Submission 1579

Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

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

I welcome the opportunity to make a submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

I come to this submission wearing a few hats. I am a person with disability, a business manager for an occupational therapy provider, and an advocate for two NDIS participants in my family.

I am very concerned about the direction of this Bill and the impact it could have on people with disability, families, carers and future generations.

Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency

The two-week consultation period was nowhere near enough time.

This Bill is over 200 pages long and full of complex legal language. It has taken me a considerable amount of time just to work through the content and understand what is being proposed. If I have found it difficult, I honestly do not know how many people with disability, particularly people with intellectual disability, communication difficulties, literacy barriers or those needing accessible information, are expected to meaningfully engage with it.

People need to understand what they are being asked to support or oppose. That has not happened here.

With more time, I would have written a much more detailed submission. Instead, I have had to focus on key concerns.

I am also concerned by the lack of transparency. Governments are elected to represent the community, including people with disability. Major changes to a scheme as important as the NDIS should not be rushed through with limited consultation and limited opportunity for public scrutiny.

Ministerial Powers and Reduced Oversight

I do not believe decisions about who gets support and what support they receive should be made without proper parliamentary oversight.

The NDIS was not developed overnight. It took years of planning, consultation and design. There was a recognition that disability is complex and that support systems needed strong safeguards and accountability.

This Bill moves significant decision-making power away from Parliament and into ministerial instruments. That worries me greatly.

Submission 1579

It makes me feel less secure about the future of disability supports. It also raises concerns about where this approach might lead. If governments can reduce disability supports through these mechanisms, what stops similar approaches being applied in other systems such as aged care, TAC or WorkCover?

People with disability deserve certainty and stability, not ongoing uncertainty about whether their supports may change without proper debate.

Review Rights and Reassessments

Review rights are critical.

I have seen firsthand why they matter.

During COVID, my son was admitted to hospital with a serious injury. He needed an advocate with him, yet we had to fight through complaints processes and appeal pathways before that support was approved.

Without those review mechanisms, he would not have received the support he needed.

The idea of reducing review rights concerns me deeply. If a person’s disability changes, if their circumstances change, or if funding is reduced unfairly, there needs to be a way to challenge that decision.

Without review rights, people risk being left without support and without options.

I am particularly worried about people in rural and regional communities, including many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who already face significant barriers to accessing specialists, assessments and reviews. These changes will only make those barriers worse.

Exhausting Treatment Before Eligibility

I strongly oppose any requirement that people must exhaust treatment options before becoming eligible for support.

The proposal raises more questions than answers.

What exactly counts as treatment? Is it medication? Therapy? Surgery? Alternative therapies? How many treatments must someone try before they are considered eligible?

Many people already struggle to access treatment because of cost, waiting lists and workforce shortages.

In my work, I regularly hear from people who cannot afford private assessments or specialist appointments. Requiring people to exhaust treatment options before receiving support risks leaving people without help when they need it most.

Submission 1579

People should not have to get worse before they qualify for support.

Whole-of-Person Assessment

One of my biggest concerns is the move away from whole-of-person assessment.

Many people live with multiple disabilities, health conditions and support needs that overlap and interact with each other.

You cannot separate one condition from another and expect to understand how a person’s life is affected.

A whole-of-person assessment looks at the reality of someone’s situation. A single impairment assessment risks missing the bigger picture entirely.

I also question how this saves money. If someone has multiple conditions requiring separate assessments, that seems likely to create more bureaucracy rather than less.

Functional Capacity Assessments and Automation

I am very concerned about increased automation and the proposed assessment approach.

Computers and AI are only as good as the information put into them.

They do not understand context. They do not understand human experiences. They do not understand the day-to-day realities of disability.

No automated process can replace genuine human understanding and professional judgement.

If the information entered into a system is wrong or incomplete, the outcome will be wrong too. The consequences of those mistakes can be life-changing.

Supports Being Reduced Before Alternatives Exist

I do not understand how the Government can justify reducing supports before replacement systems are fully in place.

If people lose support before Foundational Supports are operating, who fills the gap?

Families?

Carers?

Hospitals?

GPs?

Submission 1579

Most of these systems are already under pressure.

One of the positive things the NDS has achieved is continuity. People have finally been able to access equipment, therapies and supports that improve their quality of life and allow them to participate in their communities.

Taking supports away before alternatives exist risks undoing years of progress.

Human Rights Concerns

I believe these reforms weaken the rights of people with disability.

The NDIS was created because Australia recognised that people with disability deserve support, inclusion and equal opportunities.

The focus of these reforms appears to be reducing costs rather than protecting rights.

People with disability should not be blamed for government forecasting errors or policy failures.

If mistakes have been made in planning the Scheme, the solution should not be to reduce supports for the people who rely on them.

Closing Comments

My message to decision-makers is simple.

Think about how you would feel if it was you.

Think about what it would be like to need help to shower, get dressed, travel, communicate or participate in your community.

Think about what it would feel like to be told that support is no longer available, that your funding has been cut, or that you no longer have the right to challenge the decision.

People with disability are not budget figures. They are people.

The Government should be looking for solutions that protect people, not creating reforms that place them at greater risk.

Please reconsider these changes and ensure the rights, dignity and wellbeing of people with disability remain at the centre of the NDS.