Cuts to disability supports risk harm and undermine NDIS integrity (Individual advocacy) | External submission

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

SUBMISSION TO THE INQUIRY OF THE SENATE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE INTO THE National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the “Bill”) https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_AƯair s/NDISFutureGenBill

Introduction I am a neurodiversity and inclusion advocate, an unpaid carer, and am person with a disability. I am an active member of communities with lived experience of neurodivergence and disability in Brisbane, Queensland and am a Labor Enabled Queensland member. I am an admitted lawyer, have policy experience and have experience with children in education and support settings.

It’s been suggested this Bill and cuts to disability supports and services are required for sustainability, however, providing for the needs of people with a disability is a budget choice. Further, aspects of these very changes, and how they are occurring could undermine both the NDIS and broader disability supports framework, with a risk of harm to people with a disability and families, both on and oƯ the NDIS:

 Cuttings disability supports and services means that people with a disability and their families will suƯer harm. No matching alternative supports have been established, and on current timelines would unlikely to be established, in a safe way that centres people with a disability.

 The unprecedented scale and speed of the cuts and changes proposed threaten the viability and existence of the allied health and support sector workforce – with likely more marked impacts in regional areas.

 Moving almost all core components of the scheme to Ministerial discretion, as opposed to legislated rights moves the scheme from a rights-based scheme, to a welfare-based scheme, inconsistent with the scheme’s purposes. More concerning, this level of unchecked Ministerial discretion could see the scheme all but dismantled by a Minister of the day, without parliamentary oversight or appeal rights.

 Cuts to services and moving from early intervention and timely supports to requiring crisis before help is given, means cost shifting onto crisis systems like justice, child safety, health and social security payments.

 Cutting access to supports and services means pushing care loads onto informal and unpaid carers – falling disproportionately on women with all the consequent economic, emotional and health harm this will cause.

Respectfully, this Bill, and the cuts and rights’ limitations within it, are a risk to the sustainability and integrity of the NDIS as originally intended and to the disability support sector as a whole. There are extensive issues with the Bill’s design, timing and drafting and the short time permitted for consultation does not allow canvasing all of them.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

Summary

NDIS changes should centre people with a disability. No child or person with a disability should have their access to reasonable and necessary disability supports and services removed or reduced for budget purposes.
This proposed legislation is rushed and its basis is ﬂawed. The speed and scale of the changes threaten the well-being and lives of people with a disability and their families. This Bill should be withdrawn, with genuine co-design occurring within safe timelines towards ﬁxing the system, rather than cutting disability services.

If this is not accepted then:

The Bill should be revised to focus only on addressing fraud, safeguarding and integrity issues, with changes being fully consulted, implemented and assessed before any further change or cuts are considered or legislated, with genuine co- design.
Timelines for consultation on this Bill, for further consultation and change implementation are unsafe, not inclusive and will likely lead to errors and people with a disability falling through the cracks. All proposed timelines should be signiﬁcantly extended, with a view to genuine co-design and safe and responsible social policy development and transition.
Hundreds of thousands of children and people with a disability are to have their access to NDIS disability services and supports removed or cut. There are no alternative supports in place, even for Thriving Kids, which is supposed to commence in a few months. Clearly there is substantial risk of harm and of people with a disability being left without supports.
Any alternative systems of support need to be co-designed and established safely and carefully. No child or person with a disability should have their access to disability support and services removed or reduced until equal and matching services are fully operational, with a guarantee of no child or person with a disability being worse oƯ.
The Bill contains a signiﬁcant expansion of Ministerial powers over eligibility, types and amounts of supports and the ability to exclude whole cohorts of people from the NDIS under alternative support determinations. The cumulative exercise of these powers, without legislative oversight and appeal rights could see substantial dismantling of the scheme by a Minister of the day. Changes of this gravity should be made through legislation with appropriate safeguards.
Schedule One, Part 9 requires drafting revision to clarify intention – people injured at work and in motor vehicle accidents should not be prevented from accessing the NDIS – provided there is no duplication of speciﬁc supports.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

