National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2410
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee
Inquiry: National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submitted by an anonymous Australian mum and public servant.
Summary
I write this submission as someone who believes deeply in the values of the Labour Party: fairness, dignity, and support for those most in need, values that have also underpinned the NDIS. I also write as an educated, working mother of a child with Level 2 autism and anxiety, who fears for her child’s future and the society we are creating if this Bill passes, which would effectively say disabled individuals’ needs are arbitrary and unnecessary in this fiscal environment.
I support responsible reform and efforts to improve the Scheme’s long-term sustainability, including measures to address fraud and inefficiency. However, this Bill does not represent reform but a fundamental shift away from the Scheme’s founding principles, with significant foreseeable harm, particularly to children and those with degenerative conditions.
I feel profoundly betrayed by this Bill. The NDIS is a world-class social policy system, and while modelling of need was under-predicted and unscrupulous individuals have illegally taken advantage of the system, the NDIS remains a life-changing success, providing dignity, opportunity and lifelong security. This Bill risks replacing those principles with uncertainty, restriction, and cruel cost-shifting to those who arguably need it most.
The central flaw in this Bill is its failure to recognise a simple truth: disability-related needs do not disappear when funding is reduced—they are displaced. Costs will be borne disproportionately by families, particularly women, the healthcare system, and the broader economy, likely in more expensive and less effective forms.
I respectfully ask the Committee to oppose the Bill in its current form, restore core NDIS principles, and undertake meaningful co-design with people with disability and their families to bring down costs without these regressive, harmful Bill changes: robust compliance, provider regulation, and targeted enforcement are far more effective tools without actively harming participants. This is vital for all Australians—because disability can affect any of us at any time.
The erosion of “reasonable and necessary” supports (Schedule 1, part 1, 60)
The NDIS is built on the powerful principle that people with disability are entitled to supports that are both “reasonable and necessary.” This is not merely administrative language—it is the ethical and legal foundation of a needs-based system to enable participants to live meaningful lives. Replacing “reasonable and necessary supports” with a narrower definition of “NDIS supports” introduces structural uncertainty, shifting the basis of access from individual need to government discretion, a fundamental departure from the scheme’s founding logic.
1
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2410
The new wording that “reasonable and necessary supports” will be provided so far as is consistent with the Scheme’s financial sustainability (Schedule 1, part 60 (1)(d)). If support is no longer anchored in what is objectively reasonable and necessary, the NDIS ceases to be a rights- based system that provides certainty and continuity and becomes a discretionary one. Essentially, it says that given the ever increasingly tight fiscal climate, those with a disability are little more than an economic burden.
As a taxpayer, I do not object to funding the NDIS. On the contrary, I want my taxes to support people with disability in living dignified, productive lives. The Bill removes most of the original guiding Principles. Reasonable adjustments are required by law in work environments under the Disability Discrimination Act (1992), as is the protection from discrimination and victimisation based on disability, arguably something this Bill does when the economic climate is not favourable. These wording changes in the Bill convey that support for disabled people’s needs to live meaningful lives is now unreasonable (or arbitrary) and unnecessary.
Undermining a world-leading reform
The NDIS, like Medicare, has been recognised as one of the most significant social policy reforms in Australia’s history, championed by the Hon Julia Gillard, Prime Minister, to “transform the lives of people with a disability, their families and carers” offering individuals “choice and dignity”.i It replaced a reactive, crisis-driven model with a preventative, lifetime approach. This shift was grounded in both moral reasoning and evidence: early, sustained support improves outcomes and reduces long-term costs—not just for individuals but for society.
The proposed reforms risk reversing this progress. By tightening eligibility (Schedule 1, Part 8), redefining access through abstract assessments of ‘functional capacity’ (Schedule 1, Part 1, 9B) and delaying support, the Bill shifts the system back toward a reactive model that Prime Minister Gillard sought to address. These changes will likely bring back “a tragedy of services denied or delayed” and make those with a disability “forced to endure a level of care that is often shameful and generally insufficient. It is a system that reacts to a crisis. A system that meters out support rationed by arbitrary budget allocations, not real human needsii.” This Bill is regressive and obliterates the NDIS ’s key intent.
If this Bill passes, it will be the death of the world’s leading disability support scheme. A Scheme that has shown that for every dollar invested in the NDIS, $2.25iii is returned. A Scheme that, while it has grown more than modelled and been subject to clear fraud, has ultimately been a success and has valued people with disabilities not just as a financial burden but for their very humanity, as active, engaged members of Australian society.
