Submission 2643
Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for
Future Generations) Bill 2026
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
From:
Date: 1/06/2026
I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the proposed legislative changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). I write as a parent of a young adult with disability and as an Australian citizen directly affected by the proposed reforms.
The purpose of this submission is to outline the critical role the NDIS plays in my son’s life, the likely harmful consequences of the proposed changes, and alternative approaches that would strengthen the Scheme without reducing essential supports. I believe this legislation is rushed and requires further scrutiny and amendments before it proceeds.
The NDIS was established to provide safety, dignity, independence, community participation and genuine choice and control for people with disability. It replaced a fragmented, block-funded system characterised by long waiting lists, limited access, minimal continuity of care and no real choice of providers (personal experience from my son’s birth to age 7).
The recent public conversation around the NDIS is very concerning as it increasingly portrays disabled Australians as a financial burden. This narrative risks driving policy decisions that prioritise cost-cutting over human rights, long-term outcomes and the original purpose of the Scheme.
My son , aged 19, has Down Syndrome, autism and hearing loss. He was fortunate to have been eligible to join the NDIS a few months after he turned 7, as Newcastle was a trial site.
The NDIS has enabled him to access:
- regular speech, physiotherapy and occupational therapy
- continence nursing
- behaviour support when required
- consistent providers and continuity of care
- appointments scheduled around family needs This represents a substantial improvement on the pre-NDIS DADHC block-funded model, where we faced months-long delays, no choice of therapists and high staff turnover. As a parent of three children, I was stretched to my limits attempting to coordinate inconsistent and inadequate supports.
Submission 2643
While my son has made great progress, I wonder how much greater these gains might have been if this skilled support was available to him in his early years.
Since leaving school, has used his Social and Community Participation funding to:
- attend day programs 3–4 days per week
- learn practical skills such as cooking, shopping and using public transport
- access the gym and participate in sport
- attend social activities
- engage in some supported employment These supports are essential for his independence, wellbeing and community connection. The proposed 50% reduction in this funding would result in significant isolation. At his age, spending his days at home with his 60-year-old mother is neither developmentally appropriate nor socially healthy. The Foundational Supports system intended to fill that gap is not yet operational.
My son requires opportunities to build relationships, skills and confidence, and to become accustomed to support from people outside our family in preparation for the future, when his parents are no longer around to care for him.
Changes to the assessment process from whole-of-person consideration to a single eligible impairment may not sufficiently identify the extent of my son’s disability, particularly as he has a hearing loss and is autistic (in addition to having Down Syndrome) and his ability to function can fluctuate over time. The proposed assessment tool I-CAN requires further validation to ensure people will not be ruled ineligible or underfunded.
Changes to a participant’s right to challenge decisions about supports and funding greatly limit our ability to seek extra support if our son’s circumstances or needs change, or to advocate if we feel a decision is wrong.
The proposed reforms risk:
- reducing community participation
- increasing isolation and dependence
- shifting unmet needs onto families, hospitals, schools and state services
- reversing the progress achieved since the introduction of the NDIS The idea of building parent’s capacity through foundational supports is insulting. Parents of children with disability are already operating ‘at capacity’, fulfilling roles equivalent to therapist, teacher, administrator, nurse and transport manager. The suggestion that “foundational supports” (not yet operational) can replace essential NDIS supports is unrealistic and unsafe.
Submission 2643
This Bill allows Ministers to change who gets NDIS support and how much funding participants will receive by signing an instrument, without going back to Parliament. The rules governing eligibility thresholds haven’t even been written yet. How can this Bill be voted on when the details haven’t been worked out? This change creates great anxiety for me and my family, as we don’t know what will happen in the future if the minister changes or particularly when the government changes.
Recommendations
All decisions affecting NDIS eligibility and funding levels should be made through primary legislation subject to parliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory advance notice to affected participants before any changes take effect.
To ensure the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, reforms should focus on:
reducing administrative waste addressing provider misconduct effectively strengthening mainstream systems such as health, housing and education ensuring genuine co-design with disabled people and their representative organisations ensuring the assessment process is equitable and has human oversight to safeguard outcomes (no Robo-Debt automated decisions) and any assessment tools introduced have been fully validated.
Cutting essential supports will not reduce need; it will simply shift costs elsewhere and cause long-term harm. Every dollar invested in the NDIS has been shown to return $2.25 to the Australian economy. The focus of reform should be on fixing system failures, not reducing support.
Conclusion
The NDIS has been transformative for my son and our family. The proposed legislative changes, particularly reductions to Social and Community Participation funding and changes to the assessment process, would have severe and lasting consequences for his independence, wellbeing and future.
I respectfully urge the Committee to consider the lived experience of disabled Australians and their families, and to recommend against reforms that undermine the core purpose of the NDIS.