National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3368
Dear Senators,
I write with respect and concern regarding the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) amendments, “securing the NDIS for future generations.” I am a speech pathologist working with participants who rely on the Scheme not just in theory, but in the practical realities of the everyday. My concern is grounded in what I observe each day in my clinical work. I support individuals with moderate to severe intellectual disability and significant expressive and receptive language impairments. These participants depend on consistent, structured support to communicate basic needs, engage with others, and participate safely outside the home. For many, support workers are not an “adjunct” to therapy. They are the medium through which therapy becomes real; they are the people who carry communication strategies into community. In many cases, the supports currently funded are already insufficient. Where support worker hours fall short, the burden does not disappear; it is displaced. It falls onto already struggling parents who become the default providers of care, coordination, and communication scaffolding. In families I work with, this has meant reduced workforce participation, persistent instability, and prolonged engagement with review and appeals processes. Systems intended to support begin to feel like recursive loops; time, energy, and resources get sucked up by administration rather than care. The proposed changes, particularly those relating to the assessment of “reasonable and necessary” supports under Section 34A, raise concern that this gap may widen, especially where functional communication needs are complex. If funding becomes more constrained or less responsive to communication needs, there is a real risk that supports essential to safety, regulation, and participation will be reduced. For the individuals I support, this would not be a mild inconvenience. It would mean fewer opportunities to regulate, fewer chances to leave the home, and increased reliance on informal care structures that are already under strain. Support workers, in this context, are not optional services. They are part of the system that allows a person with communication disability to exist in social space and be understood, make choices, and participate. Remove or reduce parts of that system, and participation shrinks. Where formal supports are removed, informal systems are assumed to expand. But these systems are not infinitely elastic. In families where one parent works away or where caregiving responsibilities are already asymmetrical, the likely outcomes are predictable: withdrawal from employment, financial pressure, and increasing stress within the household. These are not unintended consequences so much as foreseeable redistributions of cost and labour. I acknowledge that NDIS sustainability is an issue. However, sustainability must be considered in terms of people, not just in terms of dollars. An NDIS that is financially sustainable and also pushes families into instability is not, in the longer term, sustainable. I respectfully ask the Senate to consider the lived and functional realities of participants with complex communication needs when assessing these amendments. In particular, please consider:
- the role of support workers in enabling communication, safety, and participation
- the risk of increased reliance on unpaid informal supports
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3368
- and the importance of ensuring that clinical recommendations can be meaningfully realised through funded supports
Thank you for considering this perspective. Yours sincerely,