Submission 3222 — RN — NDIS Future Generations Bill

1 June 2026

Dear Committee Secretary,

I write as a registered nurse, disability sector professional, disabled person, and parent of two disabled children. Across these roles, I witness daily the consequences of disability policy decisions on families, carers, and disabled Australians.

I am deeply concerned that the proposed NDIS reforms and funding reductions will not reduce the need for support. They will transfer the burden of care onto families, unpaid carers, public hospitals, emergency systems, and already overstretched community services.

There is no genuine safety net for people who lose access to the NDIS. Families are being told they may no longer qualify for supports, yet there is no realistic alternative system capable of replacing what is being removed. Medicare, state systems, public allied health services, and community organisations do not have the funding, workforce capacity, or infrastructure to absorb this demand at scale.

I know this personally. Despite being disabled myself, I cannot access adequate supports for my own needs. I have professional knowledge of how to navigate systems, yet I still fall through the gaps. For families without advocacy skills, health literacy, financial stability, or professional experience, the consequences are far worse.

The financial impact of disability support withdrawal is rarely quantified in public debate. Using current 2025–26 pricing data from the NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits, Medicare schedule fees, ABS earnings data, and national cost-of living data, the following analysis models the annual out-of-pocket costs faced by a family with two disabled children and one disabled adult if adequate NDIS support is unavailable.

This scenario reflects a moderate level of support:

• two Occupational Therapy sessions per month per child
• two physiotherapy sessions per month per child
• ten hours of support work per week
• basic continence, medication, and specialist costs This is not a high-support scenario. It reflects a functional baseline that many families require simply to maintain safety, participation, and stability.

The estimated annual out-of-pocket disability-related cost is approximately $72,953 after available rebates and subsidies. This equates to approximately $1,403 per week. Medicare and existing government supports cover less than 11% of the total cost.

These are not optional expenses. They are the costs associated with therapy, physical care, continence management, medications, developmental support, supervision, and basic functioning.

1 | P a g e

For many families, these costs are impossible to absorb privately. The likely outcomes are predictable:

• parents reducing work hours or leaving employment entirely
• carers experiencing severe burnout and declining health
• increased financial hardship and housing insecurity
• disabled people becoming isolated and unsafe
• rising demand on hospitals, crisis systems, and mental health services The proposed reforms risk shifting enormous economic pressure onto unpaid carers, most of whom are women. Many are already financially vulnerable, exhausted, ageing, or disabled themselves. These reforms risk reversing decades of progress in women’s workforce participation and economic security by increasing reliance on unpaid caregiving labour.

The burden does not disappear when funding is removed. It is transferred silently into homes, relationships, emergency departments, and the bodies of carers already operating beyond capacity.

For disabled children, early supports are not luxuries. They are developmental supports that influence communication, education, regulation, independence, and long-term participation in society. Reducing access to therapy, behavioural support, community participation, and functional supports risks poorer lifelong outcomes and significantly greater long-term social and economic costs.

These reforms may produce short-term reductions in expenditure, but they are likely to generate substantially greater downstream costs through:

• increased hospital admissions
• mental health crises
• carer collapse
• reduced workforce participation
• higher long-term welfare reliance
• increased demand for emergency accommodation and crisis services This is not genuine reform. It is cost shifting.

The disability workforce is already under strain across Australia. Reduced funding certainty and increasing barriers to participant access risk destabilising the sector further, contributing to workforce attrition, provider withdrawal, and reduced access to experienced allied health professionals and support workers.

These reforms also raise serious concerns regarding Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

In particular:

2 | P a g e

• Article 19 recognises the right of disabled people to live independently and participate fully in the community. Reductions in support hours and community participation funding risk increasing isolation and dependence.

• Article 28 recognises the right to an adequate standard of living and social protection. Removing supports without accessible alternatives risks deepening poverty, housing instability, and financial hardship for disabled people and carers.

• Article 26 recognises the right to habilitation and rehabilitation services. Increased barriers to therapies and functional supports undermine disabled people’s ability to maintain health, function, and participation.

• Article 4 requires governments to closely consult and actively involve disabled people in decisions affecting them. Many disabled people, carers, and advocacy organisations feel these reforms are proceeding without meaningful co-design or genuine consideration of real-world impacts.

Disabled Australians do not require sympathy. They require systems that are functional, sustainable, accessible, and grounded in human rights.

Recommendations:

1. Reject blanket funding reductions for participants with moderate, high, or complex support needs.

2. Preserve accessible review, appeal, and oversight rights for all participants.

3. Ensure genuine co-design led by disabled people, carers, and representative organisations before reforms are implemented.

4. Establish a properly funded alternative pathway for individuals deemed ineligible for the NDIS before any support withdrawal occurs.

5. Undertake independent modelling of the long-term economic impact of transferring disability support costs onto unpaid carers and families.

6. Ensure all disability reforms are assessed for compliance with Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD.

These reforms will not eliminate disability-related need. They will determine whether the burden is shared collectively through an equitable public system or forced onto families already at breaking point.

Behind every funding reduction is a person attempting to remain safe, participate in society, raise children, maintain employment, preserve their health, or simply survive another week without crisis.

I urge the Committee to consider not only the financial sustainability of the NDIS, but the human, economic, and social consequences of withdrawing essential supports from those who rely upon them.

3 | P a g e

Kind regards,

RN | Disability Sector Professional | Parent of Disabled Children

Adelaide, South Australia

4 | P a g e