Submission 1381 — Name Withheld — NDIS Future Generations Bill | External submission

28 May 2026

Commi-ee Secretary

Senate Standing Commi-ee on Community Aﬀairs

PO Box 6100

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

By email: community.aﬀairs.sen@aph.gov.au

SUBMISSION: NATIONAL DISABIITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE

GENERATIONS) BILL 2026

Dear Commi-ee

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to the Senate Standing Commi-ee on Community Aﬀairs. My name is . I wish to make a submission on the Na#onal Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Genera#ons) Bill 2026 (Bill). I am making this submission as a par=cipant in the complex needs pathway of the NDIS. I wish for my submission to be anonymous and not published or associated with my name. I am unable to upload this submission online. Please accept this submission by email. I am reques=ng anonymity. I have been informed that parQcipants who raise concerns will be targeted for removal from the scheme and/or their funding will be cut as retribuQon, irrespecQve of their support needs and disability impacts. I am deeply concerned that any Australian Government would seek to threatened and harm vulnerable people for seeking to inform and contribute to the public interest in safeguarding the NDIS and people with disability. I would ask that the Commi-ee speak directly and make recommendaQons about the level of threat and coercion being applied by the Government to deny Australian ciQzens their legal right to parQcipate in democraQc processes. I want to raise serious concerns and outline the harm the Bill will cause if it passes Parliament. This Bill is far too far-reaching, if it passes. It removes too many rights, oversight, checks and balances, and safeguards. It hands over extraordinary arbitrary powers to a Minister, and future governments. It proposes arbitrary decision-making and cuts to criQcal funding that directly put vulnerable people in immediate danger, irrespecQve of evidence supporQng their disability needs. My submission asks that the Senate recommend in the strongest possible terms that:

sudden cessaQon of funding for disability support leads to immediate loss of independence, increased risk of abuse, insQtuQonalisaQon, isolaQon, and dangerous drops in mental and physical health, wellbeing and safety of parQcipants.
the sudden removal or reducQon of disability support services leads to a variety of interconnected, severe harm.
the loss of funding for daily living assistance and specialised therapies results in rapid physical deterioraQon and escalaQon in crisis. Without essenQal in-home care, and support to access the community and goods and services, people are forced into restricQve group homes or hospital environments, removing their right to live independently, and with dignity, choice and control, and are at high risk of abuse, torture, neglect, exploitaQon and other harms as demonstrated by the Disability Royal Commission Final Report and reports from exisQng parQcipants who are experiencing funding cuts.
the ongoing uncertainty of funding, coupled with mass eligibility reassessments and sudden reducQons in care hours, triggers intense anxiety, depression, and severe psychological distress. ParQcipants are exploring voluntary assisted dying opQons and are making suicide plans due to the diabolical changes being put forward in the Bill. Murders of disabled people are already being experienced and being reported.
arbitrary cuts to community and social parQcipaQon funding without reference to parQcipant evidenced-based needs strip individuals of the support needed to leave the house, maintain employment, access goods and services, access criQcal appointments, connect with their community, driving severe social isolaQon and loneliness. The Government says that this will save costs, however,

it has not produced any evidence to support this claim, nor analysis of the cost shiVing and increased costs to be borne by the taxpayer under more diverse state, territory and federal systems, as a consequence of these changes.