Key aspects of the Bill’s proposed changes lack cohesion. A move away from diagnosis eligibility towards global functional capacity assessments, is not consistent with the changes to planning, that attach supports to speciﬁc impairments, rather than to functional capacity. Much further consultation is required to ensure there is scheme cohesion that meets the lived realities of people with a disability.
People with a disability have taken considerable time, stress and expense to access the NDIS and have organised their lives around the reasonable and necessary supports they receive. If changes proceed that adversely impact participants, they should be grandfathered.
The proposed new permanence deﬁnition should have no application at all to early intervention and particularly not for children. The concept is not consistent with the purposes of early intervention.
Further, the “all treatments” requirement for determining permanence should be removed from the Bill altogether – it lacks conceptual clarity, will lead to inequitable outcomes and risks coercion into risky medical treatments and violation of bodily integrity.
Cuts to disability supports and services will likely have a disproportionate impact on women as participants, unpaid carers and as members of highly feminised workforces. The proposed provision outlining what being a parent comprises does not reﬂect that most families are presently actually under-supported. It is demeaning, highlights the harm to women ﬂowing from these changes and should be deleted.
The Impact Assessment contained in the Explanatory Memorandum omits key modelling, information and analysis including in relation to: the impact on women, who will be cut from the NDIS, from which areas costs savings will be derived, analysis of cost shifting expenses onto crisis supports, modelling on the impacts on the allied health and support sector workforce, transitional planning, mapping and details of alternative supports such as Thriving Kids and Foundational Supports. It would be appreciated if the Senate Inquiry could obtain and publish this key information to improve transparency and clarity on these signiﬁcant changes.
Other points are made on taking care around system automation, ensuring appeal rights and natural justice, concerns with robo-eligibility and robo-planning, taking care when imposing additional obligations on participants and concerns that commissioning services may reduce choice and control and revert to institutional and group care models that caused harm.
Timing and capacity mean further provisions have not been reviewed. No comment on these in this submission should not infer no concerns in relation to them. A further submission may be provided if timing permits further analysis.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

The lived experience of those in my community

I ﬁrst touch brieﬂy on the lived experience in my circles to contextualise the understanding I bring of the realities of the lives of people with a disability – my experience largely centred in neurodiversity, mental health and complex post-viral and autoimmune conditions. I am neurodiverse aƯirming and it is painful to have to focus on challenges – noting that a portion of the challenges many neurodivergent children face arise from underinvestment in inclusive systems like health and education, as well as from ableist mindsets – a generational challenge to address.

I have witnessed the extreme daily diƯiculties in families where neurodivergent children and their families are under supported and how it can risk injury and loss of life. I have witnessed the compounding diƯiculties when parents also have a disability. I have researched the overrepresentation of children with a disability, and particularly children with neurodevelopmental conditions in the justice system – and grieved that the $2,500 a day spent on incarcerating them, has not been applied to supporting them.

I am acutely aware of the unpaid and additional care load often taken up by women (that far exceeds ordinary parental care) where systems do not support or under support children with disabilities and their families – leading to mainly women, not being able to participate in the workforce. I have seen women having to stay in domestic violence relationships because they can’t support their child’s care needs in any other way. This is the system we are tipping our children into under an ill-deﬁned and not delivered Thriving Kids and, under these proposed new cuts.

I have also observed the signiﬁcant diƯerence that accessing the right supports at the right time can have on children with a disability and their families - that weekly OT and psychology, periodic psychiatry/paediatrics and access to a physiotherapist can indeed be what is required for years to move out of acute crisis, with lesser but ongoing lifetime support thereafter to maintain functional capacity. I have seen the improvements that these supports can make to saving lives, to educational outcomes and to employment prospects and how while neurodivergence is lifelong and ongoing support is required, that the right supports at the right time can diminish the supports required later in life. It is for these reasons, and many others that I am concerned about Thriving Kids changes and these proposed new cuts.

I have seen that a huge role of supports is to help a person understand their own body and mind, to learn what works and what doesn’t, to take the years long journey to be able to advocate for themselves in non-inclusive systems. This is deeply personal one-on-one work, relational trust and continuity of care is crucial. I wish I could explain the parental support needed to see new therapists and what happens when care is not matched to individual need. Choice and control are crucial. I deeply know that block funding and a collapse of the allied health and support sector would be hugely damaging – even to those outside of the NDIS.

The out-of-pocket expenses of these supports is completely out of reach for most families. When I hear of speech therapy being increased to twenty sessions for a child’s entire childhood with a gap payment for each session – I honestly want to cry for the huge gulf between the understanding of the government and the lived experience of children

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

and families –– families simply can’t aƯord the out-of-pocket expenses, so can’t access these supports at all.

For girls, there are additional hurdles – presentation is diƯerent, leading to typically later identiﬁcation of support needs, the window of early intervention becomes older – the experience I have observed is between 8 and 13 and more self-harm and eating disorders are experienced.

