National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3064
8th July 2026
Personal Submission
RE: Senate Inquiry into the NDIS Bill
I am writing to you in support for a minimum 6-month enquiry into the Government’s planned NDIS cuts in trying to achieve stronger scrutiny on the suggested changes and the outcome it will have for the schemes participants and ask if you could present this as further proof that the community desires this.
I have an adult son who has been with the NDIS since 2017 and fully support the importance of and need for the scheme, having lived through what it has provided for my son and how it has supported him in achieving goals, dreams and improved health & life, so it is important that changes are driven with the original aim of improving the lives, health, community access and goals through the ability to control and make decisions about their life that those without disability take for granted.
My concern that in its current form the indicated changes are taking away the core of what the scheme was about and to move towards a simplified one decision suits all approach, particularly with the move to a new “Robo’ type review process, something proven to not work when viewed in the light of what occurred with ‘Robo-debt’ and the current failure this same approach is having in aged care, for those seeking at home live-in supports designed to reduce the demand on the growing strained aged care residential accommodation situation.
This negative feeling towards the changes has developed through my son’s current experience with the NDIA and changes made to his current plan at the end of last year, currently we are going through an ART case in relation to this and it has been the process leading up to this that has created the major concern as a for runner to what they are trying to implement.
Mid last year my son put in an application for additional funding support for a new modified accessible vehicle as his current 12 year old modified van is having access reliability issues and increasing costly maintenance. This resulted in an unplanned total plan review for him. There was no consultation on his supports of why needed, how used, etc… noting his supports had been stable for the last 4 years, on moving into his SDA accommodation through the scheme. He had never had to ask for emergency funding and has been able to undertake full-time employment, This review resulted in an approximate cut of 50% to his plan, reducing his 1:1 core daily supports, community access, Health capacity building activities and SDA accommodation.
The process on the decision to cut his funding was incredibly poorly done, particularly in communication, discussion in relation to supports, ability to provide feedback and the process overall and this was without using a ‘Robo’ type platform for the review. The review, several months after the initial submission for assistance with a new modified vehicle, was initiated through a short phone call stating his initial application for the support for vehicle modification was denied but that other supports would now also be reduced. This was followed by another non-advised phone call a week later whist he was at work, to go through the changes to his plan, which was then issued the next day. Knowing the process around business reviews it is obvious that this call was simply to justify the new plan so they could issue, as there was no discussion allowed or supporting document submission requests or offer to provide said additional feedback. The fact the report was issued directly after the call indicates there was no intent to consult, just issue on their decision with no regard to the person, what the support provide and the outcome in which it would result.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3064
Due to his reduced plan he had to reduce his 1:1 care as there was insufficient funds. This meant on a couple of days per week he was not able to have supports for personal care, meals etc… this placed an incredible amount of stress on him, particularly for his employment but also uncertainty around if he would be able to keep his accommodation. Due to his discomfort in attending his work office without having his required personal care, his employer was of great understanding and allowed him to work from home, but he was eventually reduced to 4 days a week. Other issues related to cuts to his ability to attend hydrotherapy and Physio, all extremely important to his health capacity Building, reduced capacity building activities were reduced to one hour a month, a joke! These are health issues and 2 hours a week are needed but even the one hour a month was not funded to have 1:1 supports attend with him so he could participate and assume because these supports were not funded as part of the wish to reduce funds provided through the Social, Community, Economic and Participation (SCEP) supports.
The process was a debacle, not only was there little review done, some justifications and knowledge about his situation was based on old or incorrect information and / or assumptions and there was no effort to correct, review or confirm as accurate. The outcome of the plan review resulted in a request for an internal review, this occurred just over three months later but the review was based on the new reduced plan, not his plan prior to the review, the same inaccuracies re his situation, living arrangements and required supports. On receipt of the internal review, some of the supports were increased but an element of these were not funded, even though approved. This resulted in the needed application to the ART for review.
I only mention the above as an indication of what looks to be the outcome to NDIS participants in light of the proposed changes the Government is planning to implement, considering the changes have not yet even been made and particularly when, in this case, my son who has severe spastic quadriplegia effecting his whole body and requires a powered wheelchair for mobility, no magical cure and his situation as he gets alder becomes harder, is apparently the exact type of participant they are saying the scheme will be focused on going forward. These cuts are happening now and the future looks concerning.
Cuts are being made as a financial decision with no reflection on the purpose of the scheme or the overall holistic picture for each individual participant. One-fit options regarding supports will not work as no two disabilities are the same for each individual’s health, abilities or needs. Yes, to have the NDIS is important and it must be viable financially but to go after the participants
themselves as easy targets is wrong, particularly when considering all the fraud, poorexpenditure governance on submitted claims, exuberant pricing according to the NDIS Pricing arrangements as just some examples of areas to focus on, I also do not understand why it is not explained that the funds to provide the supports to participants is not dollars going into the pockets of the participants but spent in the community on services and those providing supports, so economically, a massive input to the economic picture of Australia.
A better outcome is needed in light of suggested amendments and changes as currently personally experienced and that I can only feel has occurred in direct relation to expected future legislation changes.
At a minimum, a 6-month Senate enquiry is a necessity.