when formal supports disappear, the burden shi\s enQrely to unpaid family caregivers, o\en leading to caregiver burnout and ﬁnancial ruin. It also pushes individuals into underprepared crisis systems, emergency departments, and aged care. Disability and health care costs will increase as a consequence. The Government must conduct a full assessment of the full economic impact of the Bill on families to care for people with disability, withdrawal of support for people to parQcipate socially and economically (as per the original intent of the NDIS), and the loss of employment and small business, and the full Australian economy as a consequent of the Bill given that it currently generates 2.5 the economic return on the Government current investment back into the Australian economy.
in markets where alternaQve safeguards are absent, as being proposed by the Bill, the instability created by funding gaps or gaps in foundaQonal supports can leave vulnerable individuals reliant on inadequate informal networks or unsafe environments where they will be subjected to the harms as evidenced by the Disability Royal Commission.
The Health Minister Mark Butler emphasised that the problem of the NDIS’s money woes is not disabled people, but rather “shonks and rorters” along with “the worst elements of organised crime”. Yet, it seems from the Bill, it is disabled people who will pay the price.
The Government should be called to account for and explain in clear terms why it has presented a Bill for consideraQon that, eﬀect, destroys the NDIS that Australia voted for and which the Albanese Government undertook to fully fund and safeguard from the very reforms being proposed by the Bill.
The Bill introduces the noQon that support plans for parQcipants will be generated by a computer program and staﬀ will have no discreQon to amend the plan.
Rights to review or appeal will be restricted, and non-existent (in pracQcal). The introducQon of robo- planning will not capture disability support needs of highly vulnerable and complex parQcipants leaving them at high risk. These kinds of automated calculaQons have been criQcised since they were ﬁrst proposed by the CoaliQon, including by Labor. The dangers of roboplanning were catastrophic as demonstrated by the unlawful Robodebt experience. The Government has serious quesQons to answer as to why they would knowingly proposed changes that may again be unlawful and put parQcipants at risk of imminent and immediate danger.
The Government should make public all legal and other advice and analysis of the proposed roboplanning being proposed (including on the lawfulness of this planning and the removal of the rights of disabled people), and any new support needs assessments.
The Minster has himself has publicly stated that the Bill will have a material impact on parQcipant plans, yet no explanaQon has been given as to how these impacts would be managed to safeguard parQcipants. The Australian public and disabled community have a right to demand explanaQon and accountability from the Ministers responsible for this diabolical legislaQon.
the Bill should be urgently withdrawn.
genuine co-design and consulta=on should be undertaken with the disability community on any further reforms of the NDIS.
any amendments to the Bill should be re-submi-ed to the Commi-ee and to public consultaQon with appropriate Qmeframes to again closely examine before being passed into law.
a detailed analysis including of all costs, risks, individual harm and producQvity impacts should be undertaken to understand the proposed severe physical, psychological, systemic and economic harms that will be caused by the Bill, as intended by the Albanese Government. I wish to raise serious concerns about the =meframes allows for consideraQon of the Bill. The legislaQon is complex and warrants careful scruQny given the enormity of the direct removal of disability rights, the impacts for hundreds of thousands of highly vulnerable Australians, our community, small businesses, and the Australian economy. Two weeks is insuﬃcient to allow for appropriate consultaQon on such complex legislaQon, and also considering accessibility and communicaQon needs of those most directly aﬀected. The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says consultaQon should occur for a minimum of 30 days. If the Government were genuinely wishing to co-design and consult and advance considered reforms that secure the