My observed experience is that what the government refers to as “mild” and “moderate” needs, is not the lived experience of under-supported children and families. A lack of appropriate support leads to crisis – from mental health emergencies, to justice interactions, to school can’t and school exclusions, to violence and self-harm and so much more.

In my opinion, the very scant information that has been publicly released on the very rushed Thriving Kids initiative – would be of little help to the children and families of circles I am engaged with. Ideas like requiring mothers to view videos and be assessed are insulting and damaging to women who are often chronically sleep deprived and attending to 24/7 care needs. They are completely useless for girls’ presentations where a child can have a high level of verbal skills and their actual needs present elsewhere. Group therapy would not have assisted people I know, and block funding would have reduced critical choice and continuity of care – impeding access and progress.

With the undercooked and yet to be delivered Thriving Kids supports, I have grave concerns that older children are also about to lose their disability supports and services with a complete vacuum of appropriate alternative supports. This is more impactful on girls whose support needs may only just be being identiﬁed at an older age.

My submission is informed by these lived experiences, but I have all people with a disability in mind as I write my submission. Hearing the lived experience of people with diƯerent disabilities is of course crucial, and to the extent possible, in this short inquiry, should occur. We have seen that initial proposed cuts to disability supports and services for one group (young children) have now ﬂowed through to all people with a disability – unity in advocacy is required. We are a wealthy country, and we have alternative solutions to ﬁscal repair.

It is true that through the NDIS we have identiﬁed a higher level of need than we knew existed. Before there was help, people merely struggled and tragically even died. We must not thrust people with a disability into neglect and harm again.

Knowing there is higher need for support requires us to step up, not out.

Purposes of the Bill

This Bill’s main purpose is to introduce a “package of measures that are necessary to address immediate cost pressures in the NDIS”i. Minister Butler has stated the intention is to remove disability supports and services for over 160,000 people, to cut $37.8 billion over the next 4 years and to reduce services for hundreds of thousands more, including by cutting 50% from social and community support budgets.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

Framed in this way, changes are not designed to centre people with a disability. The budget-process made it clear; these measures have been chosen for cost cutting with the aim of budget repair. This is unfair, shortsighted and will cause harm to people with a disability, women, workers and the economy. These impacts have not been appropriately analysed in the Impact Assessment contained in the Explanatory Memoranda (see further below).

I recommend that this Bill be completely withdrawn and that the government should genuinely work with the disability community to address legitimate internal NDIS system issues, not crudely cut services to people with a disability. No child or person with a disability should have their access removed or limited, to disability supports and services, for budget purposes.

It is noted that another purpose of the Bill is scheme reform to address payments, fraud, safety and integrity issues. If withdrawal of the Bill in its entirety is not accepted – this legislation should be revised to address these purposes only. These changes comprise complex projects of themselves – they should be prioritised, co-designed, fully and carefully implemented and assessed before any consideration is given to removing services from disabled people.

Timing – Rushed, Not Inclusive and Unsafe

The scale and speed of these complex social policy changes is unprecedented. The timelines proposed for this inquiry, further consultation and for program, implementationii are unrealistic, will lead to errors and will cause harm to people with a disability. The timelines are ableist and genuine co-design has not occurred – with only two weeks between the Minister’s announcements and this Bill.

The consultation conditions are such that impacted stakeholders, cannot meaningfully respond to this Bill, or to proposed further consultations, in suƯicient detail. There are likely errors and drafting issues in the Bill – see for example the drafting issues relating to “excluded impairment” and “alternative support requirements” outlined below. The risk of unintended consequences and the potential for harm is high.

All timelines should be reviewed and signiﬁcantly extended for whatever proposals proceed.

No Alternative Supports

There are currently no alternative supports in place. The proposals to remove hundreds of thousands of people from NDIS supports and services, with no reasonable prospects of alternative supports being in place on current timeframes, is not safe.

Even the proposed “Thriving Kids” program is yet to be appropriately agreed with all States, yet to be legislated, with services yet to be determined and communicated – much less established. NSW has just commenced commissioning for supports, with a supposed program start date of 1 October 2026. The framework of such commissioning has caused huge angst and concern among the allied health and support sector workforce.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

State Premiers and Disability Ministers have expressed surprise and concern that responsibility for so called “Foundational Supports” to provide for this number of participants cut from the NDIS, would fall to them – raising concerns about funding, capacity, willingness and timing – they have noted the inability to provide matching supports.

