Submission 131

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Date: 20 May 2026

Submitted by:

Re: Strong Opposition to the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Urgent Call for Significant Amendments or Withdrawal

I strongly oppose key elements of this Bill in its current form as a parent of three children on the NDIS. While sustainability is important, the proposed changes fundamentally undermine the NDIS’s original principles of choice and control, individualised support, and a rights-based approach. They risk breaching Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and contradict recommendations from the Disability Royal Commission and the Independent NDIS Review.

Erosion of Choice and Control, Individualised Planning, and “Reasonable and Necessary” Supports

The NDIS was founded on person-centred planning that respects individual goals, circumstances, and autonomy. The Bill introduces a rigid statutory definition of functional capacity (assessing ability without personal supports, assistive technology, or environmental modifications) and shifts toward block funding, shared supports, and commissioned provider models. This reduces participant choice, treats people as standardised categories, and squeezes out genuine community-connected providers.

Narrowing “reasonable and necessary” supports risks deep cuts to capacity-building, social, civic, and community participation supports. This directly contradicts the scheme’s foundational promise and CRPD principles on autonomy, independence, and participation.

Automated Planning, Limited Appeals, and Real-World Failures of the Current System

The Bill expands automated decision-making and severely limits Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) powers. This leaves participants with minimal meaningful appeal rights.

My own experience illustrates why weakening appeal rights and increasing automation is dangerous. An NDIA appeal process took over 3 years. The NDIA had hundreds of pages of evidence from multiple allied health professionals with clear recommendations, yet they refused

Submission 131

to fund the support. At the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) stage, their lawyers

subpoenaed all hospital and care facility records, which totalled well over a thousand pages of

evidence, yet they still demanded a 2-hour Independent Medical Examination (IME). Just one

month before the hearing, they advised that their own 6-month-old IME report contained an

error. I made a pragmatic settlement offer two weeks before the hearing, but they rejected it.

Only one week before the hearing did the NDIA finally agree to fund the support at the level

consistently recommended by multiple experts, for 3 years.

I incurred significant personal legal fees fighting the agency, while the NDIA’s legal costs were

borne by taxpayers. If plans were built correctly from the start by competent and skilled staff, there would be less need for people to spend years fighting for adequate support and no need for Mr Butler to rebuke the ART.

Every single interaction with the NDIS now induces fear — fear of what they are going to spring on us next, what new barrier or cut will appear without warning. Regardless of the strength of the evidence provided, the agency is often obstructionist, delaying, denying, or forcing participants into prolonged battles. This Bill will make that environment far worse.

Tragically, these changes come against a backdrop where NDIS funding cuts have already been linked to preventable deaths. In 2025, 22-year-old Noah Johnston and 4-year- od Koa Gibson both died after their NDIS supports for 24/7 care were significantly reduced. Advocates, families, and providers state these deaths were avoidable with adequate funding. Further cuts and restrictions under this Bill risk repeating such outcomes on a larger scale.

Advocate Shirley Humphris (retired allied health professional and lay disability advocate) has documented how low-cost, effective supports — such as bubble gum for behaviours of concern, weighted blankets, noise-cancelling headphones, therapeutic massage, crafts, and scented items — are at risk of being banned or heavily restricted under narrow interpretations of the new “NDIS supports” rules. For one young adult with complex disabilities, these items have been essential and recommended by clinicians. Removing them risks regression, harm, carer burnout, and far greater long-term costs through increased need for SDA, hospitalisation, or justice involvement. Harm costs more.

This echoes Robodebt failures and risks extensive systemic harm.

