Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
1. Introduction
I am the sister of a man living with schizophrenia who is a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). I am also one of his primary informal carers, alongside my sister.
I am making this submission because the NDIS has been critically important to my brother’s ability to live independently, remain socially connected, and maintain stability. It has also significantly reduced the caring burden on my sister and me. We are both aging and have our own health issues and other family commitments to attend to.
While I support the need for a sustainable and well-functioning scheme, I am concerned that aspects of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 may unintentionally reduce access to essential psychosocial supports.
My concerns relate specifically to how the amendments may affect people living with Schizophrenia
2. Current impact of the NDIS on our brother’s life
NDIS-funded supports have enabled my brother to:
- live independently in his own home
- maintain daily functioning
- increase social participation and reduce isolation
- reduce reliance on hospital-based crisis interventions
- maintain stability over time
Importantly, these supports have reduced the load on my sister and I, making informal care more sustainable.
These supports are not only helpful for maintaining daily living but have preventative and stabilising effects.
3. Concerns Relating to Schedule 1 – Functional Capacity Framework
Relevant Amendment Area: Schedule 1 – Part 1: Functional capacity assessment framework
The Bill introduces a more standardised and consistent approach to assessing functional capacity, with increased emphasis on objective assessment processes.
While consistency in assessment is important, psychosocial disability does not always present in a linear or observable way during short assessments.
With schizophrenia the person can present as stable or capable during brief assessments but in reality still require ongoing supports. Our brother does not answer questions accurately and aims to
Present a more refined version of himself when he is being interviewed or questioned.
This does not accurately define the reality of his life or the real functional ability or lack of ability.
It is also important to note that any current stability is often the result of existing supports, not the absence of disability. The ability to manage life tasks and social situations is often because of the ongoing consistency and skill building of the supports. Our brother requires constant routine, repetition, and reinforcement to manage his daily life tasks. Without this he regresses quickly.
There is a risk that ‘snapshot’ assessments might underestimate support needs, particularly with a condition where insight fluctuates, symptoms are episodic, and the assessors do not have the critical longitudinal knowledge of functioning that the carers have.
Functional capacity assessment processes must:
- incorporate evidence from treating clinicians
- include input from informal carers
- require specialist psychosocial disability expertise in assessment and decision-making
- Concerns Relating to Schedule 1 – Eligibility and Permanence
Relevant Amendment Area: Schedule 1 – tightening of permanence and impairment criteria
The Bill strengthens requirements that impairments be permanent and that no further treatment will materially improve functional outcomes.
A psychosocial disability such as Schizophrenia often means long-term impairment with variable presentation and partial responsiveness to treatment.
A person with Schizophrenia can experience improvement due to having regular supports, and also be highly vulnerable without ongoing support. They can require lifelong psychosocial assistance even if symptoms fluctuate.
I am concerned about the risk that ‘improved functioning’ due to the stability of supports may be misinterpreted as an overall improvement in capacity that then reduces eligibility in the scheme, despite there being an underlying and ongoing serious disability where functional capacity is vulnerable and fragile.
The legislation should explicitly recognise that:
- functional improvement due to supports does not negate ongoing disability or the need for support
- psychosocial disability may be permanent even when episodically stable
- criteria must account for fluctuating conditions
- Concerns Relating to Schedule 1 – Reasonable and Necessary Supports
Relevant Amendment Area: Schedule 1 – Part 6: Reasonable and necessary supports (including sustainability considerations)
Page 3
The Bill introduces stronger emphasis on scheme sustainability and equity when determining funded supports.
There is a risk that psychosocial supports (particularly those relating to social participation and daily living capacity) may be deprioritised as “non-essential,” despite their role in preventing deterioration.
In our brother’s case, supports that may appear “social” in nature are in fact clinically and functionally essential, as they:
- prevent isolation
- maintain daily structure
- reduce relapse risk
- sustain community functioning
Reducing or narrowing these supports may:
- increase crisis presentations and hospital admissions
- increase burden on health services
- shift responsibility back to us as the informal carers and cause burnout and mental health unwellness due to the unsustainable load.
The legislation should ensure that psychosocial supports are explicitly recognised as:
- preventative supports
- functional maintenance supports
- clinically relevant interventions for psychosocial disability
- Concerns Relating to Schedule 1 – Support Determinations
Relevant Amendment Area:
Schedule 1 – Part 4: Support determinations and categories of support
The Bill provides for clearer categorisation of supports and allows for tighter definition of support types.
There is a risk that rigid categorisation might not reflect the integrated nature of psychosocial disability supports, which often combine:
- daily living assistance
- social participation
- capacity building
- recovery-oriented engagement
We are concerned that over-categorisation may lead to reduction of supports that currently work holistically. Each area of support integrates with other areas to create a sustainable framework that enhances our brother’s overall abilities to manage tasks of daily life. We have noticed that when he increases his social connection he expresses himself in better ways, and the cognitive stimulation helps him to have more insight and consciousness, so, with support, it becomes easier to build skill in managing his life tasks.
Support categories must remain flexible enough to reflect the interconnected nature of psychosocial
disability support needs.
7. Concerns Relating to Schedule 1 – Reassessment Processes
Relevant Amendment Area:
Schedule 1 – Part 2: Reassessment and review provisions
The Bill limits when and how reassessments occur, and introduces more structured review processes.
Psychosocial disability, like Schizophrenia, is not static and support needs can change in response to stress, illness, or environmental factors.
Reassessment processes must remain responsive to:
- rapid changes in mental state
- input from carers and clinicians
- early warning signs of deterioration
8. Concerns Relating to Decision-Making and Expertise
Across the amendment framework, there is an increased emphasis on standardised and centralised decision-making.
We are concerned that decisions affecting psychosocial disability participants may be made without enough specialist understanding of Schizophrenia. If the decision maker is unaware of the nuanced nature of the condition, there could be an underestimation of support needs with reduced access to essential supports. Once again this could then increase the unsustainable load on informal supports, and overburden the health system.
Decision-making processes should require:
- specialist psychosocial disability expertise
- integration of lived experience and carer evidence
- safeguards against purely administrative determinations
9. Conclusion
The NDIS has had a profoundly positive impact on our brother’s life. It has enabled independence, stability, and meaningful community participation, and significantly reduced pressure on us as the informal carers.
While I acknowledge the intent of the Bill is to improve sustainability and consistency, I am concerned that some changes might unintentionally disadvantage people living with psychosocial disability, particularly Schizophrenia.
I respectfully urge the Committee to ensure that the final legislation:
- recognises the fluctuating nature of psychosocial disability
- protects access to preventative and stabilising supports
- embeds specialist psychosocial expertise in decision-making
- ensures carers and treating clinicians are meaningfully included in assessment processes