Submission 935
Submission Opposing Elements of the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
To whom it may concern,
I write this submission as a parent carer and as someone who works closely with families living the daily realities of disability care in Australia.
While I understand the need for financial sustainability and reform within the NDIS, I strongly oppose elements of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 that risk shifting greater responsibility and financial burden onto families already operating beyond capacity.
The provisions addressed in this submission are:
- Repealing of Section 31
- Proposed subsections 34(1E) and 34(1F)
- Proposed changes relating to “reasonable and necessary” supports
- Proposed requirements surrounding medical or therapeutic intervention prior to support eligibility
Concerns regarding proposed subsections 34(1E) and 34(1F)
The proposed subsections 34(1E) and 34(1F), which introduce additional considerations around whether supports are more appropriately provided by families, carers or mainstream systems, are deeply concerning.
These provisions risk creating unrealistic expectations around the level of unpaid care families can sustainably provide.
Families caring for people with disabilities are already contributing extraordinary amounts of unpaid labour every single day. This includes physical care, supervision, communication support, emotional regulation, therapy coordination, transport, feeding, advocacy, paperwork, lifting and ongoing medical management.
This care often occurs 24 hours a day and significantly impacts a family’s ability to:
- maintain employment
- financially support themselves
- care for siblings and relationships
- protect their own mental and physical health. The assumption that families can simply absorb more care responsibility ignores the realities many carers already face.
Submission 935
Reducing supports may appear to reduce NDIS expenditure in the short term, however the costs do not disappear. They are simply transferred elsewhere across the healthcare and social support system.
When carers reach burnout, the impacts are significant and costly:
- increased hospitalisations
- greater reliance on Medicare-funded services
- mental health crises
- family breakdown
- emergency accommodation
- increased long-term residential care needs
- increased strain on state health systems. If individuals with disabilities can no longer safely remain supported at home because families have exceeded their physical, emotional and financial limits, where are those individuals expected to go? Who bears those costs then?
Preventative supports that allow families to continue caring safely at home are often significantly more cost effective than crisis intervention or long-term institutional care.
Concerns regarding repeal of Section 31 and plan reassessment changes
The repealing of Section 31 and related changes surrounding plan reassessments and budget flexibility also raise concerns around participant stability and security.
Many disabilities are lifelong and permanent. Families should not be subjected to repeated cycles of proving permanence or fighting continuously for essential supports that are clearly ongoing needs.
Frequent reassessment processes place additional administrative and emotional burdens on families already managing complex care responsibilities.
Concerns regarding medical intervention requirements
I am also concerned by proposed approaches suggesting individuals should exhaust medical or therapeutic interventions before qualifying for support.
Disability is not always something that can be resolved through treatment.
Many individuals already undergo years of therapies, specialist appointments, surgeries and medical interventions in attempts to improve quality of life. These interventions are often expensive, emotionally draining and may not remove the need for lifelong support.
Submission 935
To imply ongoing treatment pathways should be exhausted before adequate support is provided risks creating further delay, inequity and distress for families.
People with disabilities deserve dignity, inclusion, opportunity and quality of life just like every other Australian.
Alternative approaches to reducing NDIS costs
I support appropriate accountability measures and agree that the long-term sustainability of the NDIS matters.
However, there are more effective and humane ways to reduce unnecessary spending without reducing essential supports to vulnerable Australians.
One area requiring urgent review is the excessive pricing and waste occurring within parts of the disability equipment and service sector.
Many families are charged extraordinarily high prices for assistive technology, equipment and modifications through approved suppliers. In some cases, equivalent products can be sourced privately at substantially lower costs.
There is also considerable waste when expensive equipment is no longer required or outgrown.
I urge consideration of:
- community equipment libraries
- national or state-based equipment loan systems
- refurbishment and recycling programs
- improved reuse systems between families
- pricing caps and supplier oversight
- stronger regulation of excessive profit margins within the disability supply sector. A shared equipment model similar to a library system could substantially reduce waste and overall expenditure while still ensuring participants receive necessary supports.
There are many more provisions I oppose, and other amendments that need to be made. My limited capacity to address them in the time allowed will be a common story among my peers and reflects poorly on Government for imposing such a timeframe. I know most will be covered by others, in detail
Conclusion
Submission 935
The long-term sustainability of the NDIS is important. However, sustainability cannot come at the expense of the health, stability and dignity of people with disabilities and the families who support them.
The solution cannot simply be increasing barriers to support or expecting already exhausted families to absorb even greater responsibility.
I urge the Government to reconsider elements of this Bill that risk harming vulnerable Australians and instead pursue reforms that are financially responsible, practical and compassionate.