Submission 131

Unprecedented Ministerial Powers with Minimal Parliamentary Oversight

The Bill grants the Minister for Disability extraordinarily broad and unprecedented executive powers that bypass normal parliamentary scrutiny, centralising control in a way rarely seen in other major government portfolios. Key examples include:

• The ability to issue a single ministerial determination (e.g., under provisions like s 34A) to impose across-the-board funding cuts or resets for entire categories of supports affecting thousands of participants simultaneously, with no individual appeal rights on the quantum of these cuts.
• Direct decision-making authority over NDIS pricing (s 45C), allowing the Minister to set prices providers can charge via instruments that can operate permanently without automatic sunsetting or mandatory parliamentary review.
• Powers to make determinations on funding levels for “financial sustainability” that incorporate broad equity and cost considerations, effectively enabling rationing without fresh legislative approval for each change.

These powers represent a significant shift from the NDIS’s original insurance-style entitlement model to a centrally controlled rationing system. Unlike most other major portfolios (e.g., Aged Care, Medicare, or Social Security), where major funding adjustments typically require parliamentary approval, independent pricing advice, or stronger disallowance mechanisms, the NDIS changes stand out for their combination of permanent instruments, limited disallowance, and absence of individual recourse. This concentrates power in the executive to an extent that undermines democratic accountability for a $50+ billion scheme directly affecting hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Australians.

Conflicts of Interest and the Massive Wipeout of Small Business Plan Managers

Disability advocates have highlighted serious conflicts of interest among some peak bodies and individuals who have supported these reforms. Those selected to participate in the charade of co-design who have viewed these changes were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, and vocal advocates have been ignored and called ‘keyboard warriors’.

Joan McKenna Kerr, long-time CEO of the Autism Association of Western Australia (a major WA-based disability provider and peak body), was appointed to the NDIA Board in 2023. She has also served as President/Chair of National Disability Services (NDS). These overlapping roles raise legitimate questions about whether larger providers and peak bodies stand to benefit indirectly from market consolidation, tiered pricing structures, and a shift to government panels that favour big registered organisations.

Submission 131

Dr Martin Laverty, CEO of major disability provider Aruma, has also been linked to pricing and

advisory discussions while publicly supporting aspects of the reforms.

The Bill’s pricing and plan management changes are projected to cause the immediate closure of up to 1,455 small plan management businesses (mostly small and unregistered providers) and contribute to massive job losses across the sector. This will reduce participant choice and concentrate the market in the hands of a few large transactional organisations — exactly the opposite of the NDIS’s original vision of a diverse, participant-driven marketplace.

Fraud in the NDIS vs Other Government Programs

The Bill expands penalties, automation, and ministerial powers partly to combat fraud. While fraud must be addressed, the focus on the NDIS appears disproportionate compared to other large programs.

The NDIS Fraud Fusion Taskforce has achieved around 25 successful convictions by early 2026, with more before the courts, over 600 active investigations, and thousands of providers removed. However, estimated “integrity leakage” (fraud, error, non-compliance) sits at $2–3.5 billion annually.

In comparison, Medicare loses an estimated $1.5–3 billion per year, with far larger absolute fraud volumes, and Centrelink sees relatively few prosecutions given its scale. The intense scrutiny and new measures applied to the NDIS do not appear matched by equivalent focus or resourcing in Medicare or Centrelink. Return on investment in investigations has produced savings, but heavy-handed measures risk harming genuine participants more than they deter sophisticated fraudsters.

The NDIS as the “Only Boat in the Ocean”

For many thousands of Australians with disability and their families, the NDIS is the only boat in the ocean. Mainstream services (health, education, housing, transport, and community supports) remain woefully inadequate or inaccessible. Until genuine, properly funded foundational and mainstream services exist across states and territories, implementing cuts this extensive is reckless and dangerous. Shifting costs onto already overstretched state systems or onto families will not save money — it will cause harm, increased hospitalisations, and higher long-term costs. It is nothing but the shuffling of deck chairs and palming off onto the States to allow the federal budget position to look better.

Submission 131

Socio-Economic Vulnerability of NDIS Participants and Families

Many NDIS participants and their families are already at the lower end of the socio-economic scale. The majority rely on the Disability Support Pension (DSP) or the Carers Allowance/Payment as their primary or sole income. Many participants and carers have had to give up paid work entirely or are unable to work because of the severity of the disability or intensive caring responsibilities. Deep cuts to individualised supports will push these already vulnerable households further into poverty and financial stress, with ripple effects on mental health, housing stability, and family wellbeing that existing services will be unable to manage.

