National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2408
To whom it may concern,
As an Australian citizen, taxpayer and carer of a child with a disability, I submit that the proposed NDIS reforms raise serious concerns regarding both their development process and their substantive impact.
The consultation period alone is deeply troubling. The Federal Budget was handed down on 12 May 2026, yet submissions to this Senate Inquiry close just 17 days later on 29 May 2026. For legislation that will profoundly affect hundreds of thousands of disabled Australians, this timeframe is extraordinarily inadequate. Many disabled people already face significant barriers including lower literacy, fatigue, illness, caregiving burdens, and the sheer administrative load of navigating disability systems, so cannot simply analyse complex legislation and make a submission in a compressed timeframe. Meaningful consultation requires time. Instead, this process feels performative, as though the outcome has already been decided and the consultation exists merely to satisfy appearances before sweeping reforms are pushed through. A much longer consultation period is needed if consultation is indeed the genuine intent.
Equally alarming is the proposal to remove approximately 160,000 people from the NDIS while assuring Australians that state-based or “foundational” supports will fill the gap. Those systems do not currently exist in any meaningful capacity, and many pre- NDIS disability services have long since been dismantled. Removing support before replacement systems are operational is not reform. It is abandonment.
The expansion of automated decision-making within the NDIS is akin to fettering discretion. Just as no two people with dementia or diabetes have identical needs, disability needs are not uniform. Support needs cannot safely be reduced to algorithms or rigid formulas. These proposals are reminiscent of Robodebt, where automated government processes caused widespread harm while shielding decision-makers from accountability. The risk of harming vulnerable people through opaque automated systems is very real.
Equally concerning is the proposal to restrict unscheduled plan reviews. Disabled people’s needs can and do change unexpectedly. Limiting the circumstances under which participants can seek reassessment, and specifying an “eligibility duration” of those increased needs, is fundamentally unsafe. In healthcare terms, it would be akin to telling a patient they are permitted only two emergency department visits per year, and their symptoms must have been present for 3 months before they are allowed to turn up to the ED.
The proposed expansion of “parental responsibility” is also deeply problematic. Parents of disabled children already provide enormous amounts of unpaid labour. Many reduce or leave paid employment entirely to care for their child. Broadening this definition risks turning parental sacrifice into a justification for denying necessary supports, and will
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2408
further hurt the economy through reduced tax collection and increased welfare payments. In practice, this burden disproportionately falls on women and risks further discouraging family formation at a time when Australia is already grappling with declining birth rates and the consequent workforce issues.
I am also concerned by proposals to expand Ministerial powers over participant funding decisions. Disability support decisions should be grounded in independent clinical assessment and functional need, not political discretion. Ministers are not disability specialists, treating clinicians, or allied health professionals. Granting political officeholders greater influence over individual support decisions risks undermining both the Scheme’s independence and integrity. It is akin to the Minister having a say over what treatments can be approved for a cancer or stroke patient. It is Ministerial overreach, plain and simple.
At its core, the NDIS was founded on the principle of individualised, participant-centred support. These reforms move the Scheme away from that principle toward a system increasingly driven by automation, restriction and cost containment.
The NDIS exists because Australia recognised that disabled people deserve dignity, safety and meaningful participation in society. Policies that weaken individualised assessment and reduce access to support will not be experienced as “reform” by the disability community. They will be experienced as abandonment.
A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its most vulnerable people. Right now, disabled Australians feel they are being treated not as people, but as line items on a balance sheet. That should concern every member of Parliament. Is this the legacy we want to be remembered for?