Submission 182

Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

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

From: Address: Date: Saturday, 23 May 2026

Summary

I support reforming the NDIS, but I strongly oppose major elements of this Bill. The Bill is fundamentally unsafe for disabled people and will cause widespread harm unless significantly amended.

My key concerns:

• The 50% cut to Social & Community Participation from October 2026
• The new functional capacity test and mandatory reassessments from 2028
• The Minister’s new power to cut funding without appeal (s34A)
• Reduced rights to self-management and increased algorithmic decision-making
• The economic damage caused by cutting a workforce that supports half a million people

Instead of cutting supports, the government should strengthen NDIS workforce training, improve provider regulation, and fix invoice auditing, which would save billions without harming participants.

About Me

My name is redacted. I am 59 years old. I live in the Inner West of Sydney and have been an NDIS participant since 2021. I have complex disabilities including right hemiplegic cerebral palsy, cerebral palsy related executive dysfunction, complex post-traumatic stress disorder from a lived experience as a person with physical disability and childhood domestic violence in a culture of preconceived perceptions of people with disability that affect my daily functioning, safety, and independence.

I also previously worked for nearly three decades in the NSW Department of Education and Communities, including 16 years as a Software Licensing Team Leader — a role requiring rigorous auditing, compliance, fraud detection, and systems oversight.

I understand how large systems fail, how poor governance creates waste, and how proper training and verification processes prevent misuse. This Bill does not fix the real

Submission 182

problems. It punishes participants instead of addressing systemic failures.

My Concerns About the Bill

The 50% cut to Social & Community Participation (SCP)

As someone who relies on SCP to maintain social connection, mental health, and community engagement, this cut is devastating. In my experience: SCP is not a luxury. It is the difference between isolation and participation. It keeps people stable, connected, and out of crisis services. Cutting it by half will push thousands into mental health decline, homelessness risk, and hospitalisation — all of which cost the government far more than SCP ever has. These changes could mean I lose the supports that keep my home safe, my routines stable, and my wellbeing intact. It would directly threaten my tenancy and my ability to function independently.

The new functional capacity test & mandatory reassessments

The proposed test focuses on impairment rather than disability in context. This contradicts the Disability Royal Commission and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In my experience: My disability fluctuates. Some days I can manage tasks; other days I cannot. A rigid test cannot capture this reality. Reassessing every participant from 2028 onwards with tougher rules and fewer appeal rights will push people out of the scheme not because their disability improved, but because the test is designed to exclude. These changes could mean I am forced to repeatedly “prove” my disability, retraumatised by assessments, and potentially removed from supports that keep me safe.

Ministerial power to cut funding without appeal (s34A)

This is one of the most dangerous parts of the Bill. In my experience working in government systems: No system should ever allow unilateral decision-making without transparent review. Removing appeal rights is not “efficiency” — it is a breach of administrative fairness. These changes could mean: Participants like me could lose essential supports overnight with no recourse. This is incompatible with human rights obligations and basic rule-of-law principles.

Reduced self-management rights & increased algorithmic decisions

Self-management is one of the most successful, cost-effective parts of the NDIS. Algorithms cannot understand nuance, context, or lived experience. In my experience: Automated systems are only as good as the data they are fed. They fail constantly when applied to human complexity. Disabled people should not be subjected to opaque, unreviewable algorithmic decisions. These changes could mean: Supports are cut by a computer with no explanation, no transparency, and no accountability.

Submission 182

5. The economic cost of cutting the NDIS workforce

The NDIS workforce:

• Supports over 500,000 participants
• Operates in every suburb and region
• Drives training, allied health, community services, and small business
• Is one of the fastest-growing sectors in Australia

Cutting participant funding shrinks the workforce, reduces employment, and harms the broader economy.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the NDIS has repeatedly emphasised:

• Workforce shortages
• The need for national workforce planning
• The economic importance of the sector

Instead of cutting supports, the government should:

• Increase workforce training
• Strengthen provider accreditation
• Improve invoice auditing
• Remove rogue providers
• Build a national fraud-prevention unit
• Require mandatory qualifications for support workers

This would save billions without harming participants. As someone with decades of experience in auditing and compliance, I can say confidently: The waste is not coming from participants. It is coming from poor oversight.

Recommendations

I recommend that the Committee:

1. Reject the Bill in its current form.
2. Remove or significantly amend:
      o  The 50% SCP cut
      o  The functional capacity test
      o  Mandatory reassessments
      o  Ministerial power to cut funding without appeal
      o  Restrictions on self-management
      o  Algorithmic decision-making without human review
3. Restart the reform process with genuine consultation with disabled people,
    carers, and disability organisations.
4. Invest in workforce development, not participant cuts.
5. Implement strong provider regulation and invoice auditing to prevent fraud
  and waste.
6. Ensure reforms comply with the CRPD and the Disability Royal Commission
  recommendations.

Submission 182