It should also be noted that the new Ministerial power over “alternative supports” (s.97 of the Bill), means that whole cohorts of people can be removed to an alternative support system, without any parliamentary oversight as to whether such system is safe, ready, is reasonable or appropriate and without oversight as to the adequacy of these supports – this is wholly inappropriate – scheme coverage should be determined by Parliament and protected by legislation.

Minister Butler has indicated that no person with a disability will be removed from the scheme unless other matching supports are in place, however has steadfastly remained wed to current rushed timelines. These positions are incongruent and do not inspire conﬁdence and trust from the disability community.

With recent reports the government is seeking to reduce disability funding for schools by $463 million, there are real questions and concerns about the direction we are heading concerning resourcing mainstream inclusion.

On current timeframes, and with a lack of alternative supports, the risk of harm to children and people with a disability having their access to disability supports and services completely removed or cut, with no or insuƯicient supports in place, is high.

Additional Ministerial Powers

A number of provisions in this Bill move signiﬁcant control and decision-making power to the Minister, away from the parliament, with little to no safeguards.

The Minister gains control to make rules at will about who can access the scheme, what supports participants can receive, planning processes and criteria, and is able to impose sweeping cuts and limits on supports. This level of unchecked Ministerial discretion is alarming and could see the scheme all but dismantled by a Minister of the day, without parliamentary oversight or appeal rights.

Examples of increases in Ministerial power include:

 scheme eligibility through determining the rules for the application of Functional Capacity – assessments, thresholds, criteria, limits etc (s.4 of the Bill);

 what constitute an “alternative support requirement” or “excluded impairment” – which enables the Minister to exclude whole categories of persons with a disability from accessing the scheme (s.97 of the Bill); and

 support determinations – meaning the reduction of support services to whole cohorts of participants by cost, type or quantity (s.34 of the Bill).

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

These proposed provisions signiﬁcantly impact the rights of people with a disability. The decision-making powers enable the Minister to unilaterally:  remove extensive numbers of people with a disability from the scheme and prevent access to extensive numbers of people from accessing disability supports and services;  to make unchecked cuts to the types of and amount of disability supports and services of participants.

An example of one possible impact of these changes, is the following information on the NDIS website:

“From 1 October 2026 budgets for social, civic and community participation supports will be reset so spending levels are on average in line with 2023 levels and more consistent with other systems. The reset will include:  Budget allocations for social, civic and community participation supports will be reduced by 50 per cent.  Capacity building daily activity budget allocations will be reduced by 10 per cent.”

This would be a decision enabled by this Bill – the Minister having the ability to cut at will any supports or services to any group of people the Minister wishes – here, at least $5 billion annually from social and community supports. There is no avenue for consideration to be given to the impact on individuals with very diƯerent needs, and no individual appeal rights. There is a high risk of harm in this decision-making framework.

The Explanatory Memorandum, suggests in part that these powers are required to enable the Minister to make transitional changes. Respectfully, this indicates that the Bill has been rushed and is incomplete.

These types of matters are core and fundamental aspects of the NDIS and to participant’s, rights, and changes to them will severely impact the lives of disabled people. Changes of this nature must be genuinely consulted with the disability community, with legislation put forward to Parliament for scrutiny, on appropriate timeframes. They should not be the remit of unchecked Ministerial discretion.

Unclear Drafting – Workplace Injuries and Motor Vehicle Accidents

Schedule One, Part 9 of the Bill is unclear in drafting and may have unintended consequences. That Part, as drafted, appears to exclude access to NDIS supports and services altogether where an impairment is caused by a workplace or motor vehicle accident and “a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory provides for compensation, or other beneﬁts, for or in respect of the impairment.”

The Explanatory Memorandum contains varying explanations of these amendments with diƯerent possible meanings.  p.219 suggests the limitation is on concurrent access.

 other references suggest limitation is based on future access/eligibility to the alternative schemes, for example p.66 which refers to “where alternative supports are available through other service systems which can reasonably meet the needs

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

of a person, or where the service system has a responsibility for” (emphasis added).

 whereas, the example given on p.69 suggests that even past access or access which has not completely provided for needs, to the alternative scheme, may exclude access to the NDIS: “Amir is eligible for the NDIS based on the impairment related to his intellectual disability and his NDIS plan will include funded supports to address his support needs arising from his intellectual disability. Any support needs arising from his paraplegia will be provided through the relevant compensation scheme”.