The two recent familicide cases in Perth and Campbelltown in Sydney involving disabled autistic children should be more than enough to demonstrate the lack of support for disabled people and carers with complex, high, and variable needs.

Underlying Philosophy: A Concerning Undertone of Eugenics and Devaluation of Disabled Lives

This Bill carries a strong undertone that echoes eugenic thinking — the pseudoscientific ideology that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which sought to “improve” the human population by deeming certain lives (often those with disabilities, intellectual impairments, or perceived low productivity) as burdens unworthy of full support or reproduction. Historically, in Australia and internationally, eugenics manifested through policies of institutionalisation, forced sterilisation, immigration restrictions based on disability, and segregation. These ideas influenced early 20th-century laws and contributed to atrocities such as Nazi Germany’s Aktion T4 program.

While the Bill does not explicitly advocate such extremes, its aggressive tightening of eligibility, rigid functional assessments, prioritisation of cost containment, and assumption that centralised bureaucracy can objectively determine “worthy” supports replicate the core eugenic logic: ranking human worth by productivity, independence, and fiscal impact. It implies that disabled people and their carers’ lives are not fully worth the investment in dignified, individualised support — and that government and bureaucrats know best, despite not living these realities day in and day out.

This paternalistic approach devalues the expertise of people with disability and their families, contradicting the NDIS’s founding spirit of empowerment.

Submission 131

Economic Context: Comparison to Original Productivity Commission Foundations and Downstream Costs

The Productivity Commission’s (PC) 2011 report justified the NDIS on strong economic grounds. It found that the benefits would significantly outweigh the costs, with the scheme only needing to deliver an annual gain of around $3,800 per participant to pass a rigorous cost-benefit test. The PC projected substantial long-term gains, including a potential 1% increase in GDP by 2050 (around $32 billion in additional GDP in that year alone, in constant prices), driven by improved employment outcomes for people with disability and their carers.

Independent modelling since rollout indicates that positive returns are being delivered, though not yet at the full long-term scale projected. The Taylor Fry cost-benefit analysis for the 2023 NDIS Review estimated net benefits of approximately $7.6 billion in 2022–23 (against net costs of ~$15.8 billion). This figure is considered an underestimate, as longer-term benefits (such as improved education and employment pathways) are not yet fully captured. Benefits were driven largely by improved well-being and life satisfaction, alongside measurable gains in carer employment and modest improvements in participant employment and financial security.

Per Capita modelling has estimated a strong economic multiplier, with every $1 spent on the NDIS generating around $2.25 in broader economic activity and supporting over 270,000 jobs.

Current costs have grown (supporting ~760,000–774,000 participants, ~$50+ billion annually). The Bill projects $37.8 billion in savings over four years (mainly via reduced participant payments), aiming to reduce participant numbers to ~600,000 and slow growth. However, these “savings” risk substantial downstream cost-shifting and lost productivity (based on Per Capita/NDS modelling scaled to current scheme size):

• State health and emergency services: Reduced community supports are expected to increase hospital admissions, bed-blocking, delayed discharges, deconditioning, and crisis presentations (especially for psychosocial and complex disabilities). States have warned of absorbing costs for ~160,000 people shifted off the NDIS. Scaling the Bill’s cuts suggests hundreds of millions to billions in additional annual state hospital and emergency costs nationally, negating federal “savings.”

• Lost productivity and NDIS-related jobs: Underfunding by $1 billion correlates with ~10,200 fewer jobs, $2.25 billion less economic activity, and a 0.14% reduction in GDP. The NDIS supports over 270,000 jobs. Scaled to the Bill’s cuts — and including the projected loss of up to 204,000 jobs and 1,455 small plan management businesses — this risks tens of thousands of job losses and billions in lost GDP contribution

Submission 131

annually. Independent analyses estimate current annual net benefits at ~$7.6 billion

(largely wellbeing), which these changes threaten to erode.

