Submission 3390 — Name Withheld — NDIS Future Generations Bill

Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill

2026

Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au Date: 31 May 2026

This submission is made in strong opposition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. I am a 50-year-old married NDIS support worker. I provide consistent, ongoing support to an NDIS participant with complex and fluctuating disabilities and her autistic child, who is also an NDIS participant. I also balance caring responsibilities within my own household, which includes:  an 18-year-old autistic child requiring ongoing informal care  a 13-year-old child with aquired brain injury requiring ongoing care  another children attending secondary school  my ageing parents, who live with my husband and me This submission outlines how the proposed changes will:  reduce access to appropriate supports for people with complex, fluctuating and intersecting disabilities  destabilise essential support relationships, particularly for autistic participants  undermine the viability of experienced and consistent support workers  increase reliance on already stretched informal carers across multiple generations  disproportionately impact women, families, and regional households  ultimately increase long-term costs to government

This Bill risks shifting responsibility away from the NDIS onto families and workers who are already operating at capacity.

Background

I am an NDIS support worker who provides regular, stable care to a participant with significant and fluctuating disabilities and her autistic child. My work is not transactional. It relies on:  trust  consistency  understanding of complex and changing needs At the same time, I am part of a multi-generational household:  I care for my 18-year-old autistic child  I support my two school-aged children, one of whom has an acquired brain injury  I assist my ageing parents who live with us This combination of paid and unpaid care responsibilities is increasingly common across Australia.

1. Functional Capacity and Single Impairment Model (Schedule 1 Part 3; Parts 8–9)

The proposed shift from whole-of-person assessment to a single impairment model fundamentally misrepresents how disability operates in practice. Impact on participants I support The participant I care for experiences:  vision impairment  chronic pain  fatigue  reduced mobility and dexterity These interact in ways that cannot be separated into a single impairment. Assessing only one aspect risks:  underfunding supports  misrepresenting actual functional need  placing participants at risk Impact on autistic participants For autistic individuals, supports must be:  stable  predictable  relationship-based Underestimating family support needs directly destabilises the care environment.

2. Requirement to Exhaust Treatment Options (Schedule 1 Part 8) The requirement to exhaust treatment options is not grounded in clinical reality. Impact on participants Many conditions I see in my work are:  chronic  lifelong  managed, not cured Requiring “exhaustion” of treatment:  delays access to support  ignores side effects and risks  ignores financial burdens, already high for people with chronic health issues  assumes access to services that may not exist Practical consequence In practice, this will:  leave people without support during critical periods  result in deterioration that requires more costly intervention later

3. Ministerial Powers to Reduce Funding (Schedule 1 Part 4; Schedule 3) The ability to reduce supports without review introduces significant instability. Impact on participants Funding reductions will:  interrupt established care arrangements  reduce hours of support  undermine independence and safety  increase isolation and lower quality of life Impact on support workers For workers like me:  inconsistent funding leads to job instability

 clients reduce hours or discontinue support  continuity of care is lost

4. Removal of Review and Reassessment Rights (Schedule 1 Parts 1, 2, 5 and 8) The restriction of review rights and reassessment flexibility has serious consequences. Impact on participants Fluctuating conditions require flexible responses. Without reassessment:  supports will not match need  crises will increase Impact on families and workers This shifts responsibility onto:  families  informal carers  frontline workers without providing additional resources.

5. Supports Reduced Before Replacement Systems Are Ready (Schedule 1 Part 4) The risk of support reduction before alternatives are operational is significant.

Impact

In practice this will:  increase isolation  reduce safety  increase reliance on informal and emergency supports This creates inefficiency and higher long-term costs.

6. Workforce Stability and Registration Requirements The proposed introduction of fee-based registration requirements for support workers poses a serious risk to workforce stability. Impact on workers For independent support workers:  additional costs are not sustainable  administrative burden increases  many will leave the sector Impact on participants Loss of independent workers means:  reduced access to consistent care  increased reliance on agency staff  frequent personnel changes For autistic participants, this leads to:  distress  behavioural escalation  regression

7. Transport Inequities The current transport funding model is not fit for purpose.

Issues

 Participant transport funding is insufficient  Provider travel charges are excessive

Impact

Participants in regional areas are:  effectively excluded from services  dependent on others

Recommendation

 Increase participant transport funding  Allow support workers to charge travel only when providing transport to participants, not commuting

8. Intergenerational and Household Impact My situation reflects a growing reality: care responsibilities are layered across generations. In my household:  I support my autistic adult child  I raise two school-aged children, one of whom has an acquired brain injury.  I assist my ageing parents At the same time, I provide essential paid care to others. Impact of this Bill The Bill increases pressure across all these roles simultaneously:  Reduced supports for participants → increased reliance on workers and families  Workforce instability → reduced income and job security  Increased unpaid care → loss of personal capacity and wellbeing This is not sustainable.

9. Broader Economic and Social Impact This Bill does not reduce costs — it redistributes them. Likely outcomes  increased carer burnout  workforce exit (both carers and support workers)  increased reliance on higher-cost services  greater demand on health and crisis systems This represents false economy and poor policy design.

Compliance with Domestic and International Law (Short Statement) This Bill risks breaching both the NDIS Act 2013 (ss 3 and 4) and Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including Articles 19, 28 and 7, by reducing access to necessary supports, failing to recognise complex and fluctuating disability, and shifting unsustainable responsibility onto families and informal carers.

Conclusion

This Bill will:  weaken the supports that allow people with disability to live independently  destabilise essential care relationships  increase pressure on families and support workers  fail to recognise the limits of informal and intergenerational care  increase long-term costs to government As both a support worker and a carer, I can see clearly that these changes are not sustainable in practice.

I strongly urge the Committee to:  retain whole-of-person assessment

 protect review and reassessment rights  remove treatment exhaustion requirements  limit Ministerial discretion  protect workforce stability  recognise the realities of intergenerational care