The varying nature of the diƯerent schemes in each jurisdiction, also means the current wording may not be appropriately interfacing with State systems, which could have unintended impacts. For example, would a previous lump sum statutory compensation payment that does not cover lifetime supports and services exclude access? What about supports that are not covered by the alternative scheme?

This drafting must be clariﬁed to ensure that people with a disability arising from workplace or motor vehicle accidents are able to access NDIS supports provided that a particular support is not speciﬁcally duplicative.

In addition – the Ministerial decision-making power over “alternative support requirements” or “excluded impairments” should be removed – it enables unilateral large-scale divesting of rights. Changes to the scheme of this type should be a matter for legislation.

The issues outlined here go to the issue of rushed drafting and consultation, likely leading to unintended consequences. It is likely there are numerous other similar issues throughout the Bill.

Cohesion: Eligibility, Functional Capacity, Planning and Supports

There is a lack of cohesion between the proposed new eligibility criteria and proposed new limitations on planning and supports contained in the Bill.

The purpose of moving from eligibility based on diagnosis to eligibility based on functional capacity, has been stated by various Senior Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to be for the purpose of assessing, and providing supports and services to address need (see s.4 of the Bill for a new deﬁnition of “functional capacity”).

On the face of it – this re-focus should be of beneﬁt to people with complex and overlapping conditions, viewing functional capacity globally and factoring the impact of all impairments a person may have that impact functional capacity, consistent with human experience, rather than artiﬁcially delineating separate impairments. This requires considering a person with a disability and their capacity as a whole.

However, the proposed amendments outlined in Schedule 1, Part 3 of the Bill to “Strengthen link between an impairment and need for support” appear to be at odds with this principle. Take this example outlined at p.26 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

“Example – Hamish is a 20-year-old participant who was born with a limb diƯerence of absence of his arms. Hamish needs assistive technology, and support with personal care to attend university. He is eligible for the NDIS based on the physical impairment related to his limb diƯerence. Hamish also has dyslexia which is impacting his ability to read and write, which is aƯecting his studies. Hamish has a support needs assessment for a new framework plan. The assessment identiﬁes the disability support needs directly arising from his limb diƯerence, as this is the only impairment for which Hamish meets the disability requirements. In calculating the funding amount for Hamish’s supports, Hamish only receives funding for those support needs identiﬁed in the needs assessment as directly arising from eligible impairments. Any support needs directly relating to the impacts of dyslexia are not considered in the development of his reasonable and necessary budget as Hamish’s impairment related to dyslexia does not meet the disability requirements or early intervention requirements.”

As this example shows, the support/planning decision-making is focused on the diagnosis of each disability, and arbitrarily separates each of the participant’s disabilities for the purpose of determining needs. A global or functional capacity approach would look at the level of impairment (or impact on functional capacity) that arises from all of Hamish’s disabilities – thus the dyslexia would likely decrease the level of functional capacity in communication and increase the need for supports in this area. It would be the overall level of impairment (or impact on functional capacity) that would have Hamish eligible to receive the reasonable and necessary supports and the level of supports would be such as to meet his overall functional capacity needs in communication – it would not delineate need or supports based on one particular diagnosis/disability. The functional capacity assessment means that the global need of Hamish is what gives access to the scheme – not a diagnosis delineation. Both dyslexia and limb diƯerence would impact functional capacity in the area of communication and supports should be provided that address that full and cumulative impact.

Further to the above, this comment on p.62 of the Explanatory Memorandum and connected provision (s.89 of the Bill) highlights the inconsistency: “This note makes it clear that a need for ongoing treatment to maintain a level of functional capacity (that is still substantially reduced functional capacity) is not a barrier to access the NDIS” (emphasis added). Functional capacity should be being assessed on the basis of the capacity as if a person was not receiving any supports or treatments – there is no requirement that the person have substantially reduced functional capacity when supports and treatments are in place – that would be the opposite of the goal of the scheme – namely to provides reasonable and necessary supports in order to substantially improve functional capacity.

The framework and design of how these diƯerent scheme components intersect needs much more clarity and reﬁnement. As it stands, it looks like rushed drafting of ad hoc provisions designed to cut access and supports – not a consistent and cohesive scheme designed to meet the reasonable and necessary needs of people with a disability. The proposed amendments should be scrapped and framework for how eligibility, planning and supports work together should be deeply consulted upon so it makes sense and addresses the needs of people with a disability, consistent with fairness and human

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

experience. Core aspects of eligibility such as functional capacity threshold should also be a matter for legislation, not Ministerial discretion.

