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

Submission 1768

Submission: Senate Inquiry - National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

deep concern at not just the contents of the proposed legislative package but the procedural fairness of these reforms. This bill has been introduced with no consultation with the affected stakeholders prior to the development of the package and with no opportunity to comment on an exposure draft. This lack of procedural fairness is shocking given the potential impact on people with disabilities, their families and the flow on impact on the health system. The proposed reforms a wide ranging and complex and require considered and detailed consultation. This process would never be followed for any other stakeholder group; however, we are to accept this treatment for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

This Bill should not be passed, and the government should begin consultation and co-design with the affected communities. Reducing participants funding or removing participants from the scheme does not remove the need for support, it will shift these costs to participants, families and other sectors. This reform appears to be an accounting measure to claim the government is saving money by shifting these costs to other sectors and the states while risking great harm to people with disabilities. This harm will be particularly pronounced in rural and regional Australia.

Changing the definition of permanence by introducing the concept of ‘all appropriate treatment’ will require people with disabilities to exhaust all possible treatment options many of which may not be available in rural or regional Australia, are expensive to access, many specialists have lengthily waitlists or require people to undertake lengthy and expensive travel. This will have the impact of blocking people with disabilities from even being assessed for the NDIS. This will affect poorer people, rural and regional Australians and those without the support to navigate complex health systems. The requirement to have undertaken all appropriate treatment will not remove someone’s disability but it may cause significant delays in accessing support which can have longer term impacts on someone’s health, cause further developmental delays and shift the burden of providing care back onto families particularly women. These costs will then be borne by the health, education and justice systems and place additional burden and stress on people with disabilities and their families and friends. This will not save the budget rather cost more and result in unnecessary harm.

The timing of these reforms does not seem to account for the time it will take for states (or their willingness) to establish new programs and funding streams to provide the required support for people kicked off or prevented from participating in the scheme. The timing of the proposed changes risks cutting established supports before replacement services are operational. These changes risk sending us back to before the NDIS where access to support and assistance was a lottery based on what state you live in.

The reforms introduce additional powers for the Minister to change amount of funding for particular support categories without a requirement to consult on these changes.

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

Submission 1768

participants with no mechanism to appeal or dispute these changes. While this power has been introduced with the stated focus on social and community support, it creates a backdoor for future Ministers to cut other streams of funding without consultant and adequate oversite. This creates significant uncertainty for participants. Reducing funding for social and community activities risks leaving participants isolated and excluded from work, their communities and living meaningful and dignified lives. It is hard to see how these proposed funding changes are in keeping with the original intent of the scheme.

I am deeply concerned by the introduction of Automatic Decision Making (ADM) into the scheme. Applying ADM to decisions about access to essential supports for people with disabilities should not be permitted. The risks associated with ADM in this sector could result in severe harm to people with disabilities. This is evident by the harm caused by Robodebt. Applying a standardised assessment tool through ADM risks missing complex conditions and disabilities, misidentifying need and misallocating support and funding. It also reduces transparency and accountability for administrative decision making and baking in data errors and biases into the system. Simply adding in human oversight without the appropriate skills and experience and with limited ability to override a decision will not provide appropriate protections against unfair and incorrect decisions.

We should not be seeking to balance the budget by harming people with disabilities and their families. The long term avoided costs of early intervention, community participation and individual support fair outweigh any short-term savings from this Bill.

I urge the Committee to listen to the voices of those with lived experience who have provided submissions. I lend my support to the recommendations made by the Justice Equity Centre, the Federal Member for Curtin, and the Occupational Therapy Society (those available at the time of submitting).