NDIS for the future, we would see this intenQon demonstrated through the adopQon of best pracQce standards and accessible consultaQon processes and Qmeframes. Recommenda=on: I believe that the Bill should be withdrawn by the Government and genuine co-design and consulta=on should be undertaken with the disability community before any further reforms are considered or progressed. Further Key Points: The NDIS is a scheme that all Australians support and can be proud of. The primary legislated purpose of the NaQonal Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is to give eﬀect to Australia’s obligaQons under the United NaQons ConvenQon on the Rights of Persons with DisabiliQes (UNCRPD). The NDIS does this by providing supports to enable people with severe, life-long and permanent disability to live an ordinary life, ensuring social and economic parQcipaQon. “There for the grace of God go I”, the NDIS was and should be available for all Australians who need disability support to live so that they can parQcipate fully economically and socially in our community. The NDIS has been an extraordinary success. The NDIS returns $2.25 to the Australian economy for every $1 invested, according to landmark economic modelling from the independent think tank Per Capita. This mulQplier eﬀect reﬂects the broad ﬁnancial sQmulus generated by the sector, including job creaQon, localised business spending, and increased workforce parQcipaQon by parQcipants and their carers. Importantly, the NDIS has enabled par=cipants to exercise their rights, engage in acQviQes of daily living, live in their homes independently, build connecQon and belonging in our community, manage their aﬀairs, make decisions, inspire innovaQon, and have choice and control in their lives. If I did not have the NDIS, I would not be alive. The Government says that the NDIS is cosQng too much money. The Government is instead re-direcQng the ‘savings’ from ‘slashing’ parQcipant plans to dramaQcally increase spending on war and a dubious AUKUS agreement. The Government has also refused to reform taxes which currently grossly beneﬁt fossil fuel companies, large corporates and the rich. These choices represent an extraordinary a\ack on par=cipants and their disability rights who rely on the NDIS to live and contribute. These choices represent decisions to ignore years of evidence that have already cost par=cipants and the NDIS billions of dollars (tax payers) to obtain and which has guided decisions on funding for individual support needs. Each parQcipant has already been subjected to years of intrusive treatment, tesQng, assessments in addiQon to experiencing the enormous challenges of living with severe and permanent disability. The evidence provided to date has been overwhelming to support ongoing funding for my needs and those of others. I feel there are serious quesQons to answer on why the Albanese Government would see ﬁt to throw all of this away, terrorise and compromise the health, safety and wellbeing of well over 700,000 Australians who are the most vulnerable in our society. I also wish to raise alarm about the language and reasoning used by the Ministers has been violent, vague, oVen contradictory, misguided and threatening. Language such as engaging “razor gangs”, “slashing”, “kicking people oﬀ”, etc is language used by perpetrators, reﬂects predatory and coercive behaviour and is highly triggering and re-traumaQsing for already very vulnerable people. Re-trauma=sa=on is not a buzz word – thie dialogue around fraud shaped by Labor’s expensive PR research and campaign to make funding cuts more palatable to voters should not be a licence to engage in violence and viliﬁcaQon of disabled people. This represents very real psychological harm, torture and abuse being experienced repeatedly by highly vulnerable parQcipants. This reform agenda and the Government’s language has aﬀected me profoundly, to the point where I am unable to eat or sleep, I cannot stop shaking. I cannot walk or talk a consequence, my limbs shake so severely. I gag up blood because my body and nervous system is in such a state of dysregulaQon and terror I keep tearing my oesophagus. This is the level of terror being revealed by such a strong trauma response. If I receive any email or contact from the NDIS complex needs planner, I shut down and dissociate so severely to the point where I am unable to engage in any acQviQes safely at all. I have not been able to leave my home to a-end a dental appointment, be checked by the optometrist, go to the bank, a-end to my aﬀairs – I am so

severely impacted by what is being proposed, the Government dialogue and the viliﬁcaQon inciQng hate being directed at people with disability in our community. These choices being made by the Albanese Government to remove funding for criQcal supports for people with disability to prioriQse war, AUKUS, subsidies for fossil fuels, large corporaQons and rich individuals have not been examined for their beneﬁt and economic returns to the Australian people and our economy. I believe the Commi-ee should be seriously ques=oning the ra=onale for these choices and the basis for which a scheme that so clearly beneﬁts the Australian community and economy is being slashed. The Government says that there is too much fraud in the NDIS. The Government has made it clear that parQcipants are not the perpetrators of fraud and, from what has been said publicly, evidence of fraud is low. Alarmingly and most curiously, the Bill does not address the areas where fraud can occur, nor advance competent regula=on of the market and safeguard par=cipants. Increased isolaQon and restricQve pracQces have already been well documented as directly and dramaQcally raising the risks of material harm, exploitaQon and neglect and fraud being perpetrated on people with disability. On this point, I would submit the concerns raised publicly by People With Disability Australia: “This is not a fraud preven#on Bill.” Croakey has published a powerful analysis of the Government’s proposed NDIS changes, with disability advocates and experts warning the Bill could cut supports, reduce access and leave people at greater risk if it passes without major amendments. The ar#cle highlights concerns that:

