Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I write as:
a mother and full-time carer to a 16-year-old son with disability
a virtual assistant supporting NDIS providers with administration, compliance, and documentation.
someone who has seen the NDIS from every angle. as a parent, a carer, and a worker inside the system
Across eight years, I have witnessed both the strengths and the failures of the NDIS. I have also seen the collapse of mainstream systems that the NDIS is now expected to absorb.
This Bill, as drafted, risks harming the very people it claims to protect.
I Support Targeted Tightening, But Not Blanket Cuts
I want to be clear: I do believe tightening needs to happen.
In my professional role, I am regularly contacted by participants asking me to:
perform administrative or virtual assistant tasks for them personally.
and bill the NDIS under Finding and Keeping a Job or other capacity building categories.
I decline every time because:
it is not morally appropriate.
it does not meet the intent of the support category.
it undermines the integrity of the scheme.
it places providers at risk.
This is exactly the type of misuse that should be addressed.
But the Bill does not target misuse. It targets participants, families, and supports that are already essential.
Tightening must be targeted, evidence based, and ethical-not broad cuts that harm people with genuine disability needs.
Schedule 1, Part 2-Unscheduled vs Scheduled Plan Reviews
Scheduled reviews are not being completed, forcing families into repeated unscheduled reviews.
Restricting unscheduled reviews without fixing scheduled ones will result in:
more participants left without active plans
more crisis driven reviews.
more administrative harm
Recommendation: The NDIA must be required to complete scheduled reviews before restricting unscheduled ones.
Schedule 1, Part 7-Plan Suspension When “Uncontactable”
I have received messages saying:
“Someone from the NDIS will call from a private number in the next hour. Please answer if you can. Please do not reply to this message.”
This does not allow:
preparation
gathering documents
having a support person present
safe screening of private numbers
Suspending a plan based on a single missed call is unsafe.
Additional requirement-written notice and scheduled contact times
All scheduled reviews and NDIA contact attempts should be provided in writing or email, with:
clear advance notice
multiple time options
the ability to select a suitable time.
allowance for a support person to attend.
This ensures participants and carers can prepare, gather evidence, and be supported during important discussions.
Recommendation: Legislate reasonable contact requirements: written notice, scheduled times, multiple attempts, multiple channels, and allowance for support persons.
Schedule 1, Part 9-Requirement to Use Mainstream Supports First
Mainstream systems-especially psychology-cannot meet disability level needs.
For my son, this means:
10 Medicare sessions per year
then being forced to change psychologists
loss of rapport
repeated retelling of trauma
long waitlists
This is not “mainstream first.” This is mainstream failure.
Recommendation: Continuity of care must be prioritised over mainstream referral pathways.
Schedule 1, Part 6-Reasonable and Necessary Supports
There is still no legislated definition of parental responsibility or of what constitutes reasonable and necessary.
Through the AAT process, it has become clear that the term reasonable and necessary is used inconsistently and often without any objective standard. Different planners interpret it differently, and families are left trying to guess what wording will be accepted.
Medical practitioners or qualified, experienced professionals should be required to define what is reasonable and necessary, not administrative staff without clinical training.
Families should not be forced into endless disputes because the NDIA has no clear, legislated definition.
Recommendation: Include a clear, legislated definition of parental responsibility and a legislated definition of reasonable and necessary supports, grounded in clinical expertise.
Schedule 1, Part 8-Tightening the Meaning of Permanence
My son has reports from:
public hospital specialists
the Child Development Unit
a Clinical Director
Their recommendations have been ignored.
Narrowing access based on “treatability” risks administrative decisions overriding clinical expertise.
Recommendation: Eligibility decisions must be grounded in clinical evidence.
Schedule 1, Part 4-Support Determinations
This clause allows the Minister to reduce funding for entire groups of supports.
Predictable demand, not a blowout
WHO reports that 16% of the global population has a disability. Applied to Australia (~28 million), this equates to 4.48 million Australians.
NDIS statistics (31 March 2026):
774,456 people benefiting
562,034 receiving supports for the first time
18,530 initial plans recently approved.
This is not unexpected growth-it is predictable demand.
The NDIS is reaching people who were previously unsupported.
Over half a million people receiving support for the first time shows unmet need existed long before the NDIS.
International obligations
Under the CRPD and WHA74.8, Australia must ensure:
equal access
non-discrimination
continuity of supports
Economic evidence
WHO estimates a 10:1 return on disability inclusive investment.
Recommendation: Support determinations must comply with WHO health equity standards, the CRPD, and WHA74.8.
Schedule 1, Part 5-Plan Renewal
Fixed plan end dates and removal of rollover will harm participants.
