National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2774
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is one of Australia’s most significant social policy initiatives. It provides people with disabilities the opportunity to participate more fully in society, improve their quality of life, and pursue greater independence. The scheme also delivers substantial benefits to families and carers by reducing caregiving burdens and supporting long-term sustainability within the broader health and social services systems. It also takes strain off of public hospitals.
While I acknowledge the Government’s stated objective of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS and addressing fraud, waste, and misuse within the scheme, I have significant concerns regarding the proposed reforms and their potential consequences for participants, carers, families, and the healthcare system.
A central concern is the apparent disconnect between the stated objective of combating fraud and the practical effect of reducing supports available to participants. It remains unclear how reductions in participant funding directly address fraudulent conduct. Fraud, by its nature, is committed by individuals or organisations acting unlawfully. Reducing access to supports for participants does not appear to target the source of the problem.
If the primary objective of these reforms is to reduce fraud and misuse, consideration should be given to alternative measures, including stronger regulatory oversight, improved compliance mechanisms, enhanced auditing processes for businesses and workers, greater transparency in provider billing practices, standardised pricing frameworks, and increased training and accreditation requirements for providers and support workers. It is unclear why participants should bear the consequences of systemic failures occurring elsewhere within the scheme.
I am also concerned by the limited transparency surrounding the development and consultation process associated with these reforms. The timeframe provided for public submissions has been insufficient given the complexity and significance of the proposed changes. Meaningful consultation requires people to have adequate access to information and sufficient time to assess the likely impacts of proposed policy changes.
Particular concern arises from documentation (2026-002028)) indicating that the effects of these reforms may extend beyond the publicly stated reduction in funding for approximately 160,000 participants. Government documentation suggests that up to 346,000 participants may be affected, including cuts to supports relating to social, community, and civic participation. This raises important questions regarding the scale of the reforms and the impacts on the states, individuals and healthcare system, and whether the public narrative surrounding the proposals has accurately reflected their likely impact.
I have additional concerns over the release of additional documents on 27 May, shortly before the submission deadline, further limiting our ability to give feedback regarding the new information. Given the significance of these reforms, a more transparent and comprehensive consultation process would have been appropriate.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2774
I am particularly concerned by proposed changes relating to permanence requirements and the expectation that participants exhaust all available treatments before accessing certain supports. Such an approach risks failing to account for individual circumstances, clinical complexity and personal autonomy.
The availability of treatment does not necessarily equate to accessibility. Many treatments may be unavailable due to financial barriers, geographical location, lengthy waiting periods, limited specialist availability, or the absence of adequate support during recovery. Furthermore, some treatments carry significant risks and complications. Participants should not be placed in a position where access to essential supports becomes contingent upon undertaking medical interventions, they do not consider appropriate.
The broader social and economic implications of these reforms also warrant careful consideration. Reductions in supports may contribute to increased financial hardship, reduced workforce participation, greater reliance on unpaid carers, worsening health outcomes, increased housing insecurity, and greater demand on state-funded health and community services. In such circumstances, costs may not be reduced but rather transferred from the NDIS to other parts of the public sector.
There is also a risk that increased disputes regarding eligibility, permanence assessments, and funding decisions will result in greater administrative and legal expenditure through internal reviews and appeals. This may undermine any anticipated savings while creating additional uncertainty and stress for participants and their families.
The NDIS was established to provide reasonable and necessary supports that enable people with disability to participate in Australian society on an equal basis. Any reform process should be guided by this foundational principle and supported by transparent evidence demonstrating that proposed changes will improve outcomes without causing disproportionate harm.
I respectfully request that the Committee carefully examine the likely impacts of these reforms, particularly in relation to participant wellbeing, carer sustainability, public healthcare demand, and the adequacy of consultation undertaken throughout the process. I further request that the Government provide clear evidence demonstrating how the proposed measures will achieve their stated objectives and why less restrictive alternatives have not been pursued.
The success of the NDIS should ultimately be measured not only by its financial sustainability but also by its ability to uphold the dignity, autonomy, and participation of Australians living with disability.