National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1013
Submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
- Introduction
This submission provides a detailed and comprehensive assessment of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the Bill). It evaluates the proposed legislative changes in the context of their potential impacts on participants, the disability support system, government expenditure, intergovernmental relations, and Australia’s broader social policy objectives.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) represents one of the most transformative social reforms in modern Australian history. It was designed not merely as a funding program, but as a structural shift away from rationed welfare- based support toward a rights-based, insurance-style system that ensures people with disability receive support based on their individual needs.
The proposed amendments are significant in both scope and consequence. While the goal of ensuring the financial sustainability and integrity of the Scheme is acknowledged as necessary, there is a substantial risk that the reforms, taken together, will reorient the Scheme toward a model that prioritises:
• Fiscal containment over participant outcomes;
• Administrative efficiency over flexibility;
• Standardisation over person-centred assessment.
This submission argues that sustainability cannot be achieved solely through restricting access and narrowing supports. Instead, sustainability must be understood as a balance between:
• Financial viability,
• Service effectiveness,
• Equity of access, and
• Long-term social and economic returns.
- Reframing Scheme Growth: From “Blowout” to System Correction
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1013
The Bill is underpinned by the assertion that NDIS growth has exceeded projections and needs to be stabilised. While this assertion is factually accurate in a financial sense, it requires contextual interpretation.
2.1 Growth Reflects Structural Demand
The expansion of the NDIS has revealed pre-existing demand that was:
• Previously hidden within fragmented systems,
• Suppressed by rationing mechanisms,
• Disproportionately borne by families and informal carers.
Rather than representing misuse, growth often reflects:
• Increased access for individuals who were previously excluded;
• Improved identification of disability;
• Greater community awareness and acceptance of support-seeking.
2.2 Structural Cost Drivers
Cost growth is significantly influenced by factors unrelated to participant behaviour, including:
• Workforce shortages increasing service prices;
• Regional service shortages reducing competition;
• Market immaturity in some sectors (e.g. psychosocial supports);
• Increased complexity of participant needs.
A policy approach that focuses on restricting access risks failing to address these underlying drivers.
- Foundational Model Limitations and Policy Assumptions
3.1 Original Costing Constraints
The original NDIS costing was developed in an environment where:
• Data was incomplete and inconsistent between jurisdictions;
• There was no fully functioning national disability support system;
• Demand had to be estimated rather than observed.
As such:
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1013
• The “original intent” often referenced in reform discussions is based on projections rather than actual historical baselines;
• Deviations from that intent may reflect inaccurate assumptions rather than system failure.
3.2 Western Australia’s Role in Data Gaps
Western Australia’s initial non-participation created significant data limitations:
• National modelling excluded full representation of service usage patterns;
• Assumptions about cost and demand in WA were inferred from eastern states;
• Cultural, geographic, and service structure differences were not incorporated.
The implication is that:
• National benchmarks may not accurately reflect real national demand;
• Reform measures attempting to “correct” growth may be anchored in incomplete baselines.
- Regional Equity and East–West Disparities
4.1 Concentration of Policy and Service Infrastructure
Policy development and administrative systems are concentrated in NSW and Victoria. This has systemic implications:
• Service models are often designed around metropolitan environments;
• Funding assumptions may reflect urban cost structures;
• Decision-making frameworks may not fully consider regional realities.
4.2 Realities Outside Metropolitan Centres
Participants in Western Australia and regional areas experience:
• Limited provider choice,
• Higher travel and service delivery costs,
• Difficulty accessing specialised supports.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1013
Uniform reforms that do not account for these differences risk:
• Reducing effective access for these participants;
• Creating inequities between regions.
4.3 Risk of Structural Geographic Inequity
While reforms do not explicitly target geographic differences, their cumulative effect may result in:
• Greater accessibility in high-density service markets (NSW/VIC);
• Reduced access in regional or lower-density markets.
This creates the potential for a de facto inequitable system based on location.
- Lessons from DSP Reform: A Critical Precedent
5.1 Parallel Policy Approaches
DSP reforms introduced:
• Standardised eligibility criteria,
• Structured assessment frameworks,
• Increased reliance on functional capacity measurement.