My lived experience-plans lapsing and rolling over.
My son’s first plan lapsed for three years because I did not know how to use it. I did not know what an LAC was. I did not know where to go or what to do. No one contacted me. No one explained anything. No one followed up.
Later, my son’s plan was rolled over for four years with no scheduled review occurring. This meant four years of changes that were never discussed, including:
a major move from Sydney to a regional area
him commencing high school.
changes in functional capacity
changes in informal supports
changes in daily living needs
None of this was reviewed because the NDIA simply extended the plan without a plan review occuring.
Scheduled reviews are already not occurring.
This will:
increase plan gaps.
interrupt therapy
cause regression
create administrative harm.
Removing rollover punishes participants for NDIA delays.
Unspent funds often occur because:
providers are unavailable.
NDIA delays approvals
NDIA fails to contact participants.
workforce shortages
Fixed end dates + “uncontactable” suspensions = dangerous loophole
A single missed call could suspend a plan-then it could expire.
Recommendation: Plans must automatically extend when the NDIA fails to complete a review on time.
Schedule 2, Part 1-Registration of NDIS Providers
Small providers-often run by people with lived experience-cannot absorb rising registration, audit, and compliance costs.
Mandatory registration without scalable fees will force many to close.
Recommendation: Registration fees and compliance obligations must be scalable and proportionate to provider size and income.
Excessive Hourly Rates vs Actual Wages Paid
Providers can claim around $80 per hour for community support, yet frontline workers are often paid wages comparable to unskilled roles.
At one provider I support, the same worker is paid:
$36.23 per hour for NDIS clients
$43.24 per hour for aged care clients
This shows:
NDIS pricing does not align with real workforce costs.
Aged Care pays more for similar complexity work.
Providers can claim high hourly rates while paying low wages.
This results in excessive profitability.
Wage + Percentage Model
A fair solution is a wage + percentage model:
workers receive a fair, award, aligned wage.
providers receive a fixed percentage for overheads.
excessive margins are eliminated.
NDIA costs decrease due to workforce stability.
Recommendation: Adopt a wage plus percentage pricing model.
Public Hospital Evidence Ignored-ASD & Intellectual Disability
Last year, my son was formally diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder by a public hospital Child Development Unit. He already had an intellectual disability diagnosis.
The CDU recommended 8 hours per week of community access support so he can function with some level of independence.
The NDIA decided 3 hours is enough.
It is important to emphasise that:
these clinicians had no financial gain from their recommendations.
they were public hospital specialists.
their assessments were comprehensive, multidisciplinary, and unbiased.
Yet their recommendations were dismissed.
Recommendation: The NDIA must be required to properly read, consider, and give weight to clinical reports.
Administrative Burden and Carer Breakdown
Over eight years in the NDIS, I have learned that:
you must know the exact wording to use.
you must understand NDIA internal processes.
you must anticipate what evidence will be accepted.
you must know how to phrase goals “correctly”?
you must know how to challenge decisions.
Having a support coordinator or professional who knows the “right way to word things” has become essential just to secure an adequate plan.
Lived experience example 18-month AAT process for 3 hours of support.
I am currently in an 18-month AAT process over 3 hours of community access.
This process has involved:
lawyers who respond to every question with “I will take this on notice.”
NDIA representatives who never attend meetings, meaning no decisions are made.
repeated requests for evidence I have already provided.
no acknowledgement of the clinical reports stating my son requires 1:1 supervision.
the NDIA insisting that “informal supports” should do more.
My neighbour-who is friendly and kind-should not be expected, nor would I ever ask them, to take responsibility for my son’s supervision. Yet this is the NDIA’s position.
I am a mother, not a lawyer. I attend every meeting alone, provide every piece of evidence myself, and am repeatedly told no.
This is not a system designed for families. It is a system that breaks them.
I have already moved from carer burnout to carer breakdown.
Caring Makes Typical Employment Unsustainable
At 35 years old, I have had to work for myself because typical employment is impossible when you are a fulltime carer.
Self-employment is the only way I can:
work flexible hours.
stop suddenly when my son needs me.
manage crises.
attend appointments.
But it also means:
no sick leave
no annual leave
no stability
no superannuation
I also use my son’s support hours to:
attend my own medical appointments.
transport my terminally ill mother.
manage essential tasks.
and occasionally sit in the car for ten minutes with a coffee just to breathe
This is not misuse. This is survival.
Those hours are what keep me functioning enough to continue caring for him.
