National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 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
1
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 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-
old 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.
2
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 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.
3
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 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.
4
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 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.
5
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 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
6
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 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.
- 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
deep cuts to individualised supports — fundamentally contradicts core Labor values of fairness,
equity, social justice, and support for the most vulnerable. Labor 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)
were 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
7
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 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 (especially 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 system’s
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.
8
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 131
Yours sincerely,
9