“Disability can affect any of us, and therefore, it affects all of us.”
Prime Minister Gillard further noted on the second reading of the NDIS bill that “at its heart is a very simple moral insight: Disability can affect any of us, and therefore it affects all of us. … The existence of disability in our community cannot always be avoided. But the consequences of disability - isolation, poverty, loss of dignity, stress, hopelessness and fear of the future - can beiv.” This has not changed, nor will it ever.
2
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2410
While for some people it is the genetic lottery that foretells their trajectory, for others, life can change in an instant; something could happen to you, dear reader, tomorrow that could forever shape you, with lifelong permanent disability. No one is immune. Given this, “The only solution is therefore a nation-wide, demand-driven system of care tailored to the needs of each individual and established on a durable, long-term basisv.” The proposed Bill ignores that the NDIS should matter to all Australians. In addition, the compressed timeframe for public submissions on this 109-page Bill raises concerns about the authenticity of public consultation.
Concerns over decision-making authority
Ministerial powers without parliamentary oversight and the ability to request a review of the decision are proposed in the Bill (Schedule 1, Part 4, 34A; Schedule 1, Part 6; Schedule 3, Part 1) These changes to decision-making authority raise concerns about transparency and accountability. When discretionary power is concentrated within administrative bodies rather than shared with participants, there is a heightened risk of inconsistent, opaque, and arbitrary decisions.
Evidence from comparable social service systems demonstrates that when individuals are excluded from meaningful participation in decisions about their own care, outcomes worsen and system inefficiencies grow. The proposed changes, therefore, risk achieving the opposite of their stated aim of improving the Scheme’s sustainability.
Assessing “Functional capacity” using the I-CAN tool
The proposed reliance on “functional capacity” as assessed by a minimally trained NDIA consultant is deeply problematic (Schedule 1, Part 1, s.9B). All individuals—disabled or not— experience fluctuations in capacity depending on health, stress, life events, and environment. Have you never felt your productivity wane with a poor night’s sleep, the flu, or the death of a loved one? For people with disability, these fluctuations are often more pronounced.
Assessing capacity in isolation, without reference to real-life circumstances, creates a misleading and harmful picture. It risks categorising individuals as “functioning” on certain days while ignoring the cumulative challenges they face. For example, peer-reviewed research demonstrates that the ability for those with autism to function is dynamic and context-dependent, shaped by environmental factors, stress, and support availabilityvi. The Bill, with its assessment of ‘functional capacity’ that can seemingly ignore the environmental context, cannot therefore reliably capture an individual’s lived experience or support needs.
It is highly problematic that this Bill shifts assessment away from qualified treating GPs and allied health professionals (with years of clinical experience in understanding a participant’s fluctuating capacity and complex needs) and replaces them with minimally trained assessors who use the I- CAN (Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs). The I-CAN tool has not been independently tested or validated for complex, varied conditions such as Autism. Relying instead on blunt tools administered by undertrained staff, rather than an individual’s expert team, risks inadequate and harmful outcomes. This is particularly the case for those with rare conditions.
3
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2410
Changes to early intervention and requiring ‘appropriate treatments’
The Bill will require future participants to obtain ‘appropriate treatments’ as a condition of support (Schedule 1, part 8). This will inadvertently mean that people may deteriorate while waiting for those supports before they can access the Scheme, at which point their needs (and the associated costs) will be considerably higher. This is financially and morally backwards and will be particularly harmful for those with degenerative conditions and children with rapidly changing developmental needs.
Early intervention is critical in shaping developmental trajectories, particularly for kids such as my eight-year-old. If support is withdrawn during these formative years, the impacts will be felt for decades—in reduced education, reduced independence, reduced workforce participation, and increased reliance on other acute health care and social support systems.
Reduced early supports will also increase hospitalisations, mental health crises, and emergency interventions, for individuals with disability but also their families. Having previously worked as a nurse, I know acute health care is significantly more expensive and damaging than preventative care. There is no doubt that any short-term budget savings achieved through this Bill will result in higher long-term public, crisis, social support, and emergency health care expenditure.
Cost-shifting, not cost-saving, and gender inequity
Reducing NDIS supports through this Bill will not reduce overall costs—it will shift them, and disproportionately to women.