Mainstream Housing and Community Supports Are Failing People with Disability
In the Port Stephens / Newcastle region, there is:
no accessible community housing
no disability appropriate public housing
no safe options for families with disabled children
Real local example-unsafe, undignified, and dangerous conditions
One local sole parent caring for a teenage boy with disability had:
no accessible bathroom
no support workers available
no safe lifting equipment
As a result:
multiple ambulance callouts were required just to assist with lifting.
the family had to use the public swimming pool for showering.
showering required two people, but the parent was alone.
mainstream services could not assist.
Three young men left homeless twice.
Three young men with disability were:
homeless and living in a hotel for six months.
previously housed under a questionable ILO model
evicted when funding could not sustain 6 hours of daily support.
They were not evicted due to behaviour or nonpayment. They were evicted because:
the NDIS cannot fund housing.
mainstream housing cannot support disability needs.
the only available option collapsed.
Mainstream Supports Must Be Accessible-Not Theoretical
The Bill repeatedly pushes participants back into “mainstream supports.”
But mainstream supports must be:
accessible
available
appropriate
safe
actually capable of meeting disability needs
Right now, they are not.
Lived experience example-CHAMS unable to help my son after a suicide attempt.
After my son attempted suicide, he was referred to CHAMS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services). Their response was:
“We don’t help people with NDIS plans.”
And they discharged him.
This was a child in crisis. A child who had just attempted to take his own life. A child who needed urgent mental health intervention.
Instead of receiving support, he was turned away because he had a NDIS plan.
This is not “mainstream first.” This is mainstream abandonment.
Lived experience example-no access to speech therapy.
My son currently has no speech therapist. I cannot find one within a 1 hour 45-minute drive who has availability. We tried online therapy, but it is not suitable for his needs.
Lived experience example-public mental health, OT, physio, psychology.
In our region, public mental health services:
do not accept new referrals.
have waitlists of 12–24 months.
often discharge people after a single appointment
Public OT and physio services:
are booked out.
have no capacity for disability level needs.
refer people back to the NDIS.
Public psychology:
is inaccessible.
has long waitlists.
cannot provide continuity of care.
These are not “mainstream supports.” They are non-supports.
Recommendation: Mainstream systems must be funded and rebuilt before any expectation that they replace NDIS supports.
Mainstream Systems Are Offloading Their Responsibilities onto the NDIS
- Terminal medical conditions treated as “NDIS issues”. I have supported participants with terminal illnesses who were told to “apply to the NDIS” because the health system could not support them.
This is a health system failure.
- People released from custody placed into NDIS provider care I have seen individuals with PTSD from custody and complex reintegration needs placed into NDIS services.
NDIS support workers are not trained or funded to manage:
post custody trauma.
criminogenic behaviours
reintegration needs
safety risks
Lived experience example-young female staff placed at risk.
One participant was offloaded into the care of an unregistered provider late on a Friday afternoon, with:
no information
no risk assessment
no background provided
He insisted on his “right to choice and control” by demanding young female staff only.
A twenty, year old support worker called me terrified after he told her why he was on parole and said:
“Just wait until you fall asleep.”
This is not a NDIS issue. This is a justice system failure.
NDIS workers are not trained, equipped, or funded to manage high risk parole cases.
Recommendation: The justice system must not offload high risk individuals into NDIS services without proper training, risk assessment, or specialist support.
Lack of Accountability When Abuse or Risk Is Reported
One of the most concerning issues I have encountered is the lack of action when serious risks are reported.
Real example-WWCC loophole
A man in my region:
could not obtain a Working with Children Check
legally changed his name.
registered as a NDIS provider
bragged about exploiting the loophole
continued working with vulnerable people
This was reported to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission two years ago.
Nothing happened.
No investigation. No follow up. No accountability.
This is a systemic safeguarding failure.
Recommendation: The Bill must include stronger accountability mechanisms for the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, including mandatory investigation timelines and identity change alerts.
Additional Recommendation-Proper Consideration of Clinical Evidence
Families spend months gathering assessments from clinicians who understand their child’s needs. These reports are often:
comprehensive
multidisciplinary
written by public hospital teams.
provided with no financial incentive
Yet too often, they are dismissed.
If I-someone who works inside the system-struggle to secure the supports my son needs, what happens to families who cannot advocate at this level?
Recommendation: The NDIA must be required to properly read, consider, and give weight to clinical reports.
Conclusion
The intent to secure the NDIS for future generations is important. However, several clauses in this Bill risk:
worsening health inequities
reducing essential supports
increasing administrative harm
undermining clinical expertise
destabilising the workforce
breaking families who are already at their limit
The NDIS exists to support people with disability-not to limit them based on administrative convenience or political discretion.
I urge the Committee to amend the Bill to ensure it aligns with WHO standards, CRPD obligations, and the lived realities of people with disability and their families.