National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3212
Submission to the NDIS Review / Inquiry
-
Time Constraints on Consultations With respect, I must first raise my concern regarding the incredibly limited timeframe provided to address these critically important issues. Because of this short window, many submissions—including my own—may appear more disjointed and brief than a topic of this magnitude deserves.
-
The Reality of Modern Caregiving As one half of a parenting team that has cared for our severely physically disabled daughter for over 40 years, the introduction of the NDIS was a welcome development that eased our burden. However, the reality on the ground is that while she has support workers for a good portion of the week, my wife and I must constantly step in to fill the gaps when workers are unavailable. Without exaggeration, this occurs at least 50% of the time. Caregiving is, and always has been, a virtual 24-hour commitment.
-
Permanent Disability and the “Bureaucratic Wringer” Regarding the consideration of “all appropriate treatment reassessment rules,” the governing body must ensure they get this right. For many years, we have had to deal with situations where our daughter’s condition is questioned. Participants with permanent, lifelong disabilities will never—no matter how a bureaucrat frames it—get better; in fact, they often deteriorate.
Families like ours should not be forced through a bureaucratic wringer to prove a permanent disability ad nauseam. In our daughter’s case, she will not get better. The financial and emotional cost associated with this constant compliance is entirely unwarranted. We have personally experienced these time delays and expenses, which run into thousands of dollars. As a taxpayer, this fiscal waste concerns me deeply.
-
The “NDIS Tax” on Equipment and Pricing The current NDIS Price Guide requires urgent review. Scheme participants are often capable of sourcing hardware and equipment at far more favourable prices than registered providers. Currently, the bar for compliance is set ridiculously high, artificially inflating system costs. We, and many others, have experienced this firsthand: the moment a medical item is required and the acronym “NDIS” enters the equation, the price skyrockets.
-
Ministerial Powers and Automated Decisions It is untenable that the Minister should have the power to cut funding without a clear pathway for appeal. If the agency responsible for administering the system fails to
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3212
perform, the end-user should not be punished. Furthermore, there should absolutely be no automated decision-making. The NDIA is dealing with human beings, not machines.
-
Reductions in Social and Community Participation The proposed 50% cut to social and community participation funding is deeply concerning. While my daughter does not utilize this heavily at present, there will inevitably come a time when age or our eventual passing makes it impossible for my wife and me to perform the multitude of daily chores we have managed for decades. When that time comes, she will absolutely rely on this funding to survive.
-
The Vital Importance of Self-Management For the reasons stated above, the Self-Management component of the NDIS must not be altered in a way that disadvantages clients. In our daughter’s case, self-management is where the scheme truly shines. The care she requires is highly specialized. Under a self-managed plan, we can employ independent workers who become intimately familiar with her specific needs.
Large service providers are fundamentally incapable of delivering this level of continuity. In practice, large agencies send a different worker to the house on almost every visit. When this happens, my wife or I must step in to train and guide that individual for several shifts before they achieve even basic proficiency. Self management avoids this risk and ensures safe, consistent care.