Grandfathering of new eligibility requirements and existing supports

It is noted that the government has chosen to grandfather property tax changes, such that those who currently receive these tax beneﬁts and have structured their aƯairs around the previous position, can continue to receive these beneﬁts.

People with a disability have worked hard to gain access to the NDIS and to build support structures and therapeutic relationships that support their social, educational, economic and community participation, as well as their survival and well-being. It is noted that losing access to necessary disability supports and services will have serious impacts on people’s lives – with losses of jobs, educational opportunities and loss of life-saving supports.

It would therefore appear to be necessary and fair to similarly grandfather these changes adversely impacting people with a disability, if they are to go ahead.

Permanent Impairment Deﬁnition

Schedule One, Part 8 of the Bill contains measures “tightening meaning of permanence to reduce access where an impairment can be treated”. There are signiﬁcant concerns around these proposed changes.

Early Intervention

The idea that all treatments must be undertaken or exhausted for early intervention access to the NDIS is completely antithetical to the purpose of early intervention supports – namely to provide quick, simple and early access to supports, without diagnosis – to prevent deterioration or improve functional capacity and improve overall lifetime opportunities and outcomes.

The inclusion of the below example at p.64 of the Explanatory Memorandum is frankly alarming. The NDIS currently recognises that hearing loss requires immediate action to protect early brain development and therefore has a hearing stream fast track that does not require interventions or medical treatments to access – only an audiologist report. This ensures that a child’s communication and brain development is supported in a time- critical way. This is a well-researched and well-recognised area where early intervention supports are vital. It is therefore highly concerning that the below example has been included, and suggests that the impact of these amendments will be that many, many children requiring time-critical early intervention will be removed from access – inconsistent with the NDIS’s original intent. Children cannot wait on years long waitlists to access these key developmental supports. Applying this permanence deﬁnition change at all to early intervention, especially for children, is unacceptable. Its application to early intervention should be removed.

“Example – Soo is a 5 year old with a history of long term middle ear infections who lives with her mother in regional Australia. Soo’s mother has applied for her to access the NDIS providing an audiogram indicating a bilateral moderate hearing 11

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

loss with no indication of sensorineural (permanent) components. Soo is on a waiting list to see an ENT specialist who visits children in her local area every second month. Soo is found to not be eligible for the NDIS as there is not enough evidence that her impairment will be permanent and will likely persist for her lifetime. She has not yet undergone all investigations for potential treatment options that may improve, reverse or alleviate the impact of her impairment, including evidence-based, low-risk interventions such as grommets. The fact that she is living in a regional area where waitlists to see specialists are longer than in metropolitan areas is not able to be taken into consideration in determining whether Soo is eligible for the NDIS. Her mother is informed that she can re-apply for the NDIS on behalf of her daughter, after further investigations and recommended treatment options are completed and if it is conﬁrmed that her hearing loss is likely permanent and results in substantially reduced functional capacity.”

Tightening Permanence Deﬁnition for Others

The new permanence requirements contained in Schedule One, Part 8 of the Bill requires in short, that a person must undertake all appropriate treatment for the impairment that might improve, reverse or alleviate the impact of the impairment. Treatment is considered appropriate treatment even where a person is unable to access the treatment, or unable to access the treatment in a timely way due to waitlists, ﬁnancial circumstances or geographical location.

Respectfully, there are signiﬁcant issues with these requirements. Moving away from choice and control, there is risk of people with a disability being forced into unnecessary medical treatment and procedures – the example of Matiu on p.64 of the Explanatory Memorandum even refers to the person with a disability having to participate in experimental “medication trials”. Respectfully, a person with a disability should not be forced into participating in medical trials in order to access supports and services. This is clearly inappropriate with the potential for harm. Health costs would balloon, harm will occur and mental health impacts would likely increase consequent upon unnecessary treatments being undertaken.

For people who are unable to ﬁnancially or geographically receive treatment – these provisions send them into a supports-blackhole – heading inevitably towards crisis and reductions in functional capacity due to inability to ever access NDIS supports. They will never be able to prove eligibility on account of never being able to aƯord or access the required treatment – this is clearly an inequitable proposition for a scheme designed for universal access for people with a disability.

