Submission 562 - Supplementary Submission
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
My name is and I am the mother, primary carer and legal guardian of my daughter, .
is a young woman with severe and complex disability support needs. She lives at home with our family and relies heavily on both formal NDIS supports and informal family care every day. needs support with communication, emotional regulation, social understanding, personal safety, community access, therapy, employment preparation and independent living skills. Her NDIS plan also recognises that she needs support to stay safe when using technology and in the community.
I am deeply concerned that this Bill will make life far more dangerous, unstable and isolating for people like .
A lot of people reading this submission may never have lived with severe disability. I ask the Committee to understand that disability support is not a luxury. For , these supports prevent crisis, exploitation, mental health decline, family breakdown and long-term dependence on more expensive government systems.
Risk 1 – Cuts to social and community participation will increase isolation and vulnerability
NDIS plan includes support to build social skills, emotional regulation, friendships, community participation and safe behaviour. These are not “extras”. They are essential disability supports.
Without regular community participation, therapy and supported activities, becomes isolated very quickly. Isolation for a person with cognitive and social vulnerabilities creates real risks:
- being manipulated online
- unsafe relationships
- exploitation
- emotional distress
- loss of routine
- worsening behaviours
- decline in mental health For example, needs support to learn appropriate social and sexual behaviour and to stay safe online and in the community. If those supports are reduced because social participation funding is cut, becomes far more vulnerable to grooming, coercion or abuse.
If loses support workers who help her safely access the community, she may stop attending activities altogether. This could lead to severe anxiety, emotional dysregulation and
Submission 562 - Supplementary Submission
behavioural deterioration that eventually requires intervention from public mental health services, emergency departments or police.
Cutting early supports does not remove the need. It simply shifts the cost somewhere else.
Risk 2 – The Bill gives government power to reduce supports even if they are still necessary
Section 34A of the Bill would allow the Minister to reduce funding for groups of supports across participant plans. The Bill specifically says this can happen even if the funding is no longer enough to cover the actual cost of necessary supports.
This is extremely frightening for families like ours.
supports work together. If even one area is cut too far, the whole system around her becomes unstable.
For example:
• if therapy hours are reduced, may lose emotional regulation skills
• if support worker hours are reduced, may become isolated and unsafe
• if transport or community supports are reduced, may lose access to employmentpreparation and social development
- if support coordination is reduced, families are left trying to navigate an extremely complex system alone
The Bill appears to prioritise financial sustainability over the lived reality of disability.
People like cannot simply “do without” supports because a budget target needs to be met.
Risk 3 – Families may be expected to absorb more unpaid care
The Bill repeatedly refers to the role of families and informal supports.
Our family already provides enormous unpaid care every day. Like many disability families, we do this because we love — but we are not an unlimited resource.
When governments reduce disability supports, the burden does not disappear. It falls onto ageing parents, siblings and carers.
If funded supports are reduced, I may need to reduce work or stop working entirely in order to provide more supervision and care. That increases financial stress and carer burnout.
Eventually families reach breaking point.
When carers burn out, the result can be:
- emergency hospital presentations
- crisis accommodation
- homelessness risk
- mental health system involvement
- carer illness
Submission 562 - Supplementary Submission
- long-term dependence on state services This is not cheaper for government. It is simply cost shifting.
Risk 4 – Harder reassessment rules may leave people trapped without enough support
The Bill would make unscheduled reassessments harder and slower to access.
Disability needs do not stay perfectly stable. A person can suddenly need more support because of trauma, mental health decline, family breakdown, carer illness or behavioural deterioration.
Under the proposed changes, participants may have to prove a “significant and ongoing” change before reassessment occurs.
For someone like , this creates danger.
If her supports become inadequate, we may have to wait months while her condition deteriorates further before help arrives.
Families should not have to wait for crisis before support can increase.
Risk 5 – Functional capacity assessments may ignore the reality of disability supports
The Bill proposes assessing “functional capacity” without considering supports, technology or environmental adjustments.
This does not reflect real life.
is only able to participate in the community because of the supports around her. Removing those supports from the assessment process creates the false impression that she is more independent than she actually is.
For example, may appear calm and capable during a short assessment because she has structured support, family supervision and carefully managed routines.
Without those supports, she is vulnerable and unsafe.
A system that ignores the impact of supports risks underestimating disability and reducing necessary funding.
Risk 6 – Pushing people into other government systems will cost more in the long run
The Bill repeatedly suggests some supports may be considered more appropriate for “other government service systems”.
But many mainstream systems are already overwhelmed and are not designed to provide specialised disability support.
If loses disability supports, the likely outcome is not independence. The likely outcome is increased reliance on:
- public mental health services
- hospital emergency departments
- crisis services
Submission 562 - Supplementary Submission
- housing services
- police
- carer payments and income support systems Preventative disability supports are far cheaper than crisis responses.
The NDIS was originally designed to reduce long-term social and economic costs by supporting people early and properly.
This Bill risks reversing that progress.
Conclusion
I ask the Committee to oppose provisions of this Bill that:
- allow funding cuts without proper review rights
- weaken reassessment access
- reduce participant protections
- increase reliance on unpaid family care
- reduce community participation supports
- ignore the real-world impact of disability supports People like deserve safety, dignity, stability and the opportunity to participate in the community.
Disability support should never be designed around how little government can get away with providing.
It should be designed around what people genuinely need to live safely and with dignity.
I ask the Committee to carefully consider the long-term human and financial consequences these changes may have for vulnerable Australians.
Thank you for taking the time to read my submission.