Submission regarding the National Disability Insurance
Scheme Amendment (Future Generation of Supports) Bill
2026
To the Committee
My name is , I am a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme living independently in regional South Australia with advanced Multiple Sclerosis, significant mobility impairment and vision impairment.
This submission has been prepared with the assistance of one of my long-term independent support workers, to ensure my views and lived experience are accurately reflected.
I support reforms that strengthen the integrity, quality and long-term sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). However, I am concerned that aspects of the proposed reforms may unintentionally disadvantage participants like me whose existing support arrangements are already delivering safe, effective and person-centred outcomes.
My goal has always been simple: to remain living independently in my own home, continue directing my own life and participate meaningfully in my community.
With the right supports, I have been able to achieve exactly that.
About Me
I have advanced Multiple Sclerosis, significant mobility impairment and vision impairment. As a result, I require substantial physical assistance each day to remain living safely and independently in my own home.
Despite my physical disability, I continue to make informed decisions about every aspect of my life. I direct my own support team, communicate my wishes clearly, make decisions about my healthcare and daily routines, and remain actively involved in planning my supports.
My current support arrangements have evolved over several years into a hybrid model, combining registered providers with trusted independent support workers. This approach provides the safeguards of registered services while also delivering the continuity, flexibility and genuine choice that experienced independent workers bring.
Together, these supports have enabled me to remain safely in my own home, reduce falls, improve my wellbeing and continue participating in my community.
I believe my circumstances demonstrate exactly what the NDIS was designed to achieve: supporting participants to live independently, exercise genuine choice and control, and direct their own lives.
It is from that perspective that I respectfully offer the following concerns and recommendations.
Executive Summary
I respectfully ask the Committee to ensure that the proposed reforms:
-
Recognise that high physical support needs do not equate to reduced cognitive capacity or a reduced ability to self-direct supports.
-
Protect participants’ ability to retain trusted support teams and successful hybrid support models where they are demonstrably delivering safe, effective and positive participant outcomes.
-
Ensure provider registration reforms do not unintentionally force experienced independent micro providers out of the disability sector, particularly where they provide continuity of support for participants with complex needs.
-
Recognise the unique workforce challenges faced by participants living in regional Australia, where suitable replacement workers may not be readily available.
-
Introduce a grandfathered transition period of at least 12–24 months if registration requirements change, allowing existing support arrangements to continue while providers register or safe alternative arrangements are established.
-
Preserve meaningful community participation supports that enable participants to remain independent, connected and living in their own homes.
Concern 1 – High Physical Support Needs Should Not Be
Confused with Reduced Decision-Making Capacity
This is my greatest concern.
I live with advanced Multiple Sclerosis, significant mobility impairment and vision impairment. As a result, I require substantial physical assistance each day to remain living safely and independently in my own home.
However, my physical disability does not reflect my cognitive capacity.
I continue to make informed decisions about my life, direct my own support team, manage my own affairs and determine how I wish to live.
Functional Capacity Assessments play an important role in identifying physical support needs. My concern is not with these assessments themselves, but with ensuring that physical support requirements are considered alongside a participant’s cognitive capacity, judgement, decision making ability and demonstrated ability to successfully direct their own supports.
I recognise that some participants experience both physical and cognitive impairments. My concern is simply that one should never be assumed from the other.
Requiring substantial physical assistance should not, in itself, lead to assumptions that a participant:
- has reduced decision-making capacity;
- requires provider-directed supports;
- should transition to Supported Independent Living (SIL); or
- should experience reduced choice and control. There is a fundamental difference between requiring physical assistance and requiring someone else to make decisions on your behalf.
Participants who require the highest levels of physical support should not be the very people who experience the greatest erosion of choice and control.
My current support arrangements demonstrate that participants with complex physical disabilities can continue to live independently while successfully directing their own supports.
I do not need someone to direct my life. I need people to assist me in living the life that I direct.