High NDIA/provider staff turnover (16–30% in parts of the sector) already drives inefficiencies; better training and retention could save hundreds of millions annually in appeals and rework — yet the Bill prioritises participant-side cuts. This is a false economy that risks forgoing the positive returns the scheme is already delivering, as well as the greater long-term economic participation gains originally modelled by the Productivity Commission.

10. Inconsistency with the Disability Royal Commission, NDIS Review, UN CRPD — and Labor Values

The Bill also tightens the permanence test so that an impairment is considered permanent only if all appropriate treatments have been exhausted — regardless of cost, geographic location, or the practical ability to access those treatments. A future legislative instrument will define what counts as “all appropriate treatment.” This is like playing football where the opposition keeps moving the goalposts — no matter how much evidence or effort participants provide, the rules can shift arbitrarily.

The Royal Commission and NDIS Review emphasised co-design, quality, and foundational supports — not top-down cuts, automation, or unrealistic treatment demands. The Bill risks breaching CRPD Articles on autonomy, choice, and consultation.

Turning the NDIS from a participant-empowered insurance scheme into a paternalistic, bureaucratic machine — with sweeping ministerial powers, automation, rigid assessments, and depth cuts to individualised supports — fundamentally contradicts core Labor values of fairness, equity, social justice, and support for the most vulnerable. Labour has long championed rights- based social policy and protections for people with disability. This Bill moves in the opposite direction and will take people over the cliff.

How can we trust the Government when there has been NO meaningful prosecution or termination of the Australian Public Service staff who were involved in and oversaw Robodebt?

The Australian Public Service Commission found that 12 public servants breached the Code of Conduct on 97 occasions. Although two former Secretaries (Kathryn Campbell and Renée Leon) have been named and have since left the APS, several of the other public servants found to have breached the Code remain employed in the Australian Public Service, with only fines or demotions in some cases — none were terminated. A number of people are employed within the

Submission 131

NDIA. That is a red flag if ever there was one. If the Government refuses to hold its own officials fully accountable for one of the worst administrative scandals in recent history, how can disabled people, their families, and the wider community have any confidence that the same bureaucracy will now exercise these vast new powers fairly, transparently, or in our best interests?

Recommendations

I urge the Committee and Parliament to:

• Reject or substantially amend provisions on automation, limited appeals, block/shared supports, narrowed criteria, the unrealistic “exhaust all treatments” permanence test, and ministerial bulk powers.

• Restore full individual appeal rights (including on quantum of funding), human oversight, longer claiming periods, and genuine participant choice.

• Commission independent modelling of net downstream costs versus original Productivity Commission benefits, plus efficiencies from lower NDIA turnover and better initial planning.

• Investigate and address conflicts of interest among peak bodies, board members (including Joan McKenna Kerr of Autism WA/NDS), and pricing advisors who may benefit from market consolidation and the destruction of small plan management businesses.

• Ensure genuine co-design, not fake surface-level engagement, full CRPD alignment, and protection for vulnerable groups (especiall those targeted by the Grattan Institute, who have psychosocial, fluctuating, and complex disabilities) — while explicitly rejecting any devaluing of disabled lives or eugenic-style hierarchies.

• Apply consistent fraud investigation standards across all government programs.

• Prioritise foundational/mainstream investments and internal efficiencies over deep participant cuts — especially while the NDIS remains the only real support available to so many.

The NDIS must empower people to live ordinary lives with dignity — not become a centralised rationing system that devalues lives, echoes dark historical precedents, concentrates unchecked power, creates constant fear and obstruction, moves the goalposts on eligibility, or creates higher long-term human and economic costs. My 3-plus-year battle shows the systems current flaws; the Bill would exacerbate them to unfathomable levels that will only end in tragedy.

I am available for further discussion or to appear before the Committee. The voices of people with disabilities, families, and frontline providers must be centred.

Submission 131