Submission 2701
Submission to Senate Committee regarding NDIS Amendment Bill 2026
I express broad concern for the acute and longer term consequences of the proposed Bill (above) across a number of areas. The aim to maintain the economic sustainability of the NDIS is a valid and long term aim, however the pathway to achieving this should not and cannot be set to cause suffering as a result of reform. The proposals suggest a system which does not seek to understand and support or enable appropriately accessible services and resources to enable quality of life that most non disabled people don’t have to fight for. Issues of priorities, system change management, consultation, evaluation need to be considered alongside economic reform to ensure the “Australian” way of life is not just for those lucky enough not to have to manage a disability or support someone with a disability.
My concerns about the incomplete (due to the speed at which this has occurred) or high risk or potentially harmful consequences of the proposed Bill cross many sections of the proposed Bill.
The proposed Bill covers:
Schedule 1 – Item 66 (Repeal of section 31)
Schedule 1 – Proposed section 34A (Ministerial funding reductions)
Schedule 1 – Proposed section 25B (Alternative supports)
Schedule 1 – Proposed section 9B (Functional capacity)
Schedule 1 – Items 88–94 (Permanence and treatment)
Schedule 1 – Proposed section 17B (Sustainability principles)
Schedule 1 – Proposed subsections 34(1G)–(1J) (Parenting and family responsibility)
Schedule 1 – Reassessment and suspension powers
Schedule 2– Fraud and Integrity
Schedule 3 – Automation and algorithmic decision-making
Schedule 4 – New Framework Planning
Schedule 5 – Transitional powers
Submission 2701
More specifically, it is critical that this legislation does not result in systems that leave people with disability and their support networks high and dry.
Concerns include (not in ranked order due to time constraints):
-
Unqualified judgements: Non qualified override during assessment and re- assessment processes
-
No system checks to rectify error: No recourse nor checks if, or more likely when, the system makes an error based on a generalised outcome that does not work for an individual, causing more delays, wasting more time and money and causing angst, stress and loss of support while this is sorted out (if it can be).
-
Automated assessment – many concerns have been expressed about other industries where automated evaluation or AI assessment of human need has resulted in bad outcomes (eg aged care)
- Aspirations and productivity of people with as disability: Plans are already
being cut at the most critical points in peoples lives (eg young adults leaving school). This is a most important transition. Under proposed legislation plans are proposed to be cut further in both capacity building and social and community participation. If plans are reduced eg capacity building and social and community participation at highly critical life stages, or even preparing for and managing after these transitions, this sets people up to fail, become isolated, de-skill etc if appropriate support for a life transition cannot be adequately supported.
- Definition of disability: Questionable definition of disability (based on the internationally accepted understanding of what defines disability - ICF):
a. disability is experienced individually, therefore needs and supports need to be tailored to the individual
b. the environment (social and physical environment) either contributes to or reduces the disability. Disability is not simply a stand alone “impairment”
c. the use of “impairment notice” terminology is demeaning and inappropriate and resembles a previous era of “defect notice” that was given by the Government to parents of child born with Down Syndrome as little as 20 years ago.
d. No consideration of the “impairment” and co-mordities which combined change the profile and impact of the disability.
-
Extensive and unchecked powers: significant concern about there not being a review process either for when a persons situation changes or when funding allocations are not appropriately provided.
-
No professional evidence considered part of the process. It is unfathomable that highly trained persons cannot provide assessment which has considered the interaction between the individual circumstances and disability.
Submission 2701
-
Emergency assistance. NDIS provides fundamental assistance to enable persons with a disability to live with dignity and purpose – basic right in Australia. When the system fails individuals and there is a wait for issues to be rectivfied what is the recourse for the individual, where will help come from in urgent situations (eg death or illness of a family carer etc)
-
Change management: The chances are the a system such as this will leave gaps for the 160,000 leaving the scheme (trajectory or current vs proposed this has been estimated to 230,000 by 2030). These are large numbers in an very short time, what is available to them now? (thriving kids and foundational supports is still an untested idea at this stage). It is assumed other part of the system can pick up this slack – there has been no community level lconsultaiton / dialogue / planning around this. It is an “idea”. It is also not clear if other parts of the system can actually provide what is needed (eg seeing
-
Parental responsibility is being redefined without clear evidence or research. The caring load for parents with a child pre-diagnosis / global developmental delay in no way approximates common understanding of parenting loads. Levels of supervision, managing risk, co-ordinating, advocating, adjusting to enable the child to manage through the day for a range of activities of daily living needs (as “simple” as toileting, eating, dressing, leaving the house) , coping with mainstream services that see issues as behavioural and implement strategies that increase stress for parents and sometimes backfire for the child.
-
Long term health and mental health: increasing the pressure on unpaid carers who are family members raises significant concerns in terms of longevity of care, family member ability to contribute to society (work), high adult stress links found with poorer child development outcomes, poorer long term health and mental health for families coping with disability without adequate support if the future NDIS cannot / does not “listen” to what people actually need. This does not reduce the costs to the taxpayer, it increases them (health care, hospitalisations, mental health sequalae. Sadly, child protection and disability training indicates that violence and abuse increases as stress increases and this is especially a risk for vulnerable people – young and older, this is not a future Australia wants for either participants or their carers.
-
Workforce stress: I do not have the time to cover this in adequate detail, however suffice to say, the workforce supporting persons with disability is already under considerable stress. A stressed workforce is the opposite of what is required to support NDIS participants. The effect on the market of these legislative changes without due support needs consideration.
-
Societal rhetoric: one of the most disappointing and sad outcomes of this current situation is the unspoken, though sometimes also spoken, idea that disabled people and the people that support them are a burden on taxpayers, not a priority or that some people may be left without help. There is a growing
Submission 2701
sense which this situation has fuelled that disabled people are a burden on society and the people that support them are somehow second rate or families who have a disabled family member just have to cope. This has taken Australia back to 1970s (pre the year of the disabled). Do not let Australia go backwards.
If reform is needed, I believe it requires a balanced consideration of priorities, consideration of more than economics as the outcome. Longevity of the NDIS financially is as important as long term outcomes of a significant part of our Australian community.
Dated 1.6.26 Anonymous submission