National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1105
Submission Opposing the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I strongly oppose the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 because the proposed changes represent a significant regression in the human rights of people with disability and are inconsistent with Australia’s legal obligations under domestic and international law.
The NDIS is not a welfare program; it is a human rights mechanism designed to give effect to equality, autonomy, dignity, and community participation for people with disability. Any reform that reduces access to supports, limits independence, or increases state control over disabled people’s lives engages fundamental human rights protections.
- Restrictive Eligibility Criteria Violate Equality and Non-Discrimination Rights
The proposed tightening of eligibility through rigid “functional capacity” assessments and treatment exhaustion requirements disproportionately harms people with psychosocial, intellectual, neurodevelopmental, fluctuating, and invisible disabilities.
This creates indirect discrimination contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) by imposing barriers that many disabled people cannot reasonably meet due to poverty, trauma, regional disadvantage, cultural barriers, or lack of available treatment.
The changes are inconsistent with:
sections 3 and 4 of the NDIS Act 2013 (Cth), which recognise the right of people with disability to exercise choice and participate equally in society;
Articles 3, 5, 19, and 28 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which protect equality, non-discrimination, independent living, and an adequate standard of living.
Human rights law prohibits “retrogressive measures” that reduce existing protections without compelling justification. Restricting access to disability supports forces people into poverty, institutionalisation, homelessness, hospitalization, or unsafe dependence on family carers. This is incompatible with a rights-based disability framework.
- Cuts to Social and Community Participation Supports Undermine the Right to Independent Living
Reducing social and community participation supports treats disabled people’s inclusion as optional rather than essential.
Participation supports are what enable disabled people to:
leave their homes safely;
maintain relationships;
participate in education, work, advocacy, culture, and democracy;
avoid isolation and segregation.
Without these supports, many participants will effectively be confined to their homes. This is not merely a funding issue; it is a deprivation of liberty, autonomy, and equal citizenship.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1105
These cuts conflict directly with:
Article 19 of the CRPD, which recognises the right to live independently and be included in the community;
Article 29 of the CRPD, protecting participation in public and political life;
Article 15 of the CRPD, where neglect and social isolation may amount to degrading treatment when the state knowingly removes essential supports.
Austerity measures cannot lawfully justify stripping disabled people of the practical means to participate equally in society.
- Automated Decision-Making Risks Systemic Human Rights Violations
Expanding automated planning and decision-making processes risks reproducing the failures exposed by the Robodebt Royal Commission, where vulnerable people were harmed by opaque and unlawful administrative systems.
Disabled people have the right to individualized, transparent, and procedurally fair assessments. Algorithmic or standardised planning models fundamentally undermine this right because disability support needs are highly individualized and context-specific.
This raises serious concerns under:
principles of procedural fairness and lawful administrative decision-making;
the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth);
Article 12 of the CRPD, recognising equal legal capacity;
Article 13 of the CRPD, ensuring equal access to justice.
A system that prioritises cost containment over individualized human assessment risks unlawful exclusion and systemic discrimination.
- Failure to Properly Consult Disabled People Breaches International Obligations
The consultation process has been rushed and inaccessible, despite the reforms fundamentally affecting disabled people’s rights, safety, and daily lives.
Article 4(3) of the CRPD requires governments to closely consult and actively involve people with disability through their representative organisations in all disability law and policy development.
Meaningful consultation is a legal and democratic obligation, not a procedural formality. Reforms developed without genuine co-design undermine the legitimacy of the legislation and perpetuate paternalistic decision-making about disabled people without disabled people.
Conclusion
This Bill reflects a shift away from a human rights model of disability support toward a restrictive, cost-containment framework that treats disabled people as financial liabilities rather than equal rights-holders.
The sustainability of the NDIS should be pursued through:
stronger regulation of providers;
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1105
fraud prevention;
fair pricing oversight; and
investment in accessible mainstream services,
—not through reducing disabled people’s access to the supports required for dignity, safety, autonomy, and equal participation.
I urge Parliament to reject or substantially amend this Bill to ensure compliance with:
the NDIS Act 2013 (Cth);
the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth);
the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth); and
Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
add to the consclusing that under the current legislation i am inadequetly funded and out of the last 7 moths iv spend 4 inhospital, 2 in transitional sercives due to homlessnes as a direct result of being underfunded and peoviders being unable to manage me safly and sustainably inthe community. this cycle is likly to continue and worsen with proposed changes with no end in sight.
Conclusion
This Bill reflects a shift away from a human rights model of disability support toward a restrictive, cost-containment framework that treats disabled people as financial liabilities rather than equal rights-holders.
The sustainability of the NDIS should be pursued through:
stronger regulation of providers;
fraud prevention;
fair pricing oversight; and
investment in accessible mainstream services,
—not through reducing disabled people’s access to the supports required for dignity, safety, autonomy, and equal participation.
Under the current legislation, I am already inadequately funded to live safely and sustainably in the community. In the past seven months, I have spent four months in hospital and two months in transitional services due to homelessness as a direct consequence of inadequate supports and providers being unable to safely manage my needs in the community.
Over the last three years, I have deteriorated significantly due to chronic underfunding and the failure to provide adequate disability supports. As a direct result, I have acquired additional neurological disability and experienced permanent functional decline that may have been preventable with appropriate early intervention and sustained community supports.
This demonstrates the real human cost of underfunding disability supports. When adequate supports are denied, disabled people are pushed into cycles of crisis, hospitalization, homelessness, institutionalisation, and irreversible deterioration. These outcomes are not only traumatic and degrading, but ultimately far more costly to government and society.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1105
The proposed amendments will likely intensify and prolong this cycle, creating further permanent functional decline for people already struggling to survive under the current system. A legislative framework that knowingly increases the risk of homelessness, institutionalisation, preventable deterioration, and long-term disability progression is incompatible with Australia’s obligations under the:
NDIS Act 2013 (Cth);
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth);
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth); and
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly the rights to dignity, independent living, equality before the law, health, and freedom from degrading treatment.
I urge Parliament to reject or substantially amend this Bill to ensure disabled people are not forced further into crisis by reforms that prioritise budget reduction over fundamental human rights, safety, and human dignity.