Disability is not a ﬁxed-end state reached after some magical threshold of treatment. It is an ongoing interaction between a person’s body or mind and their environment. Further, many people need supports in order to access treatments themselves. Requiring “all treatment ﬁrst” ignores that disability exists during uncertainty, ﬂuctuation and change – not just after medicine has exhausted options. Neurodevelopmental disabilities, degenerative conditions, episodic conditions and psychosocial disabilities do not have clear end points where all treatment has been tried.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

The “all treatments” requirement also exposes people with a disability to having to undergo invasive and risky procedures such as temporal lobe separation surgery for epilepsy and electro-convulsive therapy for mental health conditions which pose signiﬁcant risks to a person and may not be what the individual chooses for themselves. Respectfully neurosurgery and other invasive treatments should never be pre-requisites to receiving disability supports – it amounts to consent coercion and violates bodily integrity.

The lack of conceptual clarity in what is proposed is highlighted by the inclusion of this note in s.89 of the Bill. It highlights that in most cases all treatments for establishing permanence are indistinguishable from all treatments to be provided by the NDIS to maintain functional capacity.

“Note 2: A person may require ongoing treatment for some permanent impairments in order to maintain functional capacity in relation to an activity, even if the person has undertaken all appropriate treatments for the impairment.”

The “all treatments” requirement in the Bill for determining permanence should be removed.

Impact on Women

Cuts to disability supports and services will have a disproportionate impact on women – underrepresented as participants, with diƯerences in experience and presentation and with signiﬁcantly higher care responsibilities. Cuts to services can impact the ability of women to access the workforce, can impact highly feminised care workforce, can lead to women landing in crisis and being unable to escape family and domestic violence and can lead to women experiencing mental health crises themselves. It is noted that many women with a child with a disability (even those receiving NDIS supports) are presently unable to work in paid full-time employment due to care responsibilities – children, women and families are already signiﬁcantly under supported with signiﬁcant daily challenges – these cuts will tip families into crisis.

The Impact Assessment contained in the Explanatory Memorandum does not analyse these impacts in any depth. Respectfully, this could be an area on which the Senate Inquiry explores and requests further information, modelling and analysis.

Knowing the real and lived experiences of women, the amendments contained in Schedule One Part 6 of the Bill to “create stronger parameters around what is considered reasonable and necessary under the NDIS, including reframing what it means for a support to be reasonable” are particularly oƯensive – suggesting that somehow families already in crisis are on the take - these provisions should be removed from the proposed legislation.

Extracted from s.73 of the Bill:

Family etc. support—children (1G) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(e) so far as it applies in relation 3 to a participant who is a child, the CEO must take into account the presumption that

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

parents are responsible for providing substantial care and support for their children.

(1H) For the purposes of subsection (1G), substantial care and support includes: (a) supervision, personal care, transport, emotional support and behavioural support; and (b) other assistance with the activities of daily living that, regardless of the child’s disability, would reasonably be expected of a parent of a child of a similar age. (1J) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(e) so far as it applies in relation to a participant who is a child, the CEO must not decide that the CEO is satisﬁed as required by that paragraph if the primary or substantial purpose of the support is to do one or more of the following: (a) reduce burdens on parental time below what is reasonably expected of a parent; (b) improve household eƯiciency; (c) give eƯect to a parent’s preference for supports to be provided otherwise than by parental care.

(1K) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(e), the CEO must consider:

(a) whether relying on family, carers, informal networks or the community would expose a participant or another person to a material risk of harm, abuse or neglect that cannot be mitigated through informal or lower cost supports; and

(b) the desirability of supporting, maintaining and strengthening informal supports and community networks in preference to replacing those supports and networks with funded supports, except in cases in which replacement of those supports and networks is necessary:

InsuƯicient Impact Assessment – Explanatory Memorandum

The Impact Assessment contained in the Explanatory Memorandum suggests minimum impacts of these changes, which does not correlate with the number of people announced to be removed from the NDIS, nor with the amount of money to be cut from the NDIS over the next 4 years. Respectfully, this submission requests that the Senate Inquiry require that this information be provided.

Who will be cut from the NDIS?

The Impact Assessment does not provide any analysis or breakdown on which 160,000 to 300,000 people with a disability are intended to be removed from the NDIS or prevented from accessing the NDIS and what are their likely proﬁles. This modelling must have been undertaken in order for these ﬁgures to have been announced by the Minister. Respectfully, the Senate Inquiry might require that this modelling and analysis be provided.

From which areas will Cost Saving Measures be Derived?

