Submission 2662
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
Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Date: 1 June 2026
Confidentiality request: I request that this submission be published anonymously to protect my family’s privacy.
I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on
Community Affairs about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
My husband and I are the parents and full-time carers of our 17 year old son who has complex disability and high support needs. He requires 24/7 care and supervision and relies on NDIS-funded supports to live safely, participate in the community and develop independence. Without adequate NDIS funding, our ability to provide the high level of care our son needs would not be sustainable.
I am concerned that this Bill is being introduced without sufficient detail, scrutiny, consultation or safeguards. The proposed amendments would significantly affect participant funding, review rights and decision-making processes, while granting broad powers that may reduce supports without adequate oversight.
Section 34A – Ministerial power to reduce funding The Bill would allow the Minister to reduce funding for categories of supports through legislative instruments that cannot be challenged.
I am concerned not only about the first announcement of 50% reduction to Social and Community Participation funding, but also about the precedent of allowing broad funding reductions without individual assessment, transparent justification or review rights.
Our son relies on Social and Community Participation funding to access community activities, keep active, build independence and reduce isolation. These supports are not optional extras; they are essential to his wellbeing and community inclusion.
This issue is particularly important as our son will finish school this year. We will rely on these supports to attend appropriate programs to provide structured daytime activities, routine, learning opportunities and social connection. Reducing this funding risks leaving him isolated at home and increasing reliance on family carers.
Submission 2662
Reducing funded supports does not reduce need. It transfers responsibility to families, affecting carers’ ability to work, maintain their health and sustain caring arrangements over the long term.
Ministerial power to cap supports The Bill would allow the Minister to cap supports through legislative instruments.
I am concerned that these powers could override individual assessments of reasonable and necessary supports for our son and reduce essential supports without adequate parliamentary scrutiny.
Reduced review rights The Bill would make it harder for participants to challenge some decisions, restricts reassessments and extends the timeframe for the NDIA to decide requests for reassessment from 21 to 90 days, without a deemed-decision safeguard.
One of the big frustrations we have found with dealing with the NDIA is timely decision making, information about progress and access to transparent rationale.
Timely decisions and transparent review processes are critical. Participants should retain strong rights to reassessment, review and appeal when their circumstances change.
Automation and decision-making There is a risk that automated systems and algorithms may reduce transparency and lead to inappropriate decisions, particularly for people with complex needs.
Decisions that significantly affect a participant’s supports and daily life should not be made solely through automated systems. Participants must be able to understand how decisions are made, what information was relied upon and how decisions can be reviewed or challenged.
Mandatory provider registration While improving quality and safeguarding participants is important, mandatory registration may have unintended consequences, particularly in rural and regional areas.
In our experience, trusted local support workers can often provide flexible, cost effective support that larger providers cannot. Larger providers tend to charge the maximum allowable rate, and as they are only available in large regional centres, there is additional significant funding required for travel time our rural location. Additional registration requirements may reduce the available workforce, increase costs and limit participant choice and control.
Submission 2662
Any registration framework should be proportionate and designed to maintain access to local support workers, particularly in rural and regional communities.
Recommendations
I ask the Committee to:
-
Ensure adequate consultation and scrutiny of major NDIS reforms
-
Limit powers that allow broad reductions to participant funding without individual assessment and review rights.
-
Protect participants’ rights to timely review and appeal.
-
Ensure transparency, human oversight and review mechanisms for any automated decision-making.
-
Ensure a proportionate provider registration framework that does not reduce workforce availability in rural and regional areas.
-
Protect Social and Community Participation funding, particularly for participants with high support needs.
-
Focus on fixing inefficiencies and administrative burden within the system, not cutting participant’s reasonable and necessary supports.
The NDIS is essential to our son’s safety, wellbeing and inclusion, and to our family’s ability to continue providing care sustainably. While reform may be necessary, it should not come at the expense of reasonable and necessary supports or increase hardship for families already managing complex care needs.
Thank you for considering this submission.