To: The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Regarding: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026 [1]
- Introduction
Dear Committee Secretariat,
My name is Kelly Stockbridge, and I operate a small cleaning business based in Mudgee NSW. I am writing to provide feedback on the proposed NDIS Amendment Bill 2026. I am making this submission from a unique dual perspective: as a local service provider to some NDIS clients, and as a close friend to individuals living with permanent disabilities. [1]
- My Core Concerns and Recommendations Impact on Participants – Choice and Control Through my work and my relationships with people who rely on the NDIS, I have seen how important choice and control are to maintaining independence, dignity, and wellbeing. I am concerned that increasingly restrictive eligibility criteria and funding limitations will reduce participants’ ability to choose the supports that best meet their individual needs.
For many participants, choosing a provider is about far more than cost. It is about trust, consistency, safety, and receiving support from someone who understands their home, their routines, and their personal circumstances. These long-term relationships contribute significantly to participants’ confidence and ability to remain living independently.
Impact on Small Providers
As the owner of a small cleaning business providing NDIS services in a regional community, I see every day how participants benefit from reliable, personalised support delivered by local providers who build ongoing professional relationships with their clients.
Many participants choose independent local providers because our service model is flexible and tailored to their needs. We supply all cleaning equipment and products, complete the practical household tasks participants require, and provide continuity by sending the same staff wherever possible. This consistency builds trust and enables staff to identify changes in a participant’s wellbeing or living environment that may otherwise go unnoticed.
By comparison, some larger service models operate under policies that may require participants to provide their own cleaning equipment, rotate different staff through each visit, or limit the tasks workers are permitted to perform due to organisational policies. While these models may suit some participants, they are not appropriate for everyone. Participants should retain the right to choose the provider whose approach best meets their individual needs, rather than having those choices limited by funding or regulatory changes.
If reforms make it more difficult for small, high-quality local providers to remain viable, participants risk losing access to the personalised supports they have deliberately chosen. This would reduce genuine choice and control and could ultimately lead to poorer outcomes for participants.
Recommendation
I respectfully urge the Committee to ensure that measures designed to improve the long-term sustainability of the NDIS do not inadvertently reduce participant choice or disadvantage small community providers. Any reforms should:
● protect participants’ right to choose who provides services in their home; ● recognise the important role that independent and regional providers play in delivering personalised, flexible supports; ● ensure funding and regulatory settings allow participants to continue accessing the providers that best meet their individual needs; and ● preserve genuine choice and control as a cornerstone of the NDIS.
- Case Study / Personal Experience As the owner of a business providing cleaning services to NDIS participants in a regional community, I have seen firsthand the difference these supports make in keeping people healthy, independent, and living safely in their own homes. Regular cleaning maintains a hygienic environment, preventing the build-up of dust, mould, waste, and other hazards that can worsen existing health conditions, increase the risk of infection or injury, and ultimately contribute to avoidable hospital admissions or the need for residential care. For many participants, these supports also reduce the overwhelming burden of maintaining a home while managing the daily challenges of living with disability.
I have also seen participants lose essential funding due to definitions that do not accurately reflect the realities of regional Australia. Some of our clients live approximately 40 minutes from the nearest town but are no longer considered “remote” under current classifications. As a result, their funding no longer adequately covers the travel time required for support workers to reach their homes or to accompany them to access essential services.
A shopping trip that may be considered a one-hour support in a metropolitan area can require more than two and a half hours in a regional location once travel to and from town is included. Without sufficient funding to account for these distances, participants are effectively denied the same level of access to essential supports that people in urban areas receive. This creates inequitable outcomes and limits genuine choice and control.
These experiences demonstrate the importance of ensuring that NDIS policy and funding decisions reflect the realities of regional and rural communities. Participants should not lose access to essential supports because metropolitan-based definitions fail to recognise the additional time and costs involved in living outside major centres.
3A. Access to Specialist Supports in Regional Communities
Regional participants face additional barriers that are often overlooked when funding decisions are based on metropolitan assumptions. Many specialist disability services simply do not exist in smaller communities. For example, some of our clients in Mudgee require specialist supports that are only available in Bathurst. Previously, participants could use their funding to travel to access these essential services.
Following recent changes, some participants have been reclassified under geographic definitions that no longer recognise their circumstances. Because the specialist service is not located within their town, they are no longer eligible for the funding required to travel and access it. In practice, this means they have not gained access to an equivalent local service—they have simply lost access to the specialist support altogether.
This creates an inequitable outcome where participants living in regional areas are disadvantaged solely because of where they live. Genuine choice and control should include the ability to access the most appropriate support, even when that support is located outside a participant’s local community. Geographic classifications and funding models must reflect the realities of regional Australia so that participants are not excluded from essential services simply because those services are unavailable in their hometown.
- Conclusion Thank you for taking the time to read my submission. I ask that the Senate Committee recommends significant amendments to this Bill to protect participant rights and support the network of small businesses that keep the scheme running smoothly. [, 2]
Sincerely,
Kelly Stockbridge
K+Co Mudgee