National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2277
Submission to Senate Inquiry regarding: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
CONTENTS
This submission includes: 1. Who am I? What is my experience with the NDIS? 2. Concerns with this Bill - misleading marketing (“cost blowout” and “fraud” claims) a. “Cost blowout” - Federal vs State provision b. “Cost blowout” - Unaddressed NDIS costs 3. Concerns with this Bill - proposed changes a. Changes to supports b. Automated decision making 4. Submission truncated due to lack of access
Page 1 of 7
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2277
Submission to Senate Inquiry regarding: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
5. WHO AM I? WHAT IS MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE NDIS? I am an NDIS participant and have been since 2020. I have participated in scheduled and unscheduled plan reviews, rollovers, “light touch” reviews, and engaged with the Administrative Review Tribunal process to rectify a major planning decision that was made due to a lack of knowledge on the planner’s part and a series of administrative oversights. I have a plan manager, have previously accessed the support of LACs assigned to my case, and have used both the email and live chat Enquiries functions for contacting the NDIS with queries.
I work in the early childhood sector, providing care for young children with disabilities and support to some disabled parents. In addition, I provide care and support to many of my friends who are disabled adults and children - some of whom are also NDIS participants, some of whom are currently considered ineligible but still require substantial disability support, and some of whom are clearly eligible but have not been able to successfully apply because of insufficient application support, inadequate application guidance for supporting professionals, or because of faulty administrative practices on the NDIS side (including staff not reading reports before making decisions, staff lacking relevant disability knowledge and failing to refer on to more experienced colleagues, applications being “lost”, extensive delays in processing applications including delays so long that reports were no longer considered current, etc.). As an informal caregiver, I am part of the unpaid workforce that saves the Federal Government up to $86bn per year in replacement care costs - and as a woman, I am subject to the additional gendered marginalisation of female caregivers which will negatively impact my financial and social security for the rest of my life.
I have seen first-hand the value of the NDIS early intervention access pathway compared to access delays and lack of appropriate and affordable services; and also the value of the List A/B/C/D model for conditions likely to meet NDIS criteria, in terms of reduced redundancy and reduced specific admin knowledge required around assessment and eligibility.
I was granted access to the NDIS on the basis of my Level 2 autism diagnosis. Autism is a complex condition that has physical, cognitive and social impacts, many of which may be dynamic, and a lack of understanding and knowledge around autism and disability among NDIS administrative staff and at the policy level has greatly impacted my NDIS experience, and thus my ability to access an equitable life in my home, workplace and community. It is only because I also have strong advocacy experience, a tertiary education, a highly specialised support team and the good fortune to sometimes be able to communicate in writing that I have been able to rectify some serious errors in my plans and their implementation. Perversely, these (fluctuating) writing and advocacy skills have repeatedly been used as reference to indicate that I could not possibly need supports in other areas or at other times, despite a wealth of research data and ethical standards on fluctuating capacity, whole-person analyses of disability, autism-specific needs and comorbidities, and many high-level professional reports to the contrary.
My needs range from communication and social engagement support and skills building, to physical and movement support and skills building, to household and daily living support. Not all of my needs are currently being supported by the NDIS even though they meet criteria for support. This is partly because there is a lack of case management services
Page 2 of 7
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2277
Submission to Senate Inquiry regarding: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
available to assist in identifying supportable needs, vetting and linking participants to possible providers, coordinating supports, checking for evidence-based practice and individual suitability, and managing administrative load. It is also because unclear NDIS policy and communications lead plan managers to make overly conservative decisions about what they will permit or consider an NDIS support, despite these decisions being far outside their intended scope of practice. Unfortunately, the introduction of the “In” and “Out” lists of NDIS supports has further compounded this conservatism, instead of providing clarity, as it would be impossible for such simplified lists to cater to the specific individual needs of each participant, and accessing reliable and clear confirmation from the NDIS about individual supports is currently not possible for either the general public, participants, or supporting professionals. There is also a concern about simple lack of capability, training or reasonable expectations of NDIS staff - e.g. NDIS admin staff unable to provide citation or reference for their advice; NDIS lawyers providing legislation as citation that does not in fact support their argument; conflicting information being given to participants between NDIS staff members; a lack of understanding of basic disability principles e.g. fluctuating capacity, dynamic disability, “spiky profiles”; and extremely concerning administrative errors in plan preparation and communications leading to plans with incorrect or incomplete detail which sometimes requires ART processes to correct. All of these issues greatly increase the cost of creating and implementing my plan - and that’s just for me!
