A submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submitted to: Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Date: 10th July 2026
Submitted by:
I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 because I believe they have the potential to negatively impact on how people with disability will access the supports they rely upon.
In my view, these amendments fundamentally change the way participants’ supports may be determined and funded. By centralising key definitions and decision-making powers, the Bill creates the potential for people with disability to lose access to supports they currently receive, not because their disability or support needs have changed, but because the legislative framework governing what is considered a funded NDIS support will have changed.
While these amendments may reduce NDIS expenditure in the short term, they risk transferring far greater costs to other areas of government, including public hospitals, Medicare, general practice, emergency departments, child protection, housing and out-of-home care.
The NDIS exists to provide reasonable and necessary supports that prevent crises before they occur. Appropriate early intervention and ongoing support not only improve the lives of people with disability but are almost always more effective and considerably less expensive than responding after a crisis has developed.
Our son has been an NDIS participant since 2017, and the Scheme has transformed his quality of life. His disability is extremely complex and requires highly specialised supports. In fact, one registered NDIS provider withdrew its services because it was unable to safely meet his needs.
My wife and I are now 78 and 80 years of age respectively. Any reduction in our son’s supports would place him at significant risk. Given our age, we are no longer able to physically replace the supports that the NDIS currently provides. Without those supports, the consequences for his health and safety would be catastrophic.
I agree that the long-term sustainability of the NDIS must be addressed. However, I do not believe these proposed amendments represent the best way to achieve that objective.
1
As currently drafted, the Bill could:
o Reduce important individual protections by centralising key definitions and decision-making under the Minister, rather than maintaining genuinely Individualised assessments based on a participant’s reasonable and necessary needs.
o Provide broad powers to reduce or remove funding for categories of supports, regardless of an individual’s particular circumstances; and
o Override important decisions of the Federal Court and the Administrative Review Tribunal, reducing legal safeguards that currently protect participants.
These are significant legislative changes that deserve careful parliamentary scrutiny. Regardless of which political party forms government in the future, legislation of this nature should include appropriate safeguards, transparency and parliamentary oversight.
I lodged a submission with the Senate Inquiry, joining more than 4,000 Australians who expressed concerns regarding these proposed reforms.
Following is Appendix One, containing recommendations that I believe would strengthen the NDIS, improve participant outcomes and reduce long-term pressure on the Federal Budget without diminishing the supports that people with disability rely upon.
My recommendations are based not only on more than fifty years of lived experience supporting our son, but also on decades of involvement in special education, disability advocacy, service development and working alongside governments to improve outcomes for people with disability.
I hope these recommendations provide a practical and balanced contribution to the current debate.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
2
Appendix One
Practical Recommendations to Strengthen the NDIS While Reducing Long-Term
Government Costs.
The greatest long-term savings will come from reducing waste, duplication, crisis spending and poor outcomes - not by reducing essential supports for people with disability.
- Crack Down on Fraud and Over-Servicing Every dollar lost through fraud or inappropriate claiming is a dollar unavailable to participants with genuine needs. Examples include: o Fake invoices. o Billing for supports not delivered. o Excessive support hours without evidence. o Duplicate claiming. o Exploitation of self-managed participants.
Recommendations
o Strengthen auditing and compliance. o Use data analytics to identify abnormal claiming patterns. o Introduce stronger provider registration and monitoring. o Take faster enforcement action where fraud is identified.
Potential outcome: Reduced waste, increased public confidence and more funding available for participants with genuine support needs.
- Improve and Strengthen NDIS Administration Administrative inefficiency is one of the largest hidden costs within the NDIS. Simplifying processes would reduce costs for participants, allied health professionals, planners and review bodies.
