National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2859
Hello,
I am a person with multiple disabilities, including migraines, POTS, autism, ADHD, and psychosocial disability. I am not currently an NDIS participant, although I had hoped to apply soon. The complexities of the application process have stopped me from doing so, because I do not have support to apply.
I do not have access to any funding to get supports for my disabilities. This means that I spend significant time managing my disabilities, and am unable to work or volunteer as a result. Access to appropriate supports would mean I might be able to work, study, or volunteer. It would mean I could increase my capacity. It would mean I could participate more fully in community life, and contribute to society and the economy.
I am acutely aware that there are insufficient supports for disabled people outside the NDIS at this time. Removing participants from the NDIS when there are no other supports available means leaving them without supports, which means others will also be restricted from community participation, work, volunteering, and other meaningful engagement. This seems likely to have an overall negative impact on the economy.
Removing participants from the NDIS also means that what few non-NDIS supports exist will be in much higher demand, and only those few who are fortunate enough to access them will get any benefit, whilst the greater proportion of non-NDIS participant disabled people are further disadvantaged. The costs of this group of non-NDIS participant disabled people being unsupported, or insufficiently supported, is both a human and economic one. It leads to lower quality of life, degradation of health, and reduced economic participation.
The messaging about the Bill frames the NDIS as “too expensive”, and by extension, disabled people as “too expensive” or a “drain on the economy”. This is despite evidence showing money invested in the NDIS is returned, and increased (Per Capita’s False Economy Report, November 2021). Choosing the slash NDIS funding, and specifically funding to disabled people, rather than the bureaucracy of the scheme, frames disabled people as fraudsters, and amplifies the message that we are a drain on the economy. It also positions us, and our needs, as disposable. As well as failing to meet the Government’s obligations to disabled people, this messaging will increase violence, neglect and abuse against disabled people. It will provide justification for people who say it is understand to let us die, or even to actively murder us.
Additionally, I note the Bill encourages greater reliance on “informal supports” such as family, friends, partners, etc. This concerns me because it pushes the support work onto others whilst labelling it cost saving, when in fact it only shifts that cost onto other communities. Increased informal supports also means that the people giving support will be less likely to participate in paid work, or at reduced hours. Additionally, increased reliance on informal supports leaves disabled people reliant on those people, even in cases of neglect, abuse, or violence. Disabled people are already more likely to experience domestic violence- the changes in this Bill will aggravate this.
I note also that violence, abuse and neglect of disabled people creates economic costs in other areas, such as domestic violence services. Disabled people who do not receive
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2859
adequate support are more likely to become increasingly disabled, at which point they would be more likely to meet new, restricted criteria for NDIS supports. However it would have been cheaper- and kinder, with positive impacts on their quality of life- to have given them support in the first place, and potentially slow or stop the decline. Creating a smaller eligibility circle of what “counts” as “disabled enough” will just mean people get worse until they meet the new threshold.
Reducing community and social supports as part of the Bill isolates disabled people. As I have previously addressed, this isolation means the Government fails to fulfill its obligations to disabled people, as well as creating messaging that we are disposable, or only worthy if we are useful. This will permit greater violence against disabled people. Community supports also allow disabled people to participate in community by volunteering. The loss of these volunteers will have impacts, either in increased costs or lack of services (which will likely have downstream impacts of increased costs).
In my opinion, this Bill is unnecessarily cruel to disabled people, economically shortsighted, and dangerous.
Given this, I ask that the Government withdraw the Bill, and reassess more appropriate ways to restructure the NDIS and other disability supports, with specific reference to how early access to appropriate supports not only improves outcomes for disabled people, but also economically.