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

Submission 2228

30.05.2026

Submission to the Senate enquiry into National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Secoring the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

My name is , I am 57 years old and I have lived with disability since acquiring a brain injury 39 years ago, I am deeply concerned about the proposed changes in the Amendment to the NDIS Bill. I am a full-time wheelchair user with physical support needs and have been an NDIS participant since 2018. My NDIS plan has assisted me to stay physically mobile and independent, allowing me to lead a full life as a husband, homeowner, tax-payer and to continue to remain in open employment leading a major project for an NGO that employs over 25 people with disability in open, not supported, employment doing valuable community work. The NDIS has needed changes to its current model for a very long time, long before the Labor government came to power and inherited the major systemic problems with how it has been implemented since it’s roll-out. The scope of these major changes though, in such a huge sledgehammer Amendment, being rushed through without due process, without necessary safeguards, transparency and appropriate parliamentary and community consultation is not as Minister Butler said ‘returning the scheme to its original purpose’ and ‘nothing about us without us’. Instead, it runs the risk of having huge long-lasting negative impacts on the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of Australians with disability. This wide-ranging Bill contains complex interacting changes and the consultation period for both the public and parliamentarians is not long enough to assess these properly. The Impact Analysis from the government’s own Advisory Committee on Disability Reform, which briefed State and Federal Ministers earlier in May 2026, warned that this Bill will only create more barriers and constant anxiety for people with disability about whether they will be able to access the support they need to live with dignity and safety. The Impact Analysis further states that “It is a Bill that cuts supports, cuts access and cuts people with disability off from their communities.” and that if passed without amendment, “people will be harmed through deterioration, injury and even death,”. This is contrary to recommendations of the Disability Royal Commission. The Minister’s proposed new laws to cut funding without appeal (s 34A) also risks breaching recommendations of the Disability Royal Commission because they give the minister sweeping powers to cut funding or therapy hours across entire sections of the scheme – regardless of individuals’ assessed needs. This is a large over- treach of power and if enacted will put people at a significant risk of harm, with no avenue for appeal. The potential impacts of these laws require more consultation time to be fully assessed. The tougher unscheduled reassessment rules and the loss of the rights to review these are dangerous for many reasons. Many requested unscheduled reviews are made due to poor planning decisions and inappropriate plans being made in the first place, not just people wanting top-up funding. If people were truly listened to and included in their planning decisions this would save a lot of time and money at later stages when changes need to be requested.

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

Submission 2228

Getting NDIS Plans designed adequately from the start, rather than bringing in tougher unscheduled reassessment rules, would improve efficiency within the scheme, and drastically reduce the stress, anxiety and burnout for all those involved, including people with disability and government and sector workers. It would also reduce costs in other government areas such as health and welfare services.

Implementing this, rather than the proposed blanket and aggressive toughening of unscheduled reassessment rules and the loss of review rights, would be safer, less risky, more productive, and a more humane way to consider what is a human rights issue, not purely an economic one. People with disability, and the sustainability of the NDIS itself, need consistency in planning.

Poor initial planning decisions also directly interacts with other proposed items in this Amendment to the Legislation such as the large cuts outlined to social and community participation funding. While funding and the amount of fraud in this category certainly needs to be examined, broad cuts could have devastating consequences for large numbers of people. For example, funding often gets wrongly assigned within people’s Core budget, put into the category of Assistance with Social, Economic and Community Participation category rather than the Assistance with Daily Life category. NDIS Planners can dismiss this because Core funding is flexible across categories, but if social and community participation funding is brutally cut in people’s plans across the board as proposed, this will not only leave them unsupported and vulnerable, but at major risk of harm and be potentially life-threatening in some cases, with no rights to review or appeal.

In addition, even if funds are unused or underutilised because they are allocated unnecessarily due to poor planning decisions, this can also blow out overall NDIS funding estimates year in and year out. As I stated, people with disability, and the sustainability of the NDIS itself, need consistency in planning.

The NDIS and the way in which it is implemented needs to change if it is to be sustainable. However, the scope and speed of the introduction of these proposed Amendments need more through consultation and consideration before they are enacted. People with disability are being forced to bear the brunt of some of the biggest budget cuts on record in this country while the wealthiest in society lose some tax breaks. And given the amount and focus of coverage on those tax breaks, the wealthiest are apparently the group most deserving of society’s, parliament’s and the media’s concern.

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough for those who have little.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt said.

In good faith and with a clear conscience, this Amendment Bill cannot be passed in its current form.