Reductions in NDIS support will not make disability-related challenges disappear. Instead, those costs will shift—primarily onto families, particularly women, and onto already strained public health and social systems. Evidence shows that when formal supports are reduced, unpaid caregiving increases, with measurable economic consequences. In Australia, women already provide over 80% of unpaid care, incurring an average lifetime loss of $392,500 in earnings and $175,000 in superannuation.vii Caregiving responsibilities are associated with reduced workforce participation, lower earnings, and long-term financial insecurity.
This aligns with my lived experience. My daughter has attended only one and a half days of school in the past fortnight due to her needs. Without support, my ability to remain in the workforce is at risk. If I lose my job, the consequences extend far beyond our family. This is not only a personal loss—it represents lost economic productivity, reduced tax revenue, family housing instability and increased long-term reliance on public systems.
When formal supports are reduced, the burden of care shifts to families, the ‘natural supports’, and overwhelmingly to mothers. Reduction in workforce participation increases financial insecurity and exacerbates gender inequality. Research from the Australian Human Rights Commission confirms that caregiving responsibilities lead to immediate and sustained reductions in employment and earnings, contributing to long-term gender inequality.viii
4
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2410
This Bill runs counter to broader Australian Government commitments to support women’s economic participation. A policy that pushes carers out of the workforce is not only inequitable; it is economically counterproductive.
Supply constraints and the inability to roll over funds (Schedule 1, Part 5)
The proposed restriction on rolling over funds fails to reflect the reality of the NDIS market and the well-documented shortages in service availability. Participants often underspend not because support is unnecessary, but because they are unavailable. Long waitlists for therapies such as occupational therapy are common, even in metropolitan areas such as Canberra. My daughter has been on multiple waitlists for years. As a result, she has ‘funds’ in her NDIS bucket that are unused. The issue is not a lack of need for those funds for services —it is a lack of access.
While it is reasonable to recall funds that are not needed, ending plan rollovers means that if funds are unspent due to long waiting lists, supply chain issues, or NDIA processing times, those funds will be forever lost. Automated decisions and algorithms that cease plans and allow no appeal about unspent funds (even though it’s out of their control) will be detrimental, particularly for children, where the timing of interventions are critical to long-term trajectories. This change penalises participants for market failures and poor supply chains, while undermining their ability to access critical supports when they finally become available or reach the front of the waitlist.
Poorly sequenced reform will inevitably cause harm
The Bill proposes reductions without ensuring that alternative supports are in place. The establishment of viable alternative systems must accompany any reduction in support. Cutting funding before these systems are in place will inevitably cause preventable harm. While some efforts have been made for “Thriving Kids”, the details and budget are lacking. Needs do not disappear—they manifest elsewhere, often in more acute and costly forms. As noted above, waitlists for many support services are already long and stretched thin.
Research consistently shows that early intervention for children with disabilities can reduce future reliance on more intensive services, including special education and long-term care. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians confirms that early intervention programs improve development, strengthen family capacity, and reduce future demand on public systems.ix
If supports are removed without foundational services ready to absorb demand, the result is predictable: increased family stress, system overload, and preventable human suffering. This is not a theoretical concern—it is a foreseeable outcome.
Appropriate treatments and evolving evidence-based care
The Bill’s requirement that individuals have undertaken all ‘appropriate’ treatments for scheme eligibility (Schedule 1, Part 8) raises important concerns, especially when it applies regardless of an individual’s circumstances, such as whether they can afford it or whether the treatment is available (without extensive delays). This may result in some individuals deteriorating by the time
5
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2410
they have access to the Scheme, at which point they will have greater needs and incur greater costs, which seems somewhat unethical and financially counterproductive.
While evidence-based policy is essential, it must be acknowledged that evidence evolves. Sometimes interventions previously considered the gold standard have later been shown to be harmful. This has occurred in the treatment for Autism (such as ABA therapy). Care decisions should not be only dictated by the government’s interpretation of evidence at a given point in time. Individuals and families must retain the autonomy to determine what supports work best for them. The requirement for the use of evidence-based, appropriate treatments also disadvantages women, who historically have not been included in research and evidence. No one would accept a system where deeply personal medical decisions are removed from individuals and placed in the hands of policymakers. NDIS participants deserve the same respect.
