National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2650
I am extremely disappointed in the way the NDIS has been portrayed in the media, which has been perpetuated by those in politics. I am ashamed to have voted for the Labour Party.
Honestly, I am extremely worried about these proposed changes. Not only for my work, but also as a parent, wife and daughter. Fortunately our daughter is typically developing and does not need therapies or additional supports. But that doesn’t mean we might not in the future. And in all honesty, if I was a parent who had to access NDIS for supports I would be scared. Scared that my child would not be able to access the supports they needed to live a life of dignity and with the same quality that everyone else is afforded.
I am extremely concerned these changes will have a detrimental impact on those currently accessing the NDIS and those who may need supports in the future. Currently I provide supports to NDIS participants (children) and their families. They are all extremely worried about what is happening with the NDIS. But these changes have not been clearly explained to families and participants, which shows in the amount of submissions that have been made to the proposed changes to the Bill.
The changes in regards to increased administrative and compliance requirements will not be adequately compensated for in the current price structure for providers. This will force many small providers out of the NDIS, as it already has with the previous changes to travel and stagnation of pricing. This will have a real impact on the participants, as it reduces their choice and control in providers they can access. Larger organisations may be able to absorb these costs, but larger organisations also tend to have more inexperienced staff, higher staff turnover and less quality control. This will lead to a reduction in the quality of service provision to participants, which will in turn cost the NDIA more in the long term.
In regards to changes to how funding for supports can be adjusted by the minister, this is just DANGEROUS. To make sweeping reductions in participants’ plans for entire categories at a system level without risk assessment places a great risk at the hands of the NDIS. For example, I support a client who receives 2:1 supports daily as she is a high risk for aspiration, falls, and seizures. Reducing support for her will mean that she will no longer be able to leave her home and participate in things she enjoys, because it will be unsafe. For my clients, reducing funding for therapy will risk functional deterioration, which will place a greater strain on the families that are already stretched thin, as well as increase the need for expensive AT. It will also place an increased burden on our local public health system, which currently has a 2 year wait for Allied Health Services.
In relation to the proposed changes to accessing the NDIS based on the availability of appropriate treatments, this will severely impact participants in regional and remote communities who may not be able to access appropriate treatment for their disability, thereby denying access to therapy based on where people live.
Also, a large portion of the families I see could not afford therapy because the complexity of their child often means they cannot work. And with a reduction in supports at home, this would make it even more impossible for parents to find employment. Children would be denied access to appropriate support based on the financial capacity of their families. To not consider the geographical location and financial capacity of the participant is unethical, denying rights based on money and location.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2650
In regards to the definition of ‘permanent’, the proposed changes do not consider that although some treatments may improve the symptoms of the disability, that does not change the fact that the disability is still permanent and they might need lifelong support.
I ask that the Government withdraw the Bill and actually consult with members of the disability community and people that provide disability supports before making changes to the Bill.
I don’t disagree that fraud needs to be addressed. But I fail to see how the proposed changes ACTUALLY address fraud. Instead they are restricting and reducing funding to vulnerable participants without risk assessment, which frankly is quite dangerous.
If you actually consulted with participants, families and providers, there are other cost saving measures available. For example, I support a family who probably has over $20,000 worth of equipment sitting at their home unused because the child has outgrown their equipment. Why not make medical equipment providers buy back equipment to then resell at a discounted rate to other families. Or offer a loan pool for equipment.