National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2279
28/5/2026
RE: Submission to the Senate Committee for the NDIS Bill 2026
Dear Senators, staffers and whomever else it may concern,
This is a submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (henceforth the “Bill”). I, as a member of the public, would like to speak primarily to the purpose, intention and macro implications of this Bill.
The purpose of this Bill, as outlined by NDIS Minister Mark Butler, is to reduce the forecast costs of the NDIS over the coming decade. The intention of the Bill appears to be to reduce the number of current and future participants, reduce the number of services individuals are eligible for and reduce the amount of funding available to some participants and/or for some types of support. Given that the number of Australians living with a disability is not magically going down, the broad implication of this Bill is that more disabled Australians would be living without access to adequate, holistic support in the future.
I would like to make a case that supporting all disabled Australians to have a good quality of life is an essential function of our society and by extension the Australian government. Disabled Australians are not less worthy or less entitled to a good quality of life simply because they have the bad luck of being disabled and not being able to afford the support they need. I want to live in a just society where everyone has equitable access to supports and can enjoy a good quality of life, no matter their situation or circumstances. That includes disabled Australians.
I am currently not disabled, but I volunteer in emergency services and understand how easily a single moment of pure bad luck can change that. A supportive and inclusive public system for disability support is my insurance in case I become disabled. It is something I am content to pay taxes towards, not only because I believe that disabled people are worthy of support, but also because it gives me peace of mind for my future self.
Secondly, it is simply bad to cause suffering, even if it is indirectly. I believe that by reducing access to supports needed to maintain a good quality of life, this Bill would cause many disabled people to suffer. That’s a mean and evil and greedy thing to do. If money is such an issue for the Australian government, maybe introduce a 30% tax on gas exports and/or cancel our subscription to the USA military (aka AUKUS). Do not use bureaucracy and red tape to condemn some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of our society to suffering just to save a few dollars.
Perhaps the “financial sustainability” objectives of the Bill could be better addressed by increasing protections against rorting and price gouging by NDIS service providers. As reported by the ABC on Tue 5 May in The NDIS rorts playbook that’s popping up around Australia, many NDIS participants have been charged for services that weren’t delivered, or have been up-sold into service arrangements that are more costly. Both of the people I know personally who have been engaged with the NDIS tell me that NDIS eligible services and products are often more expensive than comparable mainstream services and products. It’s a little bit like going to the smash repairers – the first question they ask is “is this an insurance job” and then they price accordingly.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2279
For these reasons, I would like to see this Bill rewritten to prioritise and protect a good quality of life for all disabled Australians. I would like to see the removal of: • clauses and wordings which are likely to reduce eligibility for the NDIS or for particular services. This includes the removal of clauses which may prevent disabled people from accessing the NDIS because they are reasonably unable to undergo certain “treatments”, for example due to cost, remoteness, accessibility or conflicts with other aspects of their health/well being/treatment. This also includes the removal of clauses which may reduce or remove funding access for people with degenerative or progressive conditions. • Clauses and wordings which reduce the weight or importance of the participant’s lived experience, preferences and/or choices in decisions which affect them. • clauses which limit holistic, whole-of-person assessments of support needs, or the delivery of holistic, contextually relevant supports. • clauses giving the Minister powers to change available funding for certain types of support. • clauses and wordings which reduce the eligibility or window of opportunity for appeal or review of decisions, particularly in relation to automated decision making.
And I would like to see the inclusion of: • a clause which affirms the right of all disabled Australians to be supported holistically by the NDIS to have a good quality of life across all domains of wellbeing. • improvements to oversight and accountability for NDIS service providers to reduce the incidence of rorting, price gouging and exploitation.
Furthermore, I would like to see included in the Bill a clear and efficient mechanism for pre- approval of claims. Rather than approvals or rejections being issued after the fact (i.e. after the service has already been delivered and payment is owed), approval should be issued in advance for specific support being purchased. That way NDIS participants can be confident as to whether they are ultimately spending NDIS funding or their personal funds. That’s not to say retrospective claims should be abandoned - life happens and sometimes things don’t go as planned – but I have heard from several people that the uncertainty of waiting for claims to be approved is stressful and onerous. This Bill presents us with an opportunity to address this and embed a per-approval process.
Yours sincerely,
P.S. It seems, to me at least, quite counter-intuitive to slash funding to one of the few AI resistant industries in this country. As jobs are disappearing across the board thanks to AI and unemployment rates are set to rise, why is the Australian government trying to reduce funding, and by extension vital employment opportunities, in the disability support sector? Seems… a bit backward, wrong way and upside down if you ask me.
P.P.S. I wrote this submission myself without the help of AI. Took me like 3.5hrs so I appreciate you taking the 10 minutes to read it. Thank you :)