Page 3 of 7
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2277
Submission to Senate Inquiry regarding: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
- MY CONCERNS WITH THIS BILL - MISLEADING MARKETING (“COST BLOWOUT” AND “FRAUD” CLAIMS)
This Bill has been marketed by the Federal Government as being motivated by reducing NDIS costs incurred due to fraud and over-provision. Multiple independent reports are extremely clear that NDIS financial loss due to fraud is on par with other Federal services like Centrelink and Medicare, yet no severe cuts have been proposed to those services. There are also no elements of this proposed Bill that appear to actually mitigate fraud risk; thus the logical conclusion that fraud claims are a marketing tool to incite public support of the Bill without transparency around the Bill contents. The documents tabled on 27th May 2026 by NDIS Minister Jenny Allister (after requests from Senator Jordon Steele-John) clearly indicate that the intention of this Bill was to actively reduce participant numbers both by removing current participants and by blocking access to prospective participants, not to meaningfully address fraud or to merely “slow the growth” of the NDIS.
2a. “COST BLOWOUT” - FEDERAL VS STATE PROVISION
It is also disingenuous to cite reduced Federal Government NDIS costs in this Budget without acknowledging significantly increased State Government costs associated with these cuts and changes. Where less disability support is available through the NDIS, more support will be needed in State-funded services - the need for support does not simply disappear when one level of government decides not to provide it.
Before the NDIS was formed in 2013, many formal disability supports were the responsibility of the State Governments. As the NDIS emerged, the services and infrastructure that had existed for those supports dissolved. It appears notably inefficient, only 13 years later, to ask the States to recreate those services and structures, especially as no guidelines have yet been given about what those supports need to be, how many people they will need to serve, or any demographic information about who, where, when, or what needs they will be serving - and some of them are expected to start in October this year! This is an unreasonable financial and practical demand, and will create quality and safety issues for clients and staff alike.
Reduced disability support is also directly linked to an increased demand for acute care and emergency response services (including hospitals, social work and foster care, child protection and protection for other vulnerable groups), which falls to the States to fund and facilitate. This is a cost that should be transparently declared when the Federal Government shifts responsibility to State-level services, in addition to the increased ongoing administrative costs of creating, implementing and monitoring individual schemes across States instead of a central Federal system.
2b. “COST BLOWOUT” - UNADDRESSED NDIS COSTS
This Bill fails to address, let alone act to prevent, the excessive costs to the NDIS from inefficient administration due to poor staff training, performance and retention, and the
Page 4 of 7
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2277
Submission to Senate Inquiry regarding: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
complicated and combative nature of current policy and policy implementation around eligibility and NDIS supports. Examples of prevalent, unnecessary administration costs requiring urgent attention:
● Excessive wage cost for admin staff due to frequently hiring short-term agency staff at much higher rates, and wage cost due to unreasonable workloads e.g. paying overtime (solved by quality training, staff support, staff retention practices, reducing workforce casualisation, clear and functional policy design and implementation). ● Excessive admin hours required due to small errors with lengthy correction protocols; short plan terms needing more frequent reviews; inadequate or inappropriate plans due to lack of staff knowledge/capacity/time; unclear information about eligibility and NDIS supports leading to more participant enquiries and conflicts (solved by properly training and funding staff; recruiting and mandating appropriate qualifications and experience; clear policy around reports and evidence so they are easier to read and make decisions about; clearer and fairer guidelines and protocols for confirming what is and is not an NDIS support). ● Excessive ART costs including lawyers for plan reviews, with >75% of ART cases being overturned in favour of the participant, and >90% being resolved before a hearing; many of which required ART intervention due to clerical errors, or planners failing to read and understand reports.
It also fails to address the ballooning costs of disability-related supports related to policies about where and how participants can source identical (or functionally identical) supports. When the NDIS will reimburse an approved disability-related NDIS support item from a registered provider (e.g. a disability supply company), but will not reimburse an identical item being purchased through another provider (e.g. a supermarket), the registered provider can charge an exorbitant mark-up knowing they have the monopoly on the market.
