National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 872
These changes are vague, broad, and misleading. All of the discussion from politicians advising these decreases seem to be about predatory service providers and people ‘abusing’ the system. This is providing a false image to the public that the funding cuts are to change how much providers can charge, where that’s simply not the case. Cutting client funding will not stop abusive providers.
It also sends a false idea that the NDIS is easy to get onto. It took me, someone with 10 diagnoses of long term health problems, (including ) over 2 years of evidence collecting and 2 rejected applications before I was approved. I was only approved under my diagnosis of . I only receive funding for care related to that diagnosis.
Without my NDIS you cut or reduce my access to; -Fresh fruits and vegetables, as I am unable to afford delivered groceries and unable to get myself to the grocery store consistently.
- Access to the pharmacy and the medications I need to survive.
- Clean bedding and laundry
- The ability to study, work or volunteer
- Access to in-home accommodations
- Access to transport
- Access to social connections.
- Access to needed therapies such as psychology, occupational therapy and speech therapy. Removal from the program would put me in extreme danger. It would cause an extreme decline in my physical and psychological health. I don’t have anyone who can care for me if I do lose my funding. I was made homeless as a youth because of my family, and currently pay more than half of my income in rent.
In summary this proposed cut is misleading and vague. It means significantly poorer quality of life, and in many cases, death for participants. It’s a bad economic decision as the NDIS creates jobs for abled people and allows disabled people accommodations and the capacity to work.