support cuts could increase isola#on and harm
reassessments will become harder to access
people could be locked out of the NDIS because they cannot aﬀord treatment or specialist reports
women and carers will be pushed into greater unpaid caring responsibili#es
funding decisions are being driven by budget savings, not people’s needs As PWDA Ac#ng CEO Megan Spindler-Smith said: “The Government’s own analysis admits these changes will reduce community access.” People with disability deserve dignity, safety, choice and genuine consulta#on, not rushed reforms that could leave people behind. Read the ar#cle: hYps://www.croakey.org/ndis-impact-analysis-a-blunt-instrument-and-bill-will-cause-harms if-not-amended/ I believe further reforms are warranted for the NDIS – there are many areas where signiﬁcant improvements need to be made in the management and administraQon of the scheme, safeguarding of parQcipants and regulaQon of the market. There are also many areas where dramaQc savings can be achieved which do not displace the rights of people with disability nor put parQcipants at risk. I would be happy to provide speciﬁc examples to the Commi-ee and to the Government through genuine consultaQon based on what I have seen and experienced as a parQcipant. However, the Bill does not deal with these issues, nor achieve meaningful cost savings that would support sustainability of the scheme for future genera=ons. Other Key Points: Key decisions leV to ministerial instruments, not law The issue: The Bill allows Ministers to change who gets NDIS support (Schedule 1 Parts 8 and 9) and how much funding people receive (Schedule 1 Part 4; Schedule 3) by signing an instrument, without going back to Parliament. The rules that will determine criQcal eligibility thresholds (Schedule 1 Parts 1, 8 and 9) have not yet been wri-en.

How this aﬀects parQcipants: The decisions that shape the lives of parQcipants, whether they qualify for the NDIS and what supports they can access, could be changed without parliamentary debate or public scruQny. ParQcipants may not know supports or eligibility rules have changed unQl their plan is aﬀected. Recommenda=on: Require that all decisions aﬀecQng NDIS eligibility and funding levels be made through primary legislaQon subject to full parliamentary scruQny, with mandatory advance noQce to aﬀected parQcipants before any changes take eﬀect. Exis=ng par=cipants face narrower criteria and fewer rights to challenge decisions The issue: The Bill changes the rules for exisQng NDIS parQcipants and makes it harder to challenge some decisions about supports and funding. It also restricts when you can request a reassessment, removes review rights for automaQc plan renewals, and makes funding reducQons unreviewable (Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 8). Combined with restricQons on reassessment requests (Part 2), automaQc plan renewals without review rights (Part 5), and unreviewable funding reducQons (Part 4), exisQng parQcipants face narrower criteria with signiﬁcantly fewer avenues to challenge decisions about their supports. How this aﬀects parQcipants: This does not protect parQcipants already on the NDIS, who could be reassessed under stricter rules. If someone’s funding is reduced or their plan renewed automaQcally, they may have limited or no ability to challenge that decision. This could make it harder for people to get extra support when their circumstances or disability change. Recommenda=on: Require a “no harm” safeguard ensuring no current parQcipant loses access to supports unless equivalent supports are in place, with independent review rights before any exit decision and access to unscheduled reassessments preserved. Unreviewable ministerial power to cut funding across all support categories The Minister can reduce funding for any support or group of supports by a speciﬁed percentage through an instrument that cannot be challenged (Schedule 1 Part 4). This applies across all budget categories. Unspent funds will no longer carry over at plan renewal(Schedule 1 Part 5). How this aﬀects parQcipants: A parQcipant’s community parQcipaQon, capacity building or assisQve technology funding could be cut without warning and without any right to appeal. ParQcipants who save unspent funds across plan periods for high-cost items will lose that ability enQrely. I have periods of increased intense need for support, emergencies and complex barriers to work through to access goods and services. I have diﬀerent periods of the day and year when I can access goods and services because of the nature of my disabiliQes. In the past year alone, I have experienced mulQple emergencies situaQons including ﬂooding causing catastrophic damage and loss of li\s to my apartment complex where I live, and my home, cyclone and severe weather events, power outages, damage to criQcal assisQve technology that I need to live. I raQon my funding to ensure that my support needs can be met through these periods of increased need and ensure conQnuity of support, stability and safeguards. If this ﬂexibility is removed, I will be le\ unsupported during these periods and at risk of increased disability, hospitalisaQon, homelessness, bankruptcy and death. Recommenda=on: Require that unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for parQcipants saving for high-cost items and require independent review rights before any funding reducQon takes eﬀect. Requirement to exhaust treatment op=ons before eligibility The issue: A person with disability will need to exhaust treatment opQons before they can be eligible for the Scheme (Schedule 1 Part 8). There will also be a removal of whole-of-person assessment, replaced by single eligible impairment consideraQon (Schedule 1 Part 3). The note that previously acknowledged environmental factors and other ineligible impairments could aﬀect support needs will be removed (Schedule 1 Part 3). How this aﬀects parQcipants: People with disability will need to prove their impairment cannot be treated before they access the NDIS. Once in the scheme, their supports will only be assessed against a single eligible impairment rather than their whole experience. A person’s individual circumstances will not be considered, including ability to pay for treatment, where they live or whether treatment is actually available to them. This aﬀects me directly. I have already provided years of evidence that my impairments cannot be further treated, the disabiliQes are severe, lifelong and permanent. I do not have any further opQons open to me.

