Introduction

My name is Douglas Wilson. I am an NDIS provider in South Australia with a background in law and legal studies. Through my work in the disability sector, including supporting participants with complex needs, psychosocial disabilities, behavioural support requirements, housing instability and significant barriers to independence, I have seen firsthand both the strengths of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and the challenges participants face when attempting to access and maintain essential supports.

I acknowledge the importance of ensuring the NDIS remains financially sustainable and continues to operate effectively and is financially viable. Sustainability is critical to the long- term success of the Scheme. However, I am concerned that several amendments proposed in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 may unintentionally restrict access for individuals with genuine and significant disability support needs.

My concern is not that the NDIS should be expanded without limits. Rather, it is that reforms intended to improve sustainability may inadvertently exclude vulnerable Australians whose support needs remain substantial and ongoing.

Alternative Support Requirements and Excluded Impairments

I am concerned by the introduction of proposed section 25B, which would establish alternative support requirements and create the concept of “excluded impairments.”\n Under the proposed framework, certain impairments may be excluded from NDIS access where compensation or benefits are available through workers compensation schemes, motor accident compensation schemes or other prescribed support systems.

In principle, this may appear reasonable. However, in practice, the existence of another scheme does not necessarily mean that a person’s disability-related support needs are being adequately met.

Workers compensation schemes are primarily designed to provide medical treatment and income replacement. In South Australia, these supports are generally time-limited and ongoing assistance is often restricted unless a person meets specific thresholds such as being classified as a “Seriously Injured Worker.”

These systems serve a fundamentally different purpose to the NDIS.

Permanence Requirements and Appropriate Treatment

I am also concerned by the amendments contained in Part 8 of Schedule 1, particularly proposed sections 24(5), 25(1B) and 25A. The proposed amendments would require a person to undertake all appropriate treatment before an impairment can be considered permanent.

While I understand the policy intention behind this proposal, I do not believe it adequately reflects the realities faced by many Australians living with disability.

In my professional experience, individuals regularly encounter significant barriers to accessing treatment, including:

Extensive public health waiting lists.
Funding disputes between systems.
Limited specialist availability.
Geographic barriers in regional and remote communities.
Financial barriers.
Differing medical opinions regarding treatment pathways.

The existence of a treatment option does not mean that treatment is realistically available. Under the proposed amendments, treatment may still be regarded as “appropriate treatment” even where the person’s individual circumstances prevent them from accessing it.

Furthermore, some people may choose not to undergo particular procedures due to personal, cultural, religious or medical reasons. Individuals should not feel pressured to undertake invasive or unwanted treatment merely to establish eligibility for disability supports.

Most importantly, the existence of a potential treatment does not eliminate the functional impact of disability while a person is waiting months or years to access that treatment.

I am concerned these amendments may result in people being denied access to the NDIS despite living with significant and enduring functional limitations that substantially affect their daily lives.

Supports Must Arise “Directly” from an Impairment

I am further concerned by the amendment to section 34 requiring supports to arise “directly” from an impairment.

Although this may appear to be a minor drafting change, I believe it has the potential to significantly narrow access to supports and create uncertainty for participants.

Disability is rarely straightforward.

Many participants experience multiple interacting conditions, cumulative impairments, psychosocial disabilities, mental health challenges, behavioural complexities and secondary complications arising from their primary disability.

Their support needs often arise from the combined impact of these factors rather than a single impairment operating in isolation.

The insertion of the word “directly” may create unnecessary disputes regarding causation, resulting in:

Increased administrative complexity.
Delays in decision-making.
Additional evidence requirements.
More internal reviews and appeals.
Greater uncertainty for participants and families.

The focus should remain on the participant’s functional needs and support requirements rather than overly technical arguments about causation.

                                                                 3 | P a g e

I am concerned about any reforms that may reduce access to social and community participation supports.

Community participation is often misunderstood as discretionary spending. In reality, these supports are frequently essential to maintaining independence, mental health, confidence, routine, skill development and social connection.

For many participants, community access supports are preventative supports.

They reduce isolation, build capacity, strengthen social networks, improve emotional wellbeing and reduce the likelihood of future crises requiring more intensive intervention.

Removing or restricting these supports may create greater long-term costs while reducing quality of life for participants.

Increased Reliance on Families and Informal Supports

I am also concerned about policy approaches that assume families and informal supports can absorb increasing levels of responsibility.

Many families are already providing extraordinary levels of unpaid care.

Parents, partners, siblings and carers often coordinate appointments, transport, medication management, behaviour support, advocacy, crisis response and daily living assistance.

In my experience, family burnout is already a significant issue across the disability sector.

The NDIS should complement informal supports rather than assume they can continue expanding indefinitely.

Financial Sustainability and Reasonable and Necessary Supports

I acknowledge that the Bill places substantial emphasis on financial sustainability, including through section 17B and amendments relating to reasonable and necessary supports.

Financial sustainability is undoubtedly important.

However, I am concerned that repeated references to sustainability throughout the legislation may unintentionally shift decision-making toward cost containment rather than participant outcomes.

Page 5

The NDIS was established because Australians with significant and permanent disabilities require supports that cannot reasonably be provided elsewhere.

While fiscal responsibility is necessary, sustainability should not be pursued in a way that reduces access to supports for individuals with genuine disability-related needs.

A sustainable NDIS must also be an accessible NDIS.

What the Committee Should Understand

People who do not work directly with disability may not fully appreciate how quickly a person’s circumstances can deteriorate when supports are removed or delayed.

The supports funded through the NDIS are often the difference between:

Independence and dependence.
Community participation and isolation.
Stable housing and homelessness.
Employment and unemployment.
Recovery and crisis.

Many supports that appear modest on paper play a critical role in maintaining a person’s wellbeing, dignity, safety and long-term outcomes.

The practical consequences of excluding people from support systems are often felt by families, hospitals, emergency services, mental health services and the broader community.

Recommendations

I respectfully recommend that the Committee:

Ensure participants are not excluded from the NDIS solely because another compensation or government scheme exists.
Require evidence that alternative systems can genuinely meet a participant’s support needs before NDIS access is restricted.
Amend permanence requirements to recognise barriers to treatment access and individual autonomy in healthcare decisions.
Reconsider the requirement that supports arise “directly” from an impairment.

Page 6

Maintain access to social and community participation supports.
Protect participants from excessive administrative burdens and unnecessary reassessments.
Preserve participant choice and control as a foundational principle of the NDIS.
Ensure strong human review mechanisms remain available for eligibility and funding decisions.
Continue consulting with participants, carers, advocates, providers and disability professionals before implementing significant reforms.

Conclusion

My principal concern is that the cumulative effect of these amendments may reduce access to the NDIS for individuals who continue to experience significant disability and support needs.

The greatest risk is not that people receive support from multiple systems. The greater risk is that people fall between systems entirely.

I respectfully encourage the Committee to consider whether the proposed amendments contain sufficient safeguards to ensure that people are not excluded from the NDIS unless an alternative system is demonstrably capable of meeting their support needs in practice, rather than in theory.

The NDIS has transformed the lives of countless Australians. Any reforms should preserve the Scheme’s core purpose: supporting people with disability to live with dignity, independence, choice and meaningful participation in their communities.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.

                                                                 6 | P a g e