no formal communication skills. Stuart utilises a wheelchair when leaving the house as he is unable to balance himself, leading to a high risk of falls and injuries. He relies on support workers for every aspect of his daily life, from the moment he wakes up to the moment he goes to bed, including all personal care, food preparation, medication management, social contact and entertainment. Stuart’s only family contact is a fortnightly visit to his 96-year-old mother and an annual phone call from another family member. His family, while caring and involved in decision-making, have no capacity to provide any physical day-to-day support.
4
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 252
Stuart lives with Michael who is a 59-year-old man, also living with an acquired brain injury, as well as epilepsy. Michael uses a wheelchair to provide mobility fulltime and requires two support workers for personal care. He communicates through vocalisations and gestures. Like Stuart, he is entirely reliant on his support team for all aspects of daily living. Michaels’s family maintains contact and is involved in decisions about his care but cannot provide any physical support.
Both men currently receive community access supports, though even now their outings are limited to one day per week under their current NDIS Budgets. Under the proposed 50 per cent reduction to SCCP funding, that funding would effectively be eliminated. There would be no money to take either man into the community for any purpose. They would be housebound and contact with the outside world limited to occasional family phone calls, despite being non-verbal and wholly dependent on human interaction facilitated by their support workers.
The Government’s proposed alternative, group-based supports and volunteer-led community programs, are not a realistic option for either man. Michael was previously enrolled in a group-based program but was asked to leave due to behaviours he cannot control, including grabbing and biting, which arose from his inability to understand social boundaries. Stuart also cannot safely participate in a group setting: he cannot walk safely, does not make eye contact and cannot tolerate close physical proximity from unfamiliar people.
Neither man could be left in the care of a volunteer organisation, they each require consistent, trained, one-on-one support always when outside the home.
Funding shortfall impacts for in Supported Independent Living
For Stuart and Michael and other people living in Supported Independent Living (SIL) there is also a risk of a serious funding shortfall. The explanatory notes do not adequately consider that SIL funding does not fund 24x7support for people with a disability who require it.
Instead between the hours of 9am and 3pm on weekdays essential daily living support is commonly funded by SCCP budgets. This means a 50% cut doesn’t just limit discretionary activities in the community but will impact daily living activities critical to a person’s health and wellbeing.
In cases where one or more SIL resident loses funding and need to remain home on a day where other residents are engaged in the community, the sole remaining residents now requires support one-on-one without adequate funding. Leaving the service provider to foot the bill for the unfunded supports will create a risk for neglect, crisis or loss of essential functioning.
Many participants are already utilising group-based services, how will they achieve savings?
Endeavour Foundation currently supports 890 NDIS participants with group-based activities in one of our 34 Learning and Lifestyle Hubs across Australia. For these individuals there are limited opportunities to make the substantial savings the Government is proposing without simply reducing the number of times an individual attends the services.
This will have significant impact on individuals and create further isolation for people with disability. It also creates additional pressure on families to provide care on days when group activities are no longer funded. In our experience many of the people we support have limited family actively engaged in their care, and for those who do, their family are aging and/or have additional caring responsibilities and unable to absorb more responsibility.
5
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 252
Case Study #3: An adult man who attends group-based services and works in a disability social enterprise with a burnt-out support network
James is a man in his 60’s with Intellectual Disability and early signs of dementia. James lives independently and his sister delivers regular supports with medication, meal prep among other things throughout the week. He also receives in home support on weekends. James’ sister who is in her 60’s also has caring responsibility for an elderly parent and her own child with mental health issues, limiting her capacity to provide care for James. James’ NDIS package has recently been reduced placing additional pressure on his sister who is already showing signs of carer burnout.
James utilises his existing SCCP budget to engage a community day program two days a week at Endeavour Foundation and separately works at a supported workplace 2 days a week. With the proposed funding changes, he would have to reduce his community day program down to once a week leaving him home alone at least once a week without any supports, as no one in his family has capacity to look after him. He would also lose support at work for one of the two days a week he is at work and may need to reduce his work days, leaving him at home alone another day and reducing his income.
James is at risk of isolation and reducing his physical mobility if he remains home alone longer. Additionally he won’t be provided with meals on this day or cared for to ensure he doesn’t inadvertently hurt himself or others. Given his early signs of dementia we believe this would carry serious risk.
His support network is already strained and at serious risk of burn-out. If his family is unable to keep up with his support needs as he ages, they will need to seek out more funding from the NDIS or go down the road of an Aged Care alternative to care for him ultimately costing the Government more than it saved.
Impacts to employment participation
People with intellectual disability have the right to meaningful employment. The Bill’s proposed funding reductions also threaten participants’ ability to work. Over 1,700 people with disability are employed by Endeavour Foundation, working alongside their peers in real workplaces, earning wages and engaged in meaningful work. Across Australia there are over 15,000 people with disability employed by in Disability Social Enterprises (Australian Disability Enterprises).
Taylor Fry Actuaries estimated that Australia’s supported employee workforce saves Government over $225 million a year (in reduced NDIS costs, reduced pension payments and increased taxes paid) and generates an additional $113 million in wages for carers of supported employees and $120 million in wages to supported employees. These economic contributions will be severely impacted by the proposed changes to SCCP funding.
