National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2315
This NDIS bill contains proposals that are likely to harm numerous disabled people and their families in Australia. I am writing as a concerned community member, as carer to my husband, and also about my brother in law.
• Perhaps the most concerning aspect; it appears the basic premise & purpose of the bill is to “save money” by excluding whole cohorts of disabled people, and includes cutting supports that currently enable social, community and family participation for people with severe psycho-social disabilities. • As an aside, this framing ignores the highly positive effect NDIS spending has on the wider economy, and flow on social benefits to the whole community. A conservative estimate of the economic multiplier effect of the NDIS would be in the range of 2.25
• EM, Section 5.3.2: Budget reset for social and community participation supports: “This measure should not be considered to have undergone specific consultation to date.” • EM, Section 5.3.3: Changes to reasonable and necessary supports: “[T]his measure was not the topic of specific consultation.” • Firstly, how will this lack of consultation with stakeholders be addressed? • “The Bill contradicts its own evidence base on psychosocial disability.”
“The Explanatory Memorandum acknowledges that participants with a primary disability of psychosocial disability commit 30 per cent of their total plan budget to social and community participation, the highest proportion of any disability group in the scheme”
• (NDIA, 2026)… “acknowledges that community participation is foundational to recovery for this cohort, and that it builds belonging, confidence, skills and social networks, and reduces isolation (NDIA, 2022). It then proposes to cut those budgets by 50 per cent, without a specific impact assessment for this cohort, and without mitigation measures that are practically adequate for people with high need mental health challenges and psychosocial disability. The EM’s own evidence on why group settings and core budget flexibility do not work for this population makes the inadequacy of those mitigations plain.” • The foundational supports architecture for people with psychosocial disability does not exist.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2315
• The bill expects anticipated shortfalls in NDIS support due to cuts to be covered by other services, ignoring that in most cases other services no longer or don’t yet exist. • This proposal is not based on human needs. The bill is failing to adequately target the fraud and rorting by rouge and criminal providers, and forcing disabled people and their families to pay the price. The bill doesn’t fix the worst causes of overspending. Disabled people and their carers must not be punished and put at risk for the exploitive & criminal actions of shonky providers. • Overall the bill fails to centre the concerns, needs and human rights of disabled people. • Speaking from my experience as carer to my husband, who suffers severe Bi-polar 2 & BPD: if he were to lose 50% of his supports that enable his engagement with family & the community, that would be devastating to his wellbeing. He uses this funding for support to safely attend extended family events, Outpatient day-program activities, and follow his musical interests. Playing music creatively at a high standard in small groups is highly therapeutic for him, and essential to his sense of happiness, self worth and creativity. However he can’t safely do this without close support. • Following his complete breakdown in 2017, and before his NDIS supports were in place, my husband attended the ER at our local hospital numerous times with suicide ideation, and was admitted to hospital up to 4-5 times per year over the following few years. • As his carer, keeping him safe and alive throughout that time half killed me. My husband is about 6ft tall, I’m about 5ft. So the situation was highly risky to us both. • Since he was awarded NDIS funding, our lives are much better and more stable. Our connections with family have been able to be repaired and strengthened. He has been able to reliably access therapy. He has been able to return to making music. • For both of us: we are much more able to connect with family, friends and community. We are now even able to offer some support and care to others. These kinds of interconnections are vital to building resilience in communities. • My husband’s supported counselling and outpatient treatments are absolutely essential, but the other supports make it all worthwhile. • Over the last few years, my husband has only needed to be hospitalised about once per year. It’s a huge positive transformation that is put at risk by the kinds of cuts that are being proposed. • We are also financial POA for my husband’s brother, who suffered a significant brain injury as a child. With further injuries, his condition has continued to deteriorate over the course of his adult life. • Three years ago the brother was living in a highly hazardous disorderly hoarding situation, and this had been the case for at least
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2315
7 years. His entire home was knee deep in rubbish and fast food packaging. The NDIS (which we organised for him) enabled him to move to a much safer, manageable situation. He currently has the cognitive capacity of a 13-year old child. He is unable to reliably prepare healthy food, do enough personal care, or clean or organise his home environment without considerable regular support. Because of the NDIS, he now has the basic supports he needs, plus warm social connections with his excellent support workers. Any cuts could only be significantly detrimental to his safety and wellbeing. • Autonomy for NDIS recipients in choosing their own support workers & providers is a core value that needs to be protected. Undue extra financial & compliance burdens for sole trader & small groups of care & support workers needs to be avoided. • The proposed “Robodebt” style AI overview and approvals system, especially with no recourse for appeal or review (or an overly delayed appeal process) is not an acceptable system to assess the needs of individual humans. • AI technology does not have the nuance to humanely assess such specificity as a particular cluster of disabilities in a unique human person, in a unique set of family, socio-economic, locational & community circumstances. I believe the AI approach would be building in failure and would inevitably prove to be unfit for purpose, and cause much needless suffering. (Not to mention likely expose the government to future class action litigation risk.) • I pray the the deficiencies of the bill will be closely examined and addressed with full consideration for the safety, dignity and wellbeing of Australian disabled people and their families. • Thanking you for your kind attention.