Submission 988
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
I am writing in my capacity as a Support Coordinator working directly with NDIS participants experiencing complex and significant disability-related support needs.
Through my role, I work with participants and families navigating psychosocial disability, intellectual disability, autism, acquired brain injuries, trauma, homelessness risk, family breakdown, and complex behavioural and mental health presentations. Many of the people I support experience substantial barriers to self-advocacy and rely heavily on coordinated, responsive, and individualised supports to maintain stability and safety.
I acknowledge the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability and integrity of the NDIS. Public confidence in the Scheme matters, and fraud or misuse should be addressed appropriately. However, I am concerned that several provisions within the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 may unintentionally reduce participant safety, procedural fairness, and access to appropriate supports for vulnerable people.
My concerns are outlined below:
- Increased barriers to reassessment and plan variation I am concerned about proposed changes that may make it more difficult for participants to seek reassessment or variation of their supports unless there is evidence of substantial deterioration. In practice, many participants rely on early intervention and preventative supports precisely to avoid deterioration. Timely increases in support can prevent escalation into crisis, including hospital admission, homelessness, family breakdown, involvement with emergency services, or mental health deterioration.
As a frontline worker, I regularly observe that small adjustments to supports made early can significantly reduce long-term costs and improve participant outcomes. A framework that requires participants to deteriorate further before supports can be reconsidered risks creating poorer outcomes both for participants and for the broader service system.
I encourage the Committee to ensure that the legislation preserves flexibility for preventative and early intervention responses.
- Automatic plan renewals without meaningful review I am concerned about provisions that would allow plans to automatically renew without a substantive review process.
Participants’ support needs frequently change due to health conditions, ageing carers, accommodation instability, safeguarding concerns, behavioural changes, or loss of informal supports. Many vulnerable participants do not have the capacity, confidence, or support network required to independently identify when their plans are no longer meeting their needs.
Submission 988
Without regular human review and participant engagement, there is a risk that participants may remain on inadequate or outdated plans for extended periods, increasing the likelihood of crisis and service failure.
I encourage the Committee to consider safeguards ensuring that plan renewals include meaningful opportunities for participant review and reassessment.
- Automated decision-making I am particularly concerned about provisions enabling automated systems or computer programs to make decisions or assessments relating to participant supports.
Disability support needs are highly individual and often involve complex interactions between functional impairment, mental health, trauma, behavioural risks, communication barriers, family circumstances, and environmental factors. These complexities are not always captured accurately through standardised assessment processes or data-driven models.
Human oversight is essential in disability decision-making. Participants should have confidence that decisions affecting their daily functioning, safety, independence, and community participation are being made with appropriate professional judgment and accountability.
I encourage the Committee to ensure that any use of automated systems includes:
- transparent decision-making processes,
- accessible review mechanisms,
- and guaranteed human oversight for decisions affecting participant funding and supports.
- Lack of clarity regarding the future planning framework A significant concern is that key operational aspects of the proposed reforms appear to be deferred to future legislative instruments and rules that have not yet been released publicly.
At present, there appears to be limited information available regarding:
- how future assessments will operate,
- how participant budgets will be determined,
- what review rights participants will retain,
- and what safeguards will apply to new planning mechanisms. Given the significance of these reforms, I believe participants, families, advocates, and service providers should have the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the proposed operational framework before major legislative changes are finalised.
Greater transparency would improve confidence in the reform process and support more meaningful consultation with the disability community.
- Reliance on informal supports and carers
Submission 988
I am also concerned about provisions that may increase reliance on informal supports when determining participant funding.
Many carers and family members are already providing extensive unpaid support under significant financial, emotional, and physical strain. In my experience, carer fatigue and burnout are already major contributing factors to participant instability and crisis presentations.
The long-term sustainability of the disability support system depends not only on reducing expenditure, but also on preventing breakdown of informal support networks. Where formal supports are reduced without adequate alternatives, costs are often transferred to hospitals, housing systems, mental health services, emergency services, and unpaid family carers.
I encourage the Committee to carefully consider the broader social and economic consequences of increased reliance on unpaid care.
- Consultation and implementation concerns I also wish to express concern regarding the limited timeframe for consultation on legislation of this scale and complexity.
Many people directly affected by these reforms live with cognitive, psychosocial, communication, or physical impairments that can make engagement with legislative processes difficult without adequate time and accessible information.
Meaningful consultation is essential to ensuring reforms are workable, fair, and responsive to the realities faced by participants and families.
Recommendations
I respectfully recommend that the Committee consider:
-
preserving access to timely reassessment and early intervention supports,
-
ensuring automatic plan renewals include meaningful review safeguards,
-
strengthening protections and human oversight relating to automated decision-making,
-
increasing transparency regarding future assessment and planning frameworks before implementation,
-
carefully considering the impact of increased reliance on informal carers,
-
and allowing broader consultation with participants, carers, advocates, and frontline disability workers before substantial reforms proceed.
Conclusion
The NDIS has been life-changing for many of the participants and families I work alongside. While reform and sustainability are important objectives, I believe these reforms must be approached carefully to avoid unintended harm to vulnerable Australians who rely on the Scheme for stability, safety, independence, and community participation.
Submission 988
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this submission and thank the Committee for considering the perspectives of frontline disability workers.