Recommendations
o Reduce unnecessary reassessments for stable, lifelong disabilities. o Improve IT systems and record management. o Reduce duplication between planners, coordinators and assessors. o Standardise evidence requirements. 3
Participants are frequently required to submit the same evidence multiple times, creating unnecessary cost and delay. During our son’s recent plan review, all relevant reports had already been provided to the NDIA. Despite this, our planner advised that the information would be reviewed by several additional senior decision-makers without any further input from us before any decision could be made. We also discovered his records incorrectly listed him as having autism, requiring further administrative time and cost to correct. A simple funding issue that could have reduced long-term costs could not be resolved because of internal decision-making processes, increasing the likelihood of another application to the Administrative Review Tribunal.
Most NDIA staff work professionally and within the policies they are given. However, where decision-making becomes overly rigid, even well-supported participants may have no alternative but to seek an external review, creating significant additional costs for everyone involved.
Potential outcome: Faster decisions, fewer tribunal matters, reduced administration costs and better participant outcomes.
- Better Mainstream Service Integration A significant driver of NDIS costs is the transfer of responsibilities from other government systems onto the Scheme. This does not reduce overall government expenditure - it simply shifts costs. Areas requiring stronger collaboration include: o Education. o Health. o Mental health. o Housing. o Justice.
Recommendations
o More collaboration between government systems. o Develop joint funding agreements where responsibilities overlap. o Require states to maintain appropriate disability services. o Rebuild mainstream supports outside the NDIS.
4
Examples: Housing: Housing outcomes would improve if the NDIA and Housing Departments planned together. Rather than concentrating people with disability in segregated accommodation, new housing developments could include accessible dwellings within broader communities, promoting inclusion while meeting disability needs. Education: The proposed Thriving Kids Program highlights the importance of genuine collaboration between the Commonwealth and the states. If children are transitioned out of the NDIS before equivalent state-funded supports are fully established, there is a significant risk that they will experience gaps in essential services during critical stages of their development. Successful implementation of this program should involve not only health and disability services, but also State Education Departments. Education is one of the most effective long-term investments governments can make. Inclusive education, supported by appropriate therapies, assistive technology and specialist supports, improves outcomes not only for children with disability but also for schools and the broader community. More than forty years ago, I helped establish opportunities for a small group of children with disability, including my own son, to attend their local mainstream school. One teacher at the time remarked: “When I started teaching this child, I stopped and looked at how I was teaching all of my other children.” In other words, inclusive education made her a better teacher for all her students. My own son was one of those students. At 52 years of age, he still speaks warmly about the friendships, learning and sense of belonging that came from being fully included in his local school community. Those benefits have lasted a lifetime and would not have been achieved through a segregated educational setting. He would not now be a writer and artist if he had stayed in his special school. Potential outcome: Better educational outcomes, stronger mainstream inclusion, and reduced long-term reliance on disability supports. Hospitals: Many people with disability remain in hospital longer than necessary because appropriate community supports, or housing are unavailable. Hospital care is considerably more expensive than supporting people safely in their own homes. Better coordination between health services and the NDIA would improve outcomes while reducing costs across both systems.
Potential outcomes: Reduced cost shifting, improved collaboration across government and more efficient use of public resources.
5
- Increase Participant Independence Supporting participants to become more independent improves quality of life while reducing long-term reliance on funded supports. Key areas include: o Employment. o Transport independence. o Communication skills. o Daily living skills. o Community participation.
Recommendations
o Invest in assistive technology. o Expand employment pathways. o Support skill development. o Increase access to accessible housing. (not segregated settings) Supports that build independence can reduce future support hours, whereas maintenance-only supports generally maintain existing levels of need.
Potential outcome: Greater independence, improved quality of life and reduced long term NDIS costs.
- Invest in Early Intervention and Prevention Preventing needs from escalating is one of the most effective ways to reduce long-term costs.
Recommendations
o Fund early therapy and assistive technology. o Complete home modifications promptly to prevent injuries and hospital admissions. o Provide timely supports that prevent family breakdown, homelessness and unnecessary institutionalisation. Early investment can avoid: o Hospital admissions. o Mental health crises. o Expensive Supported Independent Living (