National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2992
Proposed NDIS Reforms
As someone with lived experience supporting family members with permanent and significant disabilities (congenital rubella syndrome and meningitis-related brain injury and profound sensory loss) who are ineligible for the NDIS due to the age limit, I have concerns about the draft Bill and its impact on people excluded from the Scheme.
- Stronger Foundation Supports and Independent Review If access to the NDIS is further restricted, foundation supports must be strengthened and subject to ongoing review. The Bill focuses on NDIS participants but provides no safeguards for people who are removed from, or denied access to, the Scheme.
There should be a statutory review of disability supports for people who are ineligible for the NDIS. This would help identify gaps and prevent the erosion of supports that has occurred since the NDIS was introduced. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights previously recommended a review of the NDIS age limit, but this was never implemented.
My family members are now worse off than they were before the NDIS. Former disability supports, including services for Deaf residents in residential aged care, have been removed and never replaced. This has resulted in systemic discrimination and poorer outcomes for people excluded from the Scheme.
Deaf people face issues when dealing with state government agencies such as health, police, courts, education as often there is a failure of foundation supports to provide Auslan interpreters. There has been a growing reliance on Deaf Australians to use NDIS funding or to provide their own supports. Foundation supports have eroded since the introduction of the NDIS meaning some cohorts of the community are worse-off since foundation supports have eroded. There needs to be appropriate funding to foundation supports and a centralisation of states providing Deaf support and access to ensure foundation supports do not leave any Deaf people who use Auslan behind, irrespective of whether they are eligible for NDIS or not.
This Bill, whilst it focuses on NDIS and NDIS participants, needs to also provide safeguards for supports that should be provided by foundation supports outside the NDIS and review those supports to ensure people accessing foundation supports outside the NDIS are available. This will avoid reliance on NDIS funding when the access should be provided by state government.
- Prevent a Two-Tier Disability System People who are ineligible for the NDIS should not become second-class citizens.
Foundation supports must be adequately funded and able to attract skilled workers. Workforce shortages, particularly of Auslan interpreters, have been exacerbated by demand within the NDIS market, leaving people outside the Scheme without essential supports.
My father, who is Deaf and ineligible for the NDIS, suffered a stroke. The public hospital failed to provide an Auslan interpreter despite repeated requests. As a result, communication barriers affected his care, and his rehabilitation program was later cancelled because the
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2992
hospital could not provide interpreting services. Had he been eligible for the NDIS, he could have used NDIS funding to access the support that foundation services failed to provide.
This demonstrates how people excluded from the NDIS can receive inferior access and further systemic discrimination to healthcare and disability supports, where foundation supports are not properly funded.
- Disability Discrimination Advocacy People who are ineligible for the NDIS also face significant barriers accessing advocacy and legal support.
In my state, disability discrimination legal services were defunded around the time the NDIS was introduced. Disability advocacy services are primarily funded to support NDIS participants, while aged care advocacy services often lack specialist disability expertise.
As a result, my family members have no appropriate service to assist them in challenging discrimination when foundation supports fail, including failures by public health services to provide Auslan interpreters.
- Use Inclusive and Accurate Language Government should stop using the term “people with disability” when referring only to NDIS participants.
This language excludes many people with significant and lifelong disabilities who are not eligible for the NDIS, including those who were over 65 when the Scheme was introduced. Some may have support needs equal to or greater than current NDIS participants.
Government, ministers, agencies and the media should clearly distinguish between “people with disability” and “NDIS participants.” Failure to do so renders those excluded from the Scheme invisible and reinforces the misconception that all people with significant disabilities are eligible for NDIS support.
If NDIS eligibility is tightened further, accurate and inclusive language will become even more important.