National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1358

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1358

Dear Senate Committee,

I write to express serious concern regarding the recent amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) legislation and the impact these changes may have on people with disability across Australia. I have worked in the disability sector in Australia since 2008 primarily with adults with disability. I also hold a Masters degree in Health Science (Developmental Disabilities). I have seen firsthand how the NDIS has changed the lives of people living with disability. Prior to NDIS I knew and worked with many families at breaking point, locked into inadequate block funded services and unable to get the support they needed. I know of a young man who was on an 18 year waitlist for supported accommodation and also knew of families who felt their only choice was to abandon their family members at respite facilities in order to secure supported accommodation. People with disability and their families and carers have traditionally had to fight for even the most dismal of supports, having to advocate and prove over and over again their need for support. Often having no choice of service provider and staying in suboptimal situations with no other options available. Post-NDIS I have seen people receiving this supports they need to live regular lives as members of their communities. I’ve seen families able to manage longer-term care of their children and family members at home with adequate supports in place. I have seen people with developmental disabilities find meaningful work and roles in their communities, gain skills and increased independence, become known and included in communities and increase social networks. I have seen adults transition to supported living with dignity and with the support of their parents and family members instead of waiting until an elderly parent has died and they are left without care and in crisis.

While I acknowledge the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, sustainability cannot come at the expense of the human rights, dignity, independence, and safety of disabled Australians. The NDIS was established following decades of advocacy by people with disability, families, carers, and disability organisations who sought to address profound failures in Australia’s previous disability support systems. Prior to the NDIS, disability support in Australia was widely recognised as fragmented, underfunded, unequal, and crisis-driven. Access to support frequently depended on where a person lived, the financial capacity of families, or inconsistent state-based systems. Many Australians with disability experienced poverty, social isolation, institutionalisation, barriers to education and employment, inadequate access to therapies and equipment, and significant exclusion from community life. Families and carers were often forced into exhausting advocacy battles simply to obtain essential supports. Many experienced burnout, financial hardship, and long-term emotional strain. The Productivity Commission’s 2011 inquiry into disability care and support described the existing system as “underfunded, unfair, fragmented, and inefficient.†The NDIS was therefore created to represent a fundamental shift away from crisis-based and rationed care toward a rights-based model centred on:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1358

individual autonomy, participant choice and control, early intervention, social and economic participation, and recognition of the inherent dignity and equal worth of people with disability.

The scheme reflected the understanding that disability support is not charity or welfare, but an essential foundation that enables disabled people to participate equally within society. It is therefore deeply concerning that aspects of the recent amendments appear to move the scheme away from these founding principles and toward a more restrictive and bureaucratic model focused primarily on administrative control and cost containment. Concerns Regarding Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The amendments raise concerns that Australia may not be fully upholding several obligations under the Convention.

1. Reduction of Choice and Control

The original NDIS framework was designed around participant choice and control. The amendments introduce tighter definitions of allowable supports, staged funding periods, and increased bureaucratic oversight of spending. These changes risk undermining Article 3 of the CRPD, which recognises:

individual autonomy, freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons.

Restricting how and when participants can access supports may reduce people’s ability to respond flexibly to fluctuating disability needs and individual circumstances. For many people with disability, flexibility is not a luxury but a necessity. Needs can vary significantly due to health fluctuations, mental health changes, environmental barriers, and life transitions. More rigid funding systems risk creating instability and reducing a participant’s ability to live independently.

1. Risks to Independent Living and Community Participation

Article 19 of the CRPD recognises the right of persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in the community. The narrowing of what qualifies as an “NDIS support†may lead to:

reduced access to therapies and daily living supports, loss of community participation opportunities, increased reliance on unpaid carers and family members, and greater risk of institutionalisation or social isolation.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1358

Many supports that may appear “non-essential†from an administrative perspective are in fact essential for maintaining employment, education, social connection, emotional wellbeing, and personal dignity. The long-term social cost of withdrawing preventative and capacity-building supports may ultimately exceed any short-term financial savings.

1. Risks Associated with Standardised Assessments

The move toward standardised assessments and impairment-based funding models raises significant concerns for people whose disabilities are complex, fluctuating, psychosocial, neurological, or difficult to measure through rigid functional assessments. Article 5 of the CRPD guarantees equality and non-discrimination. Standardised systems risk disadvantaging:

autistic people, people with psychosocial disability, people with episodic illnesses, people with rare conditions, and those whose support needs are highly contextual or variable.

There is concern that formula-driven planning may fail to adequately capture the lived reality of disability and may privilege administrative efficiency over genuine individual need. Those with greater literacy, financial resources, advocacy support, or capacity to navigate appeals systems may achieve better outcomes than vulnerable participants who lack such support, thereby increasing inequality within the scheme.

1. Threats to Dignity and Person-Centred Support

The NDIS was originally designed to recognise that disability support needs are highly individual and should be determined collaboratively with participants. The amendments risk replacing person-centred planning with formula-driven budgeting systems that reduce individuals to impairment categories and standardised funding assumptions. This raises concerns under:

Article 1 of the CRPD, concerning dignity and full participation, and Article 26, concerning habilitation and rehabilitation.

People with disability should not be treated primarily as cost-management exercises. Administrative convenience must not override individual wellbeing, safety, or autonomy.

1. Psychological Harm and Uncertainty

Many participants already experience significant stress and trauma navigating the NDIS system. The introduction of:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1358

impairment notices, narrower support definitions, periodic funding releases, increased reassessment mechanisms, and greater uncertainty around future supports

may create additional anxiety and instability for disabled people and their families. For people with psychosocial disability, intellectual disability, autism, acquired brain injury, or trauma histories, repeated reassessment processes and fear of losing supports can themselves cause substantial psychological harm. This may undermine participants’ health, wellbeing, and ability to engage in community life.

1. Concerns Regarding Future Rule-Making Powers

Another significant concern is the increasing reliance on subordinate NDIS Rules to determine the practical operation of the scheme. While administrative flexibility may assist governments to implement reforms efficiently, there is concern that important rights and entitlements may increasingly be shaped through rules that receive less parliamentary scrutiny than primary legislation. People with disability and advocacy organisations must be meaningfully consulted before further restrictions or operational changes are introduced. Recommendations I respectfully urge the Committee to recommend:

1. Preservation of participant choice and control as central principles of the NDIS.
2. Stronger legislative safeguards to ensure the CRPD remains embedded in all NDIS decision-making processes.
3. Independent oversight and transparency regarding support needs assessments and funding methodologies.
4. Protections against discrimination arising from standardised assessment systems.
5. Greater clarity and accountability regarding how “NDIS supports†are defined and restricted.
6. Mandatory co-design with people with disability, carers, and advocacy organisations before future rules or restrictions are implemented.
7. Expanded access to independent advocacy, legal assistance, and appeals support.
8. Comprehensive human rights compatibility assessments for all future NDIS Rules and legislative instruments.
9. Ongoing public reporting regarding the impact of reforms on participant wellbeing, access to services, and social participation outcomes.

In conclusion, the NDIS is not merely a budgetary program. It is a foundational human rights framework that enables disabled Australians to live with dignity, autonomy, inclusion, and safety. The scheme exists because previous disability systems failed people profoundly. The lessons of those failures must not be forgotten.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1358

Reforms intended to improve sustainability should not erode the principles upon which the NDIS was built. Cost control cannot become the dominant objective at the expense of human rights, independence, and social participation. I respectfully ask the Committee to carefully consider the long-term human, social, and ethical consequences of these amendments and to ensure that people with disability remain at the centre of all future reforms to the NDIS.

Yours sincerely,