Submission 886
NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026
Senate Submission
To the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee,
RE: NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026
My name is and I live in Victoria. I am writing as the long-term advocate and guardian for my two brothers, who are NDIS participants living with complex and permanent disabilities including cerebral palsy, acquired brain injury (ABI), intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, significant mobility impairment, and chronic medical complexities.
I am deeply concerned about the proposed changes contained within the NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026, particularly the proposed reduction in social and community participation funding, expanded reassessment powers, functional capacity testing, restrictions impacting participant choice and self-management, and reforms that risk pushing vulnerable participants toward institutional-style service models.
While I support measures that ensure the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, I strongly oppose reforms that reduce essential supports, undermine participant choice and control, weaken review rights, or place vulnerable people at greater risk of deterioration, neglect, hospitalisation, and institutionalisation.
For my brothers, community participation supports are not optional or recreational. They are critical daily living supports that maintain their physical health, mental stability, mobility, independence, dignity, and connection to the outside world. These supports allow them to attend essential medical appointments, grocery shopping, physiotherapy and exercise routines, community activities, and maintain the structured routines that are fundamental to their stability and wellbeing.
My brothers are highly dependent on routine, familiarity, and trusted long-term support workers who understand their disabilities, communication styles, behavioural triggers, cultural background, and religious beliefs. They are Greek-speaking and rely heavily on culturally appropriate and familiar supports to remain emotionally regulated and medically stable.
If social and community participation funding is significantly reduced, the consequences for my brothers will be devastating. They risk becoming isolated inside their home with little or no meaningful connection to the outside world. For people living with severe
Submission 886
psychosocial disability, ABI, intellectual disability, and mobility impairment, isolation does not improve independence — it accelerates deterioration.
Without these supports, there is a serious risk of:
- worsening mental health,
- behavioural deterioration,
- physical decline,
- reduced mobility,
- increased falls and medical complications,
- social withdrawal,
- loss of functioning,
- increased hospitalisations,
- and long-term institutionalisation. For vulnerable people with complex disabilities, removal of stable supports can have catastrophic consequences. In some circumstances, severe neglect, medical deterioration, and complete isolation can place participants at risk of serious harm or even death.
I am also deeply concerned about reforms that undermine self-management and participant choice. My brothers’ current supports work because they are delivered by long-term trusted workers who know them personally and understand their medical, behavioural, cultural, and emotional needs. Continuity of care is not a luxury — it is essential to preventing destabilisation and harm.
Replacing trusted workers with unfamiliar rotating staff, or forcing participants into rigid SIL-style or institutional models against their will and preference, can be highly traumatic and dangerous for people with psychosocial disability, intellectual disability, ABI, and complex care needs.
The NDIS was originally built on the principles of choice, control, dignity, inclusion, and individualised supports. Participants should not be forced into institutional-style systems simply because they are administratively convenient or considered more cost-effective on paper.
I am particularly concerned about the proposed functional capacity reassessments and expanded reassessment powers. Many disabilities fluctuate and cannot be accurately assessed during short or isolated assessments. Participants may present differently on a particular day while still requiring substantial ongoing supports to function safely in daily life.
I am also concerned about the loss of review and appeal rights attached to funding decisions. Vulnerable participants and families must retain the ability to challenge decisions that may place health, safety, and wellbeing at risk.
Submission 886
As their guardian and family advocate, I already carry enormous responsibility in coordinating care, attending appointments, managing crises, and protecting my brothers from harm. If significant funding cuts occur, I would likely be forced to leave my full time employment in order to care for them myself because their needs cannot safely go unsupported.
This would not only place enormous strain on me personally, but would likely cause devastating financial consequences for my own family, including the potential loss of my home and severe impacts on my family stability. Families should not be pushed to breaking point because essential disability supports are removed.
I ask the Committee to recommend amendments that:
-
protect social and community participation funding and recognise these supports as essential to preventing deterioration, isolation, hospitalisation, and institutionalisation,
-
protect self-management and participant choice,
-
preserve access to trusted long-term support workers, including unregistered providers where participants choose them,
-
protect continuity of culturally appropriate supports that reflect participants’ language, religion, communication needs, and personal history,
-
maintain strong review and appeal rights for funding decisions,
-
ensure reassessments are fair, transparent, evidence-based, and reflective of real day-to- day functioning,
-
ensure vulnerable participants are not subjected to inappropriate automated decision- making processes,
-
and ensure participants are not forced into institutional or SIL-style models against their will and preference.
The NDIS should remain a person-centred scheme that protects dignity, independence, safety, and community inclusion for Australians living with disability. Reforms focused primarily on reducing costs without fully understanding the human consequences risk causing profound harm to some of the most vulnerable people in our community.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours sincerely,