NDIA Accountability Project

Concerns regarding social support cuts and automated decision-making for NDIS participants

‹ PrevPage 1 of 3 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 2158

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submitted by:

Date: 29 May 2026

Publication: I do not consent to this submission being published with my name.

Dear Senate,

My name is , and I am a degree-educated, independent support worker, an Australian citizen, a neurodivergent person, and parent to two neurodivergent teenage children. I do not utilise or get any DNIS funding for myself or my children, but I work every day with people who are reliant on NDIS funding to live their lives with dignity. Many people I support are not able to access adequate funding for their needs and the proposed changes to reduce financial support across the NDIS is disturbing. These reductions will no doubt lead to the diminishment of dignity and capability of people affected, and for me this raises serious ethical and moral concerns. Shouldn’t a government care for and protect it’s more vulnerable citizens? These amendment seek, in essence, to reduce care and protection for these vulnerable people.

I’m writing today to express my deep concerns with the proposed amendments to the NDIS scheme, in three areas specifically:

  • Cut to social and community participation funding from October 2026.
  • Minister’s power to cut funding without appeal.
  • Automated and AI decisions about funding with no appeal.

Issue 1: Cut to social and community participation funding from October 2026.

It is my understanding that that the changes that will go into law will reduce NDIS funding for social and community participation by 50% for people with disabilities. This flies in the face of an overwhelmingly large body of scientific evidence stating clearly that social and community participation and a felt sense of belonging is one of the highest protective factors against early death (1, 2, 3). It is very disturbing to find that the Australian government is ignoring this evidence and intends to remove so much community and social support for disabled people. Many people I work with are socially isolated and unable to access community because of mental illness, complex conditions, anxiety, lack of appropriate community events and lack of NDIS funding to access appropriate social supports. Sometimes I am the only person my clients see or talk to for weeks on end. Removing their support may result in complete social isolation, degradation in mental health and a real risk of harm or death.

Submission 2158

Issue 2: Minister’s power to cut funding without appeal.

It is my understanding that the Minister can cut plans by instrument, with no review. This is concerning as it can be done without engaging the disabled community, and disregards harms that funding cuts may do to already vulnerable people.

In addition to this, the Centre for Public Integrity has pointed out that Ministers already have too much power and that inadequate checks have resulted in multiple failures(4). The power to make potentially life and death funding cuts should not be left in the hands of a Minister, especially with no recourse to review. Changes to funding, cuts or increases should be done through consultation with the disabled community, and there should always be the option of reviews, especially if harm results from those decisions.

Suggested course of action:

do not give a Minister power to cut funding without review. Ensure that co-design with the disabled community, or at very least consultation happens before any funding is cut; and allow reviews, especially where harm may or does occur due to changes.

Issue 3: Automated and AI decisions about funding with no appeal.

This issue may be the most distressing to read about as a previous failed automated scheme (Robodebt) caused over half a million people to suffer severe financial and emotional distress as a direct result of the program (5). There is also a fast-growing body of evidence that AI solutions do not deliver the benefit they promised (6), and 95% of large corporations have been unable to get the promised benefits from expensive AI implementations (7).

It should be obvious that machines are not effective at discriminating or making decisions that involve complex and changing human needs; widely ranging limitations, presentations and scope within single diagnoses or set of conditions, and they are certainly not warm, sympathetic or capable or empathy, justice or moral decision making – something that is important when dealing with a vulnerable population of humans who are dependent on government funding for basic and essential supports.

Suggested course of action:

do not use automated tools for funding decisions for vulnerable people.

While I am not against a robust and fair NDIS system that is aimed at eliminating fraud and gross overspending, I don’t believe that the approach taken in this instance is fair, equitable, ethical, developed with community consultation, or beneficial to the disabled community in general. It strikes me that financial considerations outweigh any ethical and moral considerations and I’m very disappointed that the government is considering making laws that are likely to harm people.

Submission 2158

I would strongly request for these changs not to pass through into law without further consultation and co-development with the disability community.

Sincerely,

References:

  1. Holt-Lunstad, Julianne ; Smith, Timothy B. ; Baker, Mark ; Harris, Tyler ; Stephenson, David. Perspectives on psychological science, 2015-03, Vol.10 (2), p.227-237.
  2. Meta-Analysis: Social Isolation, Loneliness Tied to Higher Mortality. Harris, Emily. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 2023-07, Vol.330 (3), p.211-211.
  3. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 90 cohort studies of social isolation, loneliness and mortality. Wang, Fan ; Gao, Yu ; Han, Zhen ; Yu, Yue ; Long, Zhiping ; Jiang, Xianchen ; Wu, Yi; Pei, Bing ; Cao, Yukun ; Ye, Jingyu ; Wang, Maoqing ; Zhao, Yashuang. Nature human behaviour, 2023-08, Vol.7 (8), p.1307-1319.
  4. ‘Ministers have too much control’: $10b in taxpayer funds put at risk. https://publicintegrity.org.au/ministers-have-too-much-control-10b-in-taxpayer-funds-put-at-risk/, Aug 3, 2021.
  5. Robodebt: Illegal Australian welfare hunt drove people to despair. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66130105, 7 July 2023
  6. Data Shows That AI Use Is Now Declining at Large Companies https://futurism.com/ai-hype- automation-decline Sep 8, 2025.
  7. MIT Says 95% Of Enterprise AI Fails — Here’s What The 5% Are Doing Right https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaimecatmull/2025/08/22/mit-says-95-of-enterprise-ais-sheres- what-the-5-are-doing-right/ Aug 22, 2025.