Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Re: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
My name is . I am a person living with disability, a parent of a child with significant disability, and an independent disability support worker in regional Queensland. These three perspectives have given me a unique understanding of how the NDIS affects participants, families and frontline workers. It is from these combined experiences that I make this submission.
I support the long-term sustainability of the NDIS and agree that fraud, waste and misuse of funding should be addressed. However, I am concerned that aspects of the proposed Bill may unintentionally reduce access to essential supports for people with genuine and lifelong disability.
As someone who lives with disability, I understand firsthand the impact that functional impairments can have on daily life, employment, health and community participation. Disability does not exist in isolation; it affects families, carers, support networks and the broader community. Access to appropriate supports can be the difference between participation and isolation, independence and crisis.
As the parent of a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 3, ADHD and intellectual impairment, I also have firsthand experience of the reality faced by families who rely on the NDIS.
My son’s disability is permanent and significant. His needs do not fluctuate based on government budgets, administrative priorities or policy changes. The supports funded through the NDIS help maintain safety, community participation, skill development and family stability.
My concerns are not theoretical. Despite my son’s lifelong disabilities and ongoing high support needs, our family experienced a substantial reduction in NDIS funding during a plan review. This occurred despite no corresponding reduction in his disability, functional impairments or support requirements.
The practical impact of funding reductions is often overlooked. When supports are removed, the need does not disappear. Instead, responsibility is transferred to families, many of whom are already carrying significant financial, emotional and physical burdens. Reduced supports can increase the risk of participant isolation, family stress, carer burnout, reduced opportunities for skill development and, ultimately, more costly crisis interventions.
This experience has reinforced my concern that reforms intended to improve sustainability must be carefully balanced against the reality of people’s lives. Funding decisions and eligibility requirements should remain firmly connected to an individual’s functional impairment and support needs rather than administrative targets or cost-containment measures.
I am concerned about proposed changes that may create additional barriers to access or place greater emphasis on exhausting treatment options before eligibility is confirmed. Families of children with permanent disabilities often spend years pursuing therapies, assessments and interventions. Requiring further proof that every possible treatment has been exhausted risks creating unnecessary delays, stress and uncertainty for people whose disabilities are already well established.
I am also concerned about assumptions that individuals who lose access to the NDIS will be adequately supported through alternative systems. In regional communities, many services are already overstretched or unavailable. Families frequently experience long wait lists and limited access to specialised disability supports. If participants are moved out of the NDIS without equivalent supports being immediately available and accessible, there is a real risk that vulnerable people will simply go without support.
As both a person with disability and a support worker, I am particularly concerned about reforms that may increase administrative burdens while reducing flexibility. People with disability already spend considerable time navigating assessments, evidence requirements, reviews and service systems. Reforms should reduce these barriers, not increase them.
Through my work as an independent support worker, I have witnessed the positive impact that flexible and individualised supports can have on participants’ wellbeing, independence and community participation. I have also seen the consequences when participants are unable to access the supports they need. The NDIS works best when it recognises that disability affects each person differently and allows supports to be tailored to individual circumstances.
I encourage the Committee to carefully consider whether proposed changes could unintentionally reduce flexibility or create additional administrative barriers that divert resources away from direct support and into compliance processes.
I respectfully ask the Committee to ensure that:
1. People with clearly permanent and significant disabilities are not subjected to unnecessary reassessment processes. 2. Eligibility requirements remain practical and achievable for families already managing complex disability-related challenges. 3. Participants are not removed from the NDIS unless equivalent supports are demonstrably available, accessible and capable of meeting their needs. 4. Funding decisions remain grounded in functional impairment and support needs rather than cost-containment objectives. 5. The lived experience of participants, families and frontline workers remains central to any reform process. 6. Sustainability measures do not come at the expense of safety, dignity, independence and quality of life for Australians living with disability.
The NDIS was created to provide support based on need rather than circumstance. Any reforms should preserve that principle while ensuring the scheme remains sustainable for future generations. A sustainable NDIS should not only be financially sustainable, but also sustainable for the people and families who depend on it every day.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours sincerely,