Further, the treatment I have been subjected to already has caused signiﬁcantly increased permanent disability and life-long catastrophic harm. This is re-traumaQsing and profoundly harmful to people who are already highly vulnerable and so incapacitated. I do not believe that it is just nor responsible for any government to inﬂict such harm on vulnerable people. Governments cannot and should not legally mandate measures that deliberately cause ciQzens harm and violate consQtuQonal or internaQonal human rights law. Absolute rights, such as freedom from torture, slavery, and the right to life, are inviolable. Recommenda=on: Do not proceed with a requirement to exhaust “appropriate treatment” opQons – there are no safeguarding measures around parQcipant harm due to side eﬀects or complicaQons, a parQcipant’s ﬁnancial ability to pay, or their geographic capacity to access treatments. Unvalidated func=onal capacity assessment tool risks misiden=fying need The issue: The Bill shi\s assessment from whole-of-person consideraQon to a single eligible impairment (Schedule 1 Part 3). Read together with the eligibility thresholds in Parts 8 and 9, the tool used to conduct funcQonal capacity assessments must be capable of suﬃciently idenQfying whether a person meets the threshold for that single impairment. The named assessment tool is the Instrument for ClassiﬁcaQon and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN). I CAN requires validaQon to ensure it will suﬃciently idenQfy the needs of all people with disability, including those whose needs may be ﬂuctuaQng or episodic and may not be captured through a point-in-Qme assessment, and to ensure it is culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability. How this aﬀects parQcipants: If the assessment tool does not accurately capture the full extent of a person’s disability, including needs that ﬂuctuate or vary over Qme, a parQcipant may be found ineligible or have their supports undercounted, with no guarantee the result reﬂects their actual experience. In my experience as a parQcipant living with severe and complex disability, the assessment itself and process would not be disability accessible for me, nor safe. It would not capture mulQple impairments. In the complex needs pathway, WE are human beings who are unique, complex and profoundly impacted by our disabiliQes. I would lose support and funding purely because the very process and assessment tools are NOT ﬁt for purpose, disability appropriate, safe nor accessible. And they would likely be conducted by people who are untrained and lack experQse to engage with me safely. I have already experienced mulQple assessments, including funcQonal assessments by highly experienced experts. Each of these have been well evidenced and traumaQc processes. I submit that the Commi\ee should strongly reject the need for ongoing, repeated assessment and all of the extraordinary costs that are incurred by these processes, including the increased disability and distress caused through repeated harm to parQcipants. Recommenda=on: Do not change eligibility for exisQng parQcipants in the complex needs pathway. Use exisQng evidence to support ongoing planning. Do not proceed with I-CAN as the funcQonal capacity assessment tool unless it has been demonstrably validated to idenQfy the needs of all people with disability, including those with episodic or ﬂuctuaQng disability, and demonstrated to be psychologically and culturally appropriate and safe for people with invisible and psychosocial disability. Supports cut before replacement system is ready The issue: From 1 October 2026, the government has announced funding for social, civic and community parQcipaQon supports will be cut by 50 per cent and capacity building daily acQviQes by 10 per cent for all parQcipants, reducQons that will be implemented through the ministerial instrument power in Schedule 1 Part

The FoundaQonal Supports system intended to ﬁll that gap has no conﬁrmed implementaQon date and is not yet operaQonal. How this aﬀects parQcipants: Supports that help parQcipants connect with their community, build skills and maintain independence may be cut before anything exists to replace them, leaving carers and families with greater responsibiliQes and no addiQonal support. These supports are o\en what help people stay visible, connected and safe.

