Submission 1576
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Submission to Senate Enquiry
I am an NDIS participant and person with disability.
I welcome the opportunity to provide a submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
Like many people with disability, I recognise that the NDIS is not perfect. There are areas that require reform, greater accountability and stronger safeguards. However, I am concerned that many of the measures proposed in this Bill risk moving the Scheme further away from its original purpose of supporting people with disability to live, work and participate in their communities.
My submission draws on both my lived experience as an NDIS participant and my experience engaging with disability policy and advocacy.
Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency
The proposed consultation period is insufficient for reforms of this scale.
Meaningful consultation takes time. People with disability, families, carers, advocacy organisations and service providers need adequate opportunity to understand what is being proposed, consider the impacts and provide informed feedback.
Many people with disability are already balancing support needs, appointments, employment, advocacy and everyday life. A short consultation period disproportionately disadvantages those who are most affected by the legislation.
If the Government is committed to co-design and genuine engagement with people with disability, consultation processes must be accessible, realistic and allow enough time for meaningful participation.
Key Decisions Left to Ministerial Instruments, Not Law
One of my major concerns is the increasing use of ministerial instruments to make decisions that directly affect participant eligibility, supports and funding.
Good public policy relies on transparency, accountability and scrutiny. Decisions that affect who can access support and what support they receive should be debated through Parliament rather than being left primarily to ministerial discretion.
Submission 1576
Recent public commentary about the NDIS has highlighted what I see as a growing disconnect between policy discussions about sustainability and the lived realities of people with disability.
Fraud and misuse should absolutely be addressed. However, fraud is not the only challenge facing the NDIS, nor do I believe it is the defining crisis of the Scheme.
Participants consistently raise concerns about inconsistent decision-making, workforce shortages, inaccessible systems, delays and difficulties accessing support. Expanding ministerial powers will not necessarily address these issues.
I am also concerned about the increasing automation of planning and assessment processes. Elements of these reforms resemble aspects of the previously rejected independent assessment proposals. While the language may have changed, many participants continue to see similarities in the direction of travel.
Australia has more than two million people with disability. The NDIS supports around 600,000 of those people.
The question should not be why people with disability are accessing a disability support scheme. The question should be whether governments have adequately invested in disability supports, health systems, mental health services, housing and community services so that people can live with dignity and participate in society.
Existing Participants Face Narrower Criteria and Fewer Rights to Challenge Decisions
I am deeply concerned about proposals that limit review pathways and reduce opportunities for participants to challenge decisions.
My own experience navigating review processes has been difficult and, at times, traumatic.
I pursued a section 100 review and later challenged decisions affecting my supports. While the process was far from perfect, there was at least a mechanism available to question decisions and seek a different outcome.
One of the greatest strengths of the current system is that participants have rights, even when exercising those rights can be challenging.
Submission 1576
Nothing about the current system is perfect. However, an imperfect review process is still better than having no meaningful review process at all.
As planning and assessment processes become increasingly automated, independent review mechanisms become even more important. Systems make mistakes. Decision-makers make mistakes. Participants need pathways to challenge decisions that affect their lives.
The removal or weakening of those safeguards risks creating a system where participants are expected to simply accept decisions regardless of whether those decisions are correct.
Unreviewable Ministerial Power to Cut Funding Across Support Categories
I am concerned about proposals that would allow funding reductions across support categories without meaningful review rights.
Personally, the supports I would be most concerned about losing are my support worker and support coordination.
I have only recently gained access to a support worker, and that support has made a significant difference to my participation and wellbeing.
Likewise, support coordination has been critical in helping me navigate a complex system and make meaningful use of my plan.
Without those supports, I would struggle to fully utilise my plan in a way that respects my capacity, goals and support needs.
I am also concerned about the removal of flexibility around unspent funds.
I have previously had funding carried over into future plans through legitimate means. That flexibility allowed supports to be used effectively and responsibly.
Removing flexibility may unintentionally encourage short-term spending rather than thoughtful planning.
Requirement to Exhaust Treatment Options Before Eligibility
I have significant concerns about requiring people to exhaust treatment options before becoming eligible for support.
Submission 1576
While this may appear reasonable on paper, it does not reflect the realities faced by many communities.
People experiencing homelessness, First Nations communities, rural and regional communities and many others already face substantial barriers to diagnosis, treatment and specialist services.
For many people, the challenge is not refusing treatment. The challenge is accessing it.
I am also concerned about the broader narrative underpinning these reforms.
People with disability did not create the NDIS. We fought for it because previous systems were failing us.