Costs also balloon based on the policies requiring a disability-specific item to be purchased instead of a mainstream equivalent that provides functionally identical (or even better) support to the individual. This also inhibits sustainable practices e.g. recycling, refurbishing, supporting local sellers/creators/custom-fitters/small businesses, and significantly reduces participant choice and control with no change to participant benefit.
Page 5 of 7
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2277
Submission to Senate Inquiry regarding: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
- MY CONCERNS WITH THIS BILL - PROPOSED CHANGES
3a. CHANGES TO SUPPORTS
This Bill proposes to reduce funding Social and Community supports by a fixed percentage across the board for all participants, regardless of individual assessed need. It is hard to see how a Scheme that is intended to address the individual participant (and is so willing to restrict access to supports or the Scheme itself on an individual basis) can reconcile a unilateral cut like this to any support category, or (as the Bill proposes to allow in future) to any category of participants.
Social and community supports allow disabled people to access both disability-specific and mainstream supports. Adequate social and community supports reduce segregation of disabled people and their friends and family by allowing us to participate in the same special events, essential community engagements (e.g. attending election polling booths, going to the post office), informal social gatherings like visiting friends, and even things like appointments that seem less “social” but still require high levels of community engagement to access. High quality supports are crucial for many of us to access these events and spaces safely, equitably, and appropriately.
I use my Social and Community Supports to pay a support worker to research venues, contact organisers with access questions, brainstorm creative workarounds, practice using my communication aids. I also pay support workers to help me pack a bag to go to the pool, to check and restock my handbag supplies (medication, sensory supports, communication aids etc) and help me plan what and where I will eat and rest, to make sure that I can participate fully when I arrive somewhere. These are far outside the expected scope of expected support from the friends or family of an adult, both in frequency and complexity of tasks. With reduced social and community support, I would be unable to justify taking the risk of attending local arts events, cultural celebrations, health and fitness venues like gyms and pools, and visiting friends and family; effectively segregating me from the society. The Australian Bureau of Statistics released a report in May 2026 stating that only 53% of Australians over 15 see family or friends in person once per week or more, indicating a serious crisis in connection; why would the Federal Government choose now to categorically increase this isolation?
3c. AUTOMATED DECISION MAKING
We are far past the point of saying there is no evidence that an automated process is able to safely make assessments of this significance; we have firm evidence that they are NOT able to do that. The 2022-2023 Royal Commission into the Centrelink “Robodebt” scheme resulted in an official apology less than three years ago from PM Anthony Albanese, for the harm and multiple deaths directly caused by the automated assessment scheme. The Federal Government was also required to issue more than $1.2bn in compensation to affected people. Yet this Bill proposes the possibility to expose categorically vulnerable Australians to the same automated, unchecked process; including by definition many people who are unable to or less capable of managing their own finances, filing official complaints,
Page 6 of 7
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2277
Submission to Senate Inquiry regarding: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
or participating in legal processes to address injustice. Why should we believe that it will be safe this time?
- SUBMISSION TRUNCATED DUE TO LACK OF ACCESS
The Federal Government decided to allow submissions to the Senate Inquiry on this Bill for a period of only 14 days (now extended by 3 days to Monday 1st June 2026, making 17 days total). This short period of response is especially egregious when directed at a category of people who are likely to need additional or unusual supports to engage with a formal process on short notice - supports that often cost money, and are difficult to organise. Unfortunately, due to the short notice, and the tight scheduling of my existing essential supports, care work, and rest requirements, I am unable to include further commentary on my concerns about changes to permanence and eligibility criteria (including especially who decides what constitutes “all appropriate treatments”), support needs assessments, what is an NDIS support, plan reassessments and end dates, and increased pressure on informal supports.
I wish to express above all that the lack of clarity, specificity and accountability in this Bill, and in much of the NDIS legislation and practice, is an active threat to the viability of the Scheme, to the immediate wellbeing of current and prospective participants, and to the “future generations” about which the government claims to be so concerned. We cannot, and we must not, protect the Scheme at the cost of the people in it. This Bill must not be accepted in its current condition, a blank cheque which promises that Ministers and NDIS officials will simply “figure out the details later” and leaves our entire population vulnerable to unchecked decisions with no further input from the people it most affects. Nothing about us, without us.
Page 7 of 7