Recommendation
Future assessment, planning and funding decisions should clearly distinguish between physical support needs and a participant’s cognitive capacity, decision-making ability and ability to self direct their supports. High physical support needs alone should never be interpreted as evidence of diminished autonomy.
Concern 2 – Continuity of Support and Successful Hybrid
Support Models Should Be Protected
My current support arrangements have evolved over several years into a carefully balanced hybrid model, combining registered providers with experienced independent support workers.
This was not accidental. It reflects what has proven to work best for my individual needs.
For participants with complex disabilities, continuity of support is not simply a personal preference—it is a clinical safeguard.
My trusted support workers understand my Multiple Sclerosis, vision impairment, communication style, daily routines and how to safely support me while encouraging my independence. That continuity has contributed to safer supports, fewer falls, increased confidence and improved wellbeing.
Registered providers play an important role within the NDIS and remain an important part of my own support arrangements. However, my experience has shown that quality is determined by the individual worker—not solely by the organisation employing them.
Like many participants, I have experienced challenges associated with agency-based supports, including frequent staff turnover and the repeated need to orient new workers to my complex needs. By contrast, experienced independent support workers have provided the consistency and flexibility that have enabled me to build stable, long-term support relationships.
The strength of my current arrangements lies in combining the best aspects of both models.
Requiring participants to change successful support teams solely because of administrative changes risks disrupting arrangements that are already delivering the outcomes the NDIS was designed to achieve.
Recommendation
Protect participants’ ability to retain successful hybrid support arrangements and trusted support teams where they are demonstrably delivering safe, effective and positive participant outcomes. The quality of disability support should be measured by the outcomes it achieves for participants—not simply by provider type.
Concern 3 – Registration Reforms Must Protect
Participants Without Reducing Choice
I understand and support the Government’s objective of strengthening quality and safeguarding participants through provider registration.
However, I am concerned that these reforms may unintentionally reduce the very choice and continuity they are intended to protect.
Some of my trusted support workers operate as independent micro providers, supporting only one or a small number of participants. For businesses of this size, the financial and administrative burden of registration may simply not be viable.
If these experienced workers leave the sector, participants may lose trusted support relationships—not because of concerns about quality or safety, but because those providers have been priced out of continuing their work.
This risk is even greater in regional Australia, where recruiting and retaining experienced disability support workers is already challenging. Building my current support team has taken years, and suitable replacements may not be readily available.
If registration requirements change, participants with established, successful support arrangements should not be forced into abrupt disruption.
Recommendation
If new registration requirements are introduced, existing participants should be provided with a grandfathered transition period of at least 12–24 months. During this time, participants should be able to continue receiving supports from their existing providers while registration is completed where appropriate or safe alternative arrangements are established.
Reforms should protect participants without unintentionally dismantling support arrangements that are already safe, effective and delivering positive outcomes.
Concern 4 – Community Participation Is Essential to Maintaining
Independence
Community participation is not simply about social activities.
For me, it is essential to maintaining my health, wellbeing and independence. It enables me to attend appointments, remain physically active, stay connected to my community and continue living the life I choose.
Maintaining these supports helps prevent isolation, promotes physical and mental wellbeing and reduces the risk of declining health and increased reliance on more intensive services.
Supporting participants to remain active and engaged in their communities is not only consistent with the objectives of the NDIS—it is also a sound long-term investment.
Recommendation
Ensure that future reforms continue to recognise meaningful community participation as an essential support that enables participants to remain independent, healthy and connected to their communities.
Conclusion
I support reforms that strengthen the integrity and long-term sustainability of the NDIS.
However, I respectfully ask that these reforms recognise and preserve support arrangements that are already delivering exactly the outcomes the Scheme was designed to achieve.
My current supports enable me to remain living safely in my own home, direct my own life, participate in my community and maintain genuine choice and control despite significant physical disability.
These outcomes have taken years to build.
I respectfully ask the Committee to ensure that future reforms strengthen the NDIS without unintentionally dismantling successful support arrangements that are already working well.
Thank you for considering my submission and for the opportunity to contribute to this important review.
Yours sincerely,