National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3716
The Committee Secretariat for the NDIS Review 28/5/2026
deeply anxious about the upcoming changes with the NDIS. It took years to access SIL funding for my son (30 yrs of age) who is considered to have a profound intellectual disability and subsequently very high needs - being non-verbal and an absconder. He also has food allergies and dysphagia, requiring several ambulance interventions in the past. He’s semi-continent, wears continence aids day and night, and has severe OCD which is most irritating to other clients with disabilities.
Most difficult of all is his insomnia. He has been known to go for three weeks without sleep. The more overtired he is, the more elevated he becomes and the less chance he has of self-regulating. Despite this, the NDIS initially offered 1:3 support inactive overnight for SIL. Then, when we requested a review, his 1:1 funding for community participation was taken away.
The NDIS reviewers would not listen and we were forced to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (now ART). For two very stressful years we fought with NDIS funded lawyers to restore his day supports to 1:1. We are terrified that we could end up back in that situation again with these new changes to the NDIS.
The only way my son can be supported at a ratio less than 1:1 is in a locked building, to prevent him from absconding. Because of his behavioural issues - OCD and absconding - he already has restrictive practices (RP’s) in place which means he requires a Behavioural Support Practitioner (BSP) on his team. Both BSP’s who have assessed him insist he needs 1:1 support as does his Occupational Therapist (OT). It is my understanding that the NDIS is legally required to follow BSP recommendations, particularly where there are already RP’s in place. Despite this, the NDIS paid lawyers to argue against the need for 1:1 - lawyers who have no training in disability. This was not only a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money, it caused undue stress for me and my partner while we were at the same time still caring for my son.
No NDIS provider would support my son at any ratio other than 1:1. I’ve been told that, because the BSP insists he needs 1:1, then legally providers must provide this level of support. If a service provider agreed to support my son at a lower ratio (1:2 or 1:3) and something happened to him, then the provider would be legally liable, even though it was the NDIS which refused to fund appropriately. No provider wants to be sued. Subsequently they will not offer support to a participant who lacks adequate funding.
I am extremely concerned that my son and others like him will be inadequately supported under these new proposed changes. I am equally concerned that those providers who do everything by the book are being disadvantaged financially by the pressures put on them by the NDIS. Not every provider is a “rorter” or “scammer”. In my experience, most of them genuinley care about their clients. Certainly this is the case for the two provider services - for my son’s day program and now for SIL.
It was my understanding that the NDIS was set up to support, first and foremost, those with high needs and to remove the heavy burden from their families. My son will be thirty-one next month. His condition is permanent. There is no need to continually waste taxpayers’ money on specialist
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3716
assessments when all they end up doing is reiterating everything that was written in the previous report. Please reduce the amount of assessments and reporting required. Once every five years should be more than adequate.
I sincerely hope that the NDIS can continue to ensure long-term scheme sustainability and will be able to find a fair and intelligent way to do so.
Your sincerely