These approaches mirror many proposals in the current Bill.
5.2 Outcomes Observed
DSP reforms led to:
• Increased exclusion of individuals with legitimate disabilities,
• Over-reliance on rigid assessment tools,
• Disconnect between assessed capacity and actual functional ability.
5.3 Behavioural Impact of Assessment Processes
Assessment frameworks can influence participant responses:
• Individuals may understate needs due to dignity or social expectations;
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1013
• Questions framed around capability can produce misleading answers;
• Assessments may not capture variability of condition or fatigue effects.
5.4 Risk of Replication in NDIS
The introduction of:
• Functional capacity thresholds,
• Context-free assessment,
• Narrow causation requirements,
creates a strong risk of replicating DSP-style exclusion outcomes.
- Cost Shifting to States: A Structural Risk
6.1 Policy Direction
The Bill strengthens the principle that:
• NDIS should not fund supports better provided elsewhere.
While valid conceptually, this assumes the existence of alternative systems that can deliver those supports effectively.
6.2 State Budget Pressures
State governments face:
• Budget deficits,
• Increasing health and housing demands,
• Existing service backlogs.
Expecting states to absorb additional demand is likely unrealistic without significant additional funding.
6.3 Participant-Level Impact
Participants redirected away from NDIS may:
• Wait extended periods for services,
• Fail to meet eligibility for state systems,
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1013
• Experience gaps in support entirely.
This creates a scenario where individuals are effectively placed into a support vacuum, with no immediate pathway to assistance.
6.4 Long-Term Impact
The absence of timely support may:
• Increase healthcare utilisation,
• Lead to crisis intervention;
• Reduce independence;
• Increase long-term costs.
- Schedule 1 Detailed Analysis
7.1 Functional Capacity Assessment
The proposed framework:
• Removes environmental context,
• Focuses on intrinsic ability.
This contradicts the social model of disability, which recognises that:
• Disability arises through interaction with environment;
• Support needs cannot be assessed in isolation.
7.2 Reassessment Restrictions
Requiring “significant and ongoing change”:
• Prevents early intervention,
• Limits responsiveness,
• Forces participants into reactive rather than proactive support systems.
7.3 Direct Link Requirement
The narrowing of eligibility to directly linked impairments:
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1013
• Ignores comorbidity;
• Excludes interacting conditions;
• Discourages holistic support planning.
- Government Narrative and Its Policy Effects
8.1 Influence of Narrative
Public framing of the NDIS as:
• Unsustainable,
• Vulnerable to fraud,
shapes:
• Policy development,
• Decision-making culture,
• Public perception.
8.2 Risk of Participant Stigma
Such framing may:
• Position participants as contributors to system problems,
• Reduce willingness of decision-makers to approve supports,
• Undermine trust in the Scheme.
- Workforce Considerations
9.1 Current Approach
Concerns identified include:
• Limited access to voluntary redundancies,
• Workforce reduction via attrition,
• Uncertainty for staff.
9.2 Impact on Scheme Effectiveness
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1013
A destabilised workforce:
• Reduces decision consistency,
• Impacts participant experience,
• Undermines reform implementation.
- Human Rights Perspective
The reforms must be assessed against obligations under:
• The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Key principles include:
• Equality,
• Inclusion,
• Access to support.
Policies that restrict access must be:
• Necessary,
• Proportionate,
• Justifiable.
- Conclusion
The Bill represents a significant shift in the direction of the NDIS. While sustainability is a valid and necessary objective, the current approach risks:
• Reducing access,
• Increasing inequity,
• Fragmenting services,
• Reproducing failures seen in previous systems.
- Recommendations
Reforms should:
• Incorporate real-world context into assessments;
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1013
• Retain flexibility in plan management;
• Avoid rigid functional thresholds;
• Address regional inequity;
• Strengthen system integration;
• Support workforce stability;
• Learn from DSP outcomes;
• Ensure reforms are evidence-based and participant-focused.
Final Statement
A sustainable NDIS must be one that continues to function as it was intended:
A system that empowers, supports, and uplifts people with disability—not one that restricts access in the pursuit of fiscal balance.