National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 488 - Attachment 2
NDIS Bill 2026
Why this Bill is high-risk in practice
Regional provider, carer and lived-experience perspective | Prepared by Jessica Schafer-Wilson | Heart Worx | May 2026
Who is raising this Core concern Why staged evaluation matters
I am writing as a regional NDIS provider, practitioner, carer and Before Parliament accepts further participant-level The NDIS has already been materially tightened since October
person with lived experience of disability-related functional restrictions, it should require the Government and 2024 through stricter support definitions, spending rules,
impairment. NDIA to show the full balance sheet. funding periods, claim controls and increased payment integrity
This perspective sits across provider operations, lived Public debate keeps focusing on participant spending. It is not activity.
experience, regional delivery, carer systems, psychosocial shown, with the same clarity, the cost of NDIA administrative The system is already undergoing substantial operational and
complexity and review realities. failure, review burden, delay and downstream transfer. behavioural change.I support genuine NDIS reform. Fraud should be addressed. That makes staged evaluation more important, not Poor providers should be removed. The Scheme needs less. stronger administration and clearer accountability. The concern is not the stated intention of reform. It is Three implementation risks how the Bill is likely to behave once it hits real-world systems already under pressure.
-
Hidden administrative cost Oversight material from the Ombudsman, ANAO, ART and Legal Aid shows delay, complaints, reassessment pressure, Why this matters fiscally review burden and legal cost around NDIA decision-making and appeals. These are not simple savings. They are cost transfers unless Parliament should require clearer reporting on NDIA delay, Parliament requires proper downstream modelling first. complaint burden, ART/legal costs, internal review outcomes A Commonwealth saving is not automatically a national saving
What I am asking for and overturned or conceded decisions. if the cost is shifted into families, hospitals, unpaid care, review
-
Regional markets can lose choice fast systems, provider collapse or workforce exits.
-
Do not support this Bill in its current form. Regional NDIS markets do not operate like metropolitan markets. A provider exit, travel restriction, pricing change or • Require staged evaluation of the October 2024 reforms before further restrictions commence. claim risk can remove practical choice altogether.
• Protect participant choice, review rights, functional capacity 3. Savings can become cost transfers Final position
safeguards, privacy, human oversight and community If supports are reduced before mainstream and foundational
participation. systems are operating, the need shifts into unpaid care, family The concern is not whether the NDIS should change.
• Require regional impact assessment and provider viability systems, hospitals, housing, legal aid, crisis responses and It is whether Parliament is being asked to approve further
safeguards. provider instability. restriction before the real-world consequences of existing-
Set clear limits on executive-made Rules, automated reforms have been properly measured. decisions, debt recovery and digital payment systems.
Prepared by Jessica Schafer-Wilson | Co-Founder | Practice Lead | NDIS Systems, Recovery & Lived Experience | Heart Worx | Tamworth NSW One-page MP brief