Re: NDIS Inquiry

Dear Senate Committee 1 June 2026

I’m writing on behalf of my family which includes a participant on the NDS.

I agree that aspects of the NDIS system do need to change – particularly around how the scheme is administered to reduce the risk of fraud from some providers. But that shouldn’t come at the expense of the participants on the scheme who are some of the most vulnerable members in our community.

I would urge the Government to first look at the design flaws of the scheme that have allowed for the fraud from some providers to exist - and to start there with any redesign to find savings measures – rather than by reducing supports and / or by kicking people off the scheme. ‘Fix the system, not me.’

My concerns about the Bill:

Changing principles: from ‘reasonable and necessary supports’ to ‘NDIS supports…consistent with the financial sustainability of the Scheme.’

I disagree with changing the NDIS principle from ‘reasonable and necessary supports’ to ‘NDIS supports… consistent with the financial sustainability of the Scheme’. This change fundamentally alters the purpose of the NDIS and sends a clear message to people with a disability, that even if a support is deemed reasonable for them to live their life fully in society, the NDIS can refuse the support.

What this looks like in practice is that many participants who are refused the supports that qualified professionals have identified as essential for them – without the means to pay for them privately or alternative services to approach - their mental health will decline and for some vulnerable participants they will be at risk of ending their own lives.

Putting limits on ‘social and community participation’ supports

I disagree with putting scheme limits on ‘social and community supports’.

What this looks like in practice is that people with disability will not have the support they require to be able to go out into the community, to build important life skills and to grow and learn from experiencing life outside of the home.

It means for many participants they will become more isolated, not leaving their home and for some ultimately not leaving their bedroom - whilst putting more pressure and strain on the unpaid carers in their lives.

Interpreting ‘what is reasonable to expect of family, carers, informal supports and the community’

I disagree with the increased expectations of what is considered ‘parental responsibility’ in the bill and not including factors from the current Rules regarding whether the child’s care needs are greater than a child without a disability.

Many families are already at breaking point trying to manage their children’s disability behaviours. What this looks like in practice is parents and carers being subject to physical violence in the home.

To expect parents and carers to continue to manage their children’s disability behaviours and support their children towards safer behaviours whilst reducing or taking away the children’s supports that help them learn emotional regulation and behaviour support is astonishing. In practice this will lead to more Government resources being used from other avenues such as Ambulance, Emergency Department, NSW Police, Youth Justice and ultimately in some cases State Care.

Test for functional capacity via a standardised assessment tool

I have concerns around using a standardised assessment tool to test for functional capacity. I don’t think a ‘one size fits all’ approach will be able to capture the full range of disability, and particularly those with fluctuating support needs. I think there should be an avenue to allow for some flexibility when testing for functional capacity.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Kind regards