The Bill also ignores whether families can pay for all appropriate treatments. Children with Autism have been shown to benefit from weekly appointments with a psychologist and an occupational therapist. For our family, this cost roughly $500 out of pocket weekly, which was unsustainable given the cost-of-living crisis. Autism is a lifelong, permanent condition that cannot be ‘treated’; rather, the impacts can be mitigated and managed. Holding scheme access for those who have completed ‘appropriate treatments’ is unclear. How long would children like my daughter need to keep doing this ‘treatment’ before it could seem reasonable that they can request and obtain entry onto the Scheme?
Integrity measures must target fraud, not participants
Most NDIS participants support the strong public focus on addressing fraud and misuse within the NDIS. However, many Bill changes do not appear to effectively target those responsible for exploitation within the system. Instead, it imposes broad restrictions that will affect legitimate participants and their families in a punitive, cruel way. Participants—particularly children—should not bear the consequences of provider misconduct and systemic regulatory failure.
There are other ways to address fraud, without these restrictive Bill changes. Reducing support for vulnerable individuals does not address fraud. Robust compliance, provider regulation, and targeted enforcement are far more effective tools.
Many NDIS participants and carers can identify inefficiencies in the system that could improve the program’s budget bottom line. Consultation with those on the scheme could help reveal these budget savings. Restricting legitimate supports does not address the root causes of system abuse and risks harming those the Scheme is intended to protect.
Conclusion and recommendations
I would like my concerns to be on the record for my daughter, but also for all those living with a disability. This Bill represents a significant departure from the principles that made the NDIS effective: a rights-based, needs-driven system promoting early intervention and choice, to one constrained by fiscal restrictions and administrative convenience.
6
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2410
The evidence is clear: Early intervention reduces long-term costs Functional capacity is dynamic, context-dependent and requires expertise to assess Reducing formal support shifts costs to families and reduces workforce participation These poorly designed restrictions will likely increase overall public expenditure
I respectfully recommend that the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and Senators: Oppose the Bill in its current form Retain and strengthen the principle of “reasonable and necessary” supports Ensure all reforms are co-designed with people with disability and their families That participants do not lose any remaining funds in automated plan roll-overs, which are due to unavoidable delays: long wait lists, or supply chain issues for new equipment. Conduct comprehensive human rights impact assessments before implementation Target fraud through compliance measures, provider regulation and targeted enforcement, not participant restrictions Conduct a cost-benefit analysis that considers foreseeable participant (human rights) harm as well as increases in whole-of-government costs, including acute health care and Centrelink, and reductions in tax and in carers (mostly women) leaving the workforce. Ensure all foundational services are in place before any reduction in NDIS support to prevent a fiscally prohibitive crisis in the health care system.
The NDIS reflects a national commitment to dignity, inclusion, and fairness. These values must not be compromised. I ask you to allow those with a disability to have access to “reasonable and necessary supports.” No one is asking for extravagance or to be burdensome, but for assistance to participate in society, both socially and economically and live meaningful lives.
The question one must ask is: Does this Bill create an NDIS that any Australian would want to rely on if permanent disability affects them tomorrow?
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry.
i House of Representatives: National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012, Second Reading Speech, Gillard, Julia (2012) https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-18932 ii Et al. iii D’Rosario, M., & Lloyd-Cape, M. (2021, November 3). False Economy: The Economic Benefits of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Consequences of Government Cost-Cutting. Per Capita (commissioned by National Disability Services). https://percapita.org.au/our_work/false-economy-the-economic-benefits-of-the-ndis-and-the- consequences-of-government-cost-cutting/ iv Et al v Et al. vi Mahdi S, Viljoen M, Yee T, Selb M, Singhal N, Almodayfer O, Granlund M, de Vries PJ, Zwaigenbaum L, Bölte S.(2017) An international qualitative study of functioning in autism spectrum disorder using the World Health Organization international classification of functioning, disability and health framework. Autism Res. 2018 Mar;11(3):463-475. doi: 10.1002/aur.1905. Epub 2017 Dec 11. PMID: 29226604; PMCID: PMC5900830. vii Australian Human rights commission Investing in care: Recognising and valuing those who care, Volume 1 Research Report, Australian Human Rights Commission, Sydney. https://humanrights.gov.au/resource-hub/by- resource-type/publications/sex-and-genderrights/factsheets/investing-care-recognising-and-valuing-those-who- care viii Et al. ix Early Intervention for Children with Developmental Disabilities (2013) The royal Australasian College of Physicians https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/early-intervention-for-children-with- developmental-disabilities.pdf
7