Case Study #4: An adult man who works full time in a Disability Social Enterprise who is his own decision maker, has no informal support network and relies on his job for income.
Nick aged 49 years has moderate intellectual disability and lives alone in Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) following the death of his spouse. Nick has no informal supports and is his own decision maker, he also has no funded daily living supports.
He works 35 hours across 5 days per week with Endeavour Foundation supported employment. Working is currently his only regular social connection. At work Nick requires regular prompting throughout the day and supervision for task completion, safety, emotional regulation, and social interactions. SDA provides the accommodation but not food or support.
6
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 252
Nick relies on his income to cover his living costs this includes the capped rental costs of his SDA home, on top of this Nick is also solely responsible for associated utility costs like electricity and gas as well as his food and other standard living costs. Nick has limited skills managing his own money and often relies on Endeavour Foundation to support him with this, through his employment.
Without his job Nick would be extremely isolated without any social network. He would lose his structure and routine which are important to regulate his mood and for his general wellbeing. He would also struggle financially as he would not be able to afford basic costs in his life.
For employees like Nick and James from Case Study #3, SCCP funding pays for the on-the-job support that makes their employment possible: a support worker present in the workplace (or in some cases remotely) to assist with task completion, communication, personal care, or managing the demands of a working day.
A reduction in this funding does not simply mean less support, it shifts the costs from the NDIS to the supported employer, impacting the viability of the social enterprise.
Plan re-assessments
Endeavour Foundation agrees with the intent to rein in excessive plan re-assessments that lead to unsustainable spending growth in the scheme and further delay decision making. We agree with the new criteria for a plan review to be successful.
We currently see lengthy delays in plan reviews. We are concerned this will be exacerbated despite the urgent need of people needing reviews.
Who can make a ‘plan review’ request
The proposal to only allow participants, their plan nominee (inc. guardians) or their child representatives to make plan review requests makes sense on face value considering the examples that are provided in the explanatory notes.
Exemptions are required to allow advocates and others to support change requests if:
- No family member or nominee exists, and
- A person does not have either capacity or access to technology to lodge a plan review
Extension of Timeframes for a delegate to decide whether to conduct a plan reassessment
The Bill proposes to extend the timeframe for a delegate to decide whether to conduct a plan reassessment from 21 days (3 weeks) to 90 days (3 months) as the NDIA currently is only able to meet this legislated requirement in 31% of cases. We consider this 428% increase in time to be excessive considering this involves deciding whether to conduct a review, not the review itself, which in our experience often can take up to nine months.
A participant or their plan nominee makes a plan review application because their circumstances have changed. To expect the participant to wait 3 months just to find out whether or not the NDIA will consider a reassessment is not reasonable, and places great pressure on families and service providers to cover the costs of additional supports a participant needs.
In practice we see this as a cost delay tactic. If the NDIA can take longer to consider plan review applications, they do not have to cover the costs as funding is only paid going forward once a decision is made.
7
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 252
Service Provider Viability concerns
In recent years Endeavour Foundation has faced financial uncertainty and successive large operating deficits. This is largely due to the level of unfunded supports we provide as a result of inadequate NDIS budgets and long delays in plan reviews. The current funding model for supported employment also contributes significant losses to our organisation. We have seen large operating deficits for the past four years, including an operating deficit of ($11m) in the 2024/25 financial year, and accumulating losses of ($35m) over 4 years. We expect our operating deficit in 2025/26 to increase again to ($20+m) in line with recent deficit trends, bringing our five-year losses to at least ($50m).
We have taken significant steps to improve efficiency and cut costs, including a reduction of 60 full- time equivalent back of house positions in 2025. Despite these efforts, which continue this financial year, our outlook remains unsustainable in the current settings.
Risk to services in regional areas
Endeavour Foundation operates group-based services across thin markets in regional and rural areas. If participants in these regions have their community access funding cut by 50% and can therefore only engage services half as often, some of these services will no longer be viable.
If services close, participants in those communities may have little to no alternative, maybe unable to engage supports with their NDIS plans. That is not a saving; it is a service failure.
Closing
Charitable service providers such as Endeavour Foundation are committed to people with disability, we advocated for the creation of the NDIS and want to see it continue. However, under the current circumstances more charities are destined to go broke unless the Government makes significant changes to pricing, registration and ultimately funding safe NDIS plans for participants.
We want the NDIS to work well and to last. But indiscriminately halving community access funding by half is not a sustainable reform for the people we support. It is a harm to some of the most vulnerable people in Australia. The costs will not disappear; they will reappear as carer breakdowns, behaviour incidents, emergency and hospital admissions, interactions with the justice system and demands on residential care.
While individual scheme participant’s budgets are the ones to be cut, service providers like Endeavour Foundation carry the toll of explaining these policy changes to people with disability and their support networks as well.
Written by: Joshua Lucey, Senior Policy and Advocacy Advisor Approved by: Kirrily Boulton, Chief Corporate Relations Officer
8