When governments argue that participant numbers are unsustainable, they should also be asking difficult questions about where implementation has failed, where mainstream systems have failed and why so many people continue to require support that should be available elsewhere.
The responsibility for system design should not be shifted onto people with disability.
Supports Must Arise Directly from an Impairment
This proposal reflects one of my deepest concerns about the direction of the reforms.
Disability does not exist in neat categories.
I am autistic, ADHD and have an intellectual disability. I also experience anxiety and depression.
However, the NDIS primarily recognises me through my autism diagnosis.
That does not reflect the reality of my life or support needs.
My disabilities interact with one another. They cannot be separated into neat administrative boxes.
Through autism-specific therapy funded by the NDIS, I learnt skills that improved my ability to regulate emotions, communicate effectively and participate in my community.
Submission 1576
Those supports have already been removed from my plan.
I worry that the proposed reforms will continue narrowing how disability is understood until people with complex or intersecting support needs no longer fit within the system.
As someone who participates in policy discussions and advocacy, I am often perceived as highly capable.
What is not always visible is the effort required to maintain that participation.
After periods of intensive work, meetings, advocacy and social engagement, I often need time in a quiet environment to regulate and recover. Those realities are not always visible, but they are no less real.
Policy should reflect how disability operates in people’s lives, not simply how it appears on paper.
Functional Capacity Assessments and the I-CAN Tool
I have significant concerns about the proposed use of the I-CAN assessment tool.
The current system already struggles to adequately account for dual diagnoses, co-existing conditions and fluctuating disabilities.
Moving towards a more standardised assessment framework risks further reducing the ability to understand the whole person.
Research and participant feedback have already raised concerns about the suitability of I-CAN across different disability cohorts.
There are particular concerns regarding psychosocial disability, neurodivergence, acquired brain injury and people whose support needs fluctuate over time.
Assessment processes should be accurate, evidence-based and non-traumatising.
Many people with disability have spent years seeking diagnoses, gathering evidence and explaining their circumstances. Assessment processes should not create additional trauma or require people to repeatedly justify their existence.
A checklist cannot always capture exhaustion, masking, trauma, burnout, fluctuating needs and the complexity of lived experience.
Submission 1576
The consequences of getting assessments wrong are significant because assessments determine access to support.
Supports Cut Before Replacement Systems Are Ready
I do not have confidence that Foundational Supports will be ready to replace supports removed from the NDIS.
We have been hearing discussions about Foundational Supports for nearly three years. Yet there remains little clarity regarding implementation, service availability or long-term funding commitments.
At some point, announcements need to be matched by delivery.
Participants are being asked to accept changes today based on promises of future systems that do not yet exist.
If I lost access to the NDIS, I do not know what system would replace it.
I suspect many participants would say the same thing.
Governments should not remove existing supports until replacement systems are fully operational and demonstrably capable of meeting people’s needs.
Human Rights and Australia’s UNCRPD Obligations
From a human rights perspective, I believe many aspects of this Bill raise concerns under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Australia has committed to principles of participation, inclusion, independent living, equality before the law and self-determination.
Many of the proposed reforms appear to move in the opposite direction.
Reduced review rights, narrower eligibility pathways, increased automation and greater administrative control may make systems easier to manage, but they also risk creating additional barriers for people with disability.
Disability rights are human rights.
Policy decisions should be assessed not only through a financial lens but also through the lens of Australia’s human rights obligations.
Submission 1576
Final Comments
At the closing ceremony of the Disability Royal Commission, Andy Jackson spoke about what it means to keep going when systems fail to listen, when people are reduced to diagnoses instead of being seen as whole human beings, and when the burden of proving our worth never seems to end.
His words resonated with me because they reflect what many people with disability continue to experience today.
The disability community has spent decades advocating, educating, consulting and sharing our experiences. We fought for the NDIS because the systems before it were failing us.
We did not ask for charity.
We asked for the support needed to live ordinary lives, participate in our communities and have the same opportunities as everyone else.
The question should not be whether people with disability are sustainable.
Australia has more than two million people with disability. The NDIS supports around 600,000 of us.
Rather than asking why people are relying on the Scheme, governments should be asking why so many people still struggle to access the support they need and where implementation, administration and policy have fallen short.
People with disability did not create the problems facing the NDIS.
If governments believe the Scheme is no longer working as intended, they should first look in the mirror and ask where they got it wrong before asking people with disability to carry the consequences.
As Andy Jackson reminded us, we have always been speaking.
The question is whether government is finally prepared to listen.
- William Ward-Boas
NDIS Participant and Founder of William Ward-Boas Consulting