I do not have any informal supports. I have no carers, family and others who can help. I would be le\ to

experience starvaQon to the point of near death (my previous history without disability support), unable to pay

bills and manage my aﬀairs because I cannot leave my home and access the community, keep my home, live independently. I am shocked that the Government would propose reforms that apply such a threat of real and imminent harm to the disability community. Even more shocking is that this is being proposed by a Labor Government in the context of all the evidence and experience provided over so many years on suicide prevenQon, and in the context of the Disability Royal Commission which showed the enormity of the neglect, exploitaQon, harm and torture that people with disability like me have already suﬀered. This can only be described as pure evil. The Commi-ee should also be alarmed by the dramaQc proposal to cut criQcal funding for social and community parQcipaQon without any regard to the parQcipant’s evidence based needs which results in profound isolaQon and loneliness. This is contrary to Australia’s obligaQons on disability rights. Research shows that the lack of meaningful social connec=on and an objec=ve lack of social networks triggers physical and mental reac=ons that lead to fatality. Social isolaQon and loneliness are direct contributors to premature death, increasing the risk of early mortality by 14% to 32% according to the World Health OrganisaQon. Social disconnecQon raises the risk of stroke, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes by roughly 30% IsolaQon forces the body into chronic stress, elevaQng stress hormones and inﬂammaQon while weakening the immune system. Loneliness signiﬁcantly increases the likelihood of developing demenQa by up to 50%. Research shows that people who experience social isola=on have a 32% higher risk of dying early from any cause compared with those who weren’t socially isolated. ParQcipants who report feeling lonely are 14% more likely to die early than those who did not. One can only assume the enormity of the incompetence and negligence for any Australian Government to be funding ongoing research into health and wellbeing and suicide prevenQon, yet ignoring this research by introducing legislaQon that will knowingly put people with disability at such high risk and increase the burdens on tax payers, overwhelmed families, health care and other systems. h-ps://www.aihw.gov.au/mental-health/topic-areas/health-wellbeing/social-isolaQon-and-loneliness Recommenda=on: That there be no reducQons to funding for social and community parQcipaQon. And that no reducQons to community parQcipaQon or capacity building supports take eﬀect unQl FoundaQonal Supports are fully operaQonal, adequately funded and demonstrably able to meet the needs of those who will lose NDIS supports. Further, I wish to raise concerns about the failure of the Bill to address and provide for emergency situa=ons for parQcipants, and periods of increased unexpected need. Emergencies can arise due to severe weather events, heat waves and severe heat, ﬁre, cyclone, ﬂoods, ﬂashing ﬂooding, pandemics and increases in infecQous diseases and inﬂuenza in the community, failures of essenQal equipment and assisQve technology, power failures, loss of access to food, water, medicaQon, loss of housing and accessible accommodaQon, complicaQons arising from disabiliQes, break down in supports, and many other circumstances. Circumstances of crisis and severe disability impacts can also arise due to loss of access to safe and stable supports, conQnuity of funding and support, neglect, exploitaQon, abuse, torture and coercive control being imposed on parQcipants, uncertainty and overwhelming stressors on already highly vulnerable people. In the context of climate change, we are experiencing more frequent, severe and prolonged periods of severe heat and high humidity, heat waves and power failures. Extreme heat is Australia’s deadliest natural disaster, historically claiming more lives than bushﬁres, ﬂoods, and cyclones combined. Recent research indicates that severe heatwaves result in hundreds of fataliQes annually, overwhelmingly aﬀecQng people with disability. People with disabiliQes are at a disproporQonately high risk during hot weather and severe heatwaves due to impaired thermoregulaQon, medicaQon side eﬀects, and reduced ability to independently seek cooling. Experts repeatedly urge targeted acQon and community support to protect this vulnerable group, yet these calls to acQon conQnue to be ignored.

The NDIS is not providing adequately for these circumstances. Emergency planning is not being supported, nor speciﬁcally funded. The Bill does not address these areas of need and, in fact, creates now acutely unpredictable, uncertain and a high risk environment for parQcipants who rely on support to live and families who are already at breaking point. Further, the level of complexity and record keeping is beyond reasonable for people with disability who are already dealing with complex disability and barriers in all areas of daily living, very small disability and energy envelopes. No funding support is being provided to manage this complex bureaucracy and associated increased costs being imposed to the detriment of parQcipants. The Bill is creaQng an impossible situa=on for vulnerable people, that would be strongly rejected were the equivalent to be imposed on a corporate, investment or mining sectors. When regulatory frameworks become too complex, they trigger systemic, personal and typically catastrophic consequences. Regulatory overload occurs when complex, overlapping compliance requirements create immense stress. While meant to protect, excessive red tape dispropor=onately harms vulnerable people. It restricts access to vital support services, forces users to navigate dense bureaucracy to conQnue to access support to live, and worsens disadvantage by imposing severe Qme, learning, funcQonal capacity and ﬁnancial cost. We have already seen this with mulQple instances of par=cipants dying while waiQng for decisions on criQcal supports. It should be appreciated that the cost of compliance is never shared equally. Vulnerable individuals—such as those dealing with disability and intersecQng poverty — lack the Qme, funcQonal capacity, literacy, or funds required to overcome administraQve hurdles. This results in a level of stress, overwhelm and compliance fa=gue that can drive people to burnout, give up, suicide. Regulatory and compliance faQgue does not just burden individuals; it drives healthcare professionals, care workers, families and small business operators into burnout. This decreases the availability of localised, personalized support. For people who are struggling to get dressed, brush their teeth, speak, communicate, go for a walk, access food and essenQal supplies, etc, the Bill represents an u\er disaster in the making and Government failure. We are already seeing parQcipants, the agency and organisaQons spending massive resources managing paperwork and processes rather than crea=ng value and providing actual support. We are seeing the agency tasked with applying and enforcing rules now so operaQonally unclear, overburdened and budget-constrained, resulQng in failures to make Qmely and appropriate decisions because they are bogged down processing endless red tape. We are seeing increasing costs (as a consequence), absurdiQes in decision-making and a marked deterioraQon in outcomes that would beneﬁt parQcipants and the community. This all represents a failure of Government to competently regulate, rather than parQcipants being the burden and their needs causing cost increases. Simply giving the Minister the power to slash funding arbitrarily and remove whole groups of parQcipants into non existent support is not the soluQon and is irresponsible and dangerous. Further, I wish to raise concerns about the insurance and capability risks for providers and the market capacity generally. Compliance with the NDIS Code of Conduct and Professional Standards requires funding for service providers to provide services, keep records and fulﬁl these obligaQons. All providers must carry insurance to conQnue to provide services. Cuts in funding will prevent compliance. Providers will lose access to insurance because the risks are too high, resulQng in more providers withdrawing from the market or being unable and unwilling to provide criQcal services. People with disability will loss criQcal support and experience increased disability resulQng in higher disability support costs being borne by the tax payer and death. We will also no doubt see dramaQcally increased rates in suicides and murders of disabled people. That these issues have not been considered in proposing this Bill raises serious quesQons to answer about the competence of the Ministers and the Albanese Government who is responsible for the proposed changes. Australia is facing a recession, rising costs of living, and widespread issues around housing and insurance aﬀordability, workers’ rights and human rights, serious climaQc change issues and impacts. Thrivership of our naQon and our economy cannot be achieved when a Government a-acks and dismantles a naQon building scheme of the status and value of the NDIS which enables so many people to parQcipate socially and

economically and sustains valuable skills, knowledge, innovaQon, accessibility advances, employment and small business, vibrant communiQes enriched by diversity and inclusion. People living with invisible disabiliQes are most vulnerable and at risk. The idea that the scheme will only support one disability is inconsistent with the reality and pracQcaliQes intrinsic to achieving the objecQves of the NDIS. The whole of person must be fully funded, supported and maintained in any reform of the NDIS. To propose otherwise is absurd and reﬂects the lack of experQse and ableism that has apparently been the compass for dra\ing this proposed Bill. I implore the Commi-ee to recommend that the Bill be withdrawn in the strongest terms. I have a-ached a Discussion Paper on the Bill prepared by the Occupa=onal Therapists Society for Invisible Disability dated 17 May 2026. I have also a-ached the RecommendaQons prepared by the Occupa=onal Therapists Society for Invisible Disability dated 21 May 2026. I wish to endorse and repeat the concerns and recommendaQons detailed in the Discussion Paper and RecommendaQons as the basis of my submission for the Commi-ee’s consideraQon. Yours sincerely,