$37.8 billion is being cut from the NDIS over the next 4 years (with triple this amount over the next decade). No analysis has been provided in the Impact Assessment as to the 14

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

areas that these cost cuts will impact and where these cost savings are to be gained. This detailed information should be provided to the Senate Inquiry.

Cost shifting onto Crisis Supports

As noted already above, reducing access to disability supports and services pushes costs onto crisis support services such as justice, health and social security payments. Analysis of the social and economic costs of these impacts has not been appropriately analysed in the Impact Assessment contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Respectfully, the Senate Inquiry might require appropriate information and analysis on this issue to be provided.

Workforce and Economic Impacts

For every $1 invested into the NDIS, there is a $2.25 return to the economy on this investment. NDIS disability supports enable the social, economic and civic participation of people with a disability in the community. With proposed disability service cuts, it is likely that some people with a disability will lose their ability to work. It is also likely that the push towards informal supports will mean unpaid carers, predominantly women will lose their ability to work. These impacts have not been modelled in the Impact Assessment and it would be useful for the Senate Inquiry to obtain this information.

Impacts on Allied Health and Support Sector Workforce

There has been signiﬁcant concern raised that the speed and scale of the changes, alongside the commissioning for delivery of services by large organisations, will signiﬁcantly thin the existence of, and ﬂexibility of, the allied health and the support sector workforce, available for all Australians. There are potential impacts on choice and control, continuity of care, regional service delivery and waitlists. There is no workforce modelling at all in the Impact Assessment – it is vital that this be undertaken and requesting that the Senate Inquiry obtain this information.

Timelines/Plans/Content of Foundational Supports

The Impact Assessment does not provide a detailed plan for the development of alternative support systems such as Thriving Kids and Foundational Supports, nor include workforce and transitional mapping on such alternatives. With little more than a few months until Thriving Kids is to be commenced – States are still commissioning supports, the community has little to no useful information about what these systems and supports will look like, and Queensland has not yet agreed to provide these supports.

In terms of the additional new Foundational Supports needed, ﬂowing from new cuts – no information, modelling or planning has been released at all, with a number of States Ministers noting that they are not funded to, and not able to, provide like supports.

On current planned timelines, and the current state of information released – it seems improbable that alternative supports will have been safely developed and established.

Detailed information is required on all of these points and respectfully asking the Senate Inquiry to require that this planning and transition information and modelling be publicly 15

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

released. On current information and timelines this does not look like safe and responsible social policy development and delivery.

Robo-Eligibility and Planning

The Bill introduces the potential for automated systems. Concerns have been raised in the disability community about automatised eligibility and planning systems that may not ensure the complexity of lived experience is captured, may lack ﬂexibility, human consideration and limit appeal rights. This submission has not reviewed the legislative components of these frameworks in detail; however, the disability community have raised aspects as essential considerations and regard should be given as to whether legislative provisions ensure these. Core aspects of eligibility and planning – particularly thresholds, where limitations are imposed and where appeal rights are being limited should be matters for legislation, not Ministerial discretion. For the avoidance of doubt, this submission maintains that full appeal rights of participants should be retained and even enhanced.

Additional obligations on Participants

It is noted that the proposed legislation introduces a number of additional requirements on participants such as the requirement to retain records. Another provision allows participants to be cut oƯ the scheme if they have not responded to communications. Other provisions enable the raising of debts and civil penalties. These provisions have not been reviewed in any detail – however it is noted that suitable protections need to be in place for people with a disability such that they are not adversely impacted by diƯerences in their capacity, automated systems, or inﬂexible processes. These provisions, their impacts and necessary protections should be scrutinised with the utmost care.

Commissioning

Some components of the Bill/proposals enable government commissioning of services. These provisions have not been reviewed in detail. Concerns have been raised that commissioning of supports will restrict choice and control and may lead to people with a disability being subjected to institutional or group care that the NDIS has sought to move away from, on account of these service delivery frameworks being found to be harmful.

No Further Provisions Reviewed

Timing and capacity have limited review of any further provisions of this Bill. No comments on other areas of the Bill should not be taken to mean agreement, or no concern in relation to those matters.

Thank you for considering this submission and for carefully taking the time to consult on and analyse the impacts of this Bill.

Yours sincerely, Susan Irvine

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 117

i P.4 Explanatory Memoranda ii See page 255 of the Explanatory Memoranda and at https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/ndis-legislation- changes/amendments/ndis-amendment-securing-the-ndis-for-future-generations-bill-2026/about-the- changes-to-the-ndis