National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2801
Submission to the Senate Community
Affairs Legislation Committee
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS
for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by: Date: 29/05/2026
Dear Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee,
I am a person and NDIS participant living with significant disabilities. I rely on a forearm crutch, my Seeing Eye Dog, and support workers, for safe mobility and community access. While I understand the need to ensure the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, I am deeply concerned that several aspects of the proposed reforms risk reducing access to essential supports and increasing administrative burden for participants.
The NDIS has historically recognised that approved assistance dogs require ongoing funding for necessities such as food, veterinary care, training, and follow-up support. These supports are not frivolous expenses; they are part of maintaining an already-approved mobility aid. Some participants, myself included, are now being forced to repeatedly justify supports that were previously recognised as essential to a safe and effective assistance dog partnership. The simplest comparison is this: it would be like approving someone for a wheelchair, then later deciding they are no longer eligible for repairs or maintenance. Without ongoing support, the mobility aid becomes unusable.
At the time of writing, the NDIS position appears to be that my approved Seeing Eye Dog no longer requires funding for food, veterinary care, or standard support services. This approach is not only unsafe, but ultimately short-sighted and financially inefficient.
These ongoing supports are an essential part of maintaining a safe and effective working dog partnership. They include basics such as annual follow-up assessments, training when new travel routes or environments need to be learned, and assistance recovering from incidents that impact the dog’s working ability.
In my case, my Seeing Eye Dog was attacked by another dog, which required multiple follow-up sessions to safely rebuild his confidence and maintain his working ability. Providing this support was significantly more cost-effective than prematurely retiring a three-year-old Seeing Eye Dog and funding the training and placement of a successor dog.
Sustainability reforms must not come at the cost of essential supports. Reforms focused primarily on cost reduction and tighter eligibility risk shifting pressure onto participants who already require significant support to live safely and participate in society. There is real concern that broad changes to definitions may exclude people with complex, fluctuating, or invisible disabilities.
The constant uncertainty, repeated reassessment, and pressure to justify basic supports can be profoundly dehumanising. I did not choose to live with multiple disabilities, and needing support does not make me less worthy of dignity or participation in society. The stress associated with these processes has significantly worsened my pain levels and neurological symptoms, reducing my overall
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2801
functional capacity. Many participants experience similar impacts when essential supports are threatened or made more difficult to access.
Despite my disabilities preventing traditional employment, I have still contributed significantly to society. I have completed both a Masters degree and a PhD, written a book that advances education in my field, and undertaken work that improves accessibility for others. I also volunteer with Seeing Eye Dogs Australia, caring for dogs who will later become a lifeline for Australians who are blind or vision impaired.
People with disabilities should not have to prove their worth in order to receive essential support. Those who cannot contribute in traditional ways are no less deserving of safety, dignity, and independence. We all contribute to our communities, workplaces, research, advocacy, and public life in ways that may not fit traditional models, but are nonetheless valuable and meaningful.
Many participants already experience significant fatigue, cognitive load, and physical barriers when engaging with the NDIS system. Reforms that increase reassessment frequency, documentation requirements, or the complexity of eligibility processes will disproportionately impact those with the highest support needs, rather than improving system efficiency. This is further compounded by the gradual reduction in support coordination, with participants increasingly expected to engage directly with Local Area Coordinators who are not able to provide the same level of individualised assistance.
Participants also rely on continuity and predictability of supports to maintain health, independence, and community participation. Frequent or unpredictable changes to funding categories, eligibility thresholds, or assessment processes create instability that can directly worsen disability outcomes and increase reliance on crisis supports.
Where reforms involve redefining “reasonable and necessary” supports or tightening eligibility criteria, there is a significant risk that essential supports may become harder to access or maintain. For many participants, supports such as assistive technology, therapy, and assistance animals are not optional extras. These supports are fundamental to functional independence and safe participation in the community.
I am also concerned by the extremely limited consultation timeframe surrounding these reforms. Disabled people, carers, and nominees require adequate time and accessible information in order to properly review complex legislative changes and provide meaningful input. Genuine co-design cannot occur without this.
I support efforts to ensure the NDIS remains sustainable for future generations. However, sustainability must not be achieved through measures that reduce access, increase administrative burden, or unintentionally exclude people who rely on the scheme for daily functioning and independence.
Policies focused primarily on reducing participant costs risk losing sight of the human beings affected by these decisions. Disabled people are not disposable. We are not numbers to be reduced on a spreadsheet. We are people trying to live safely, independently, and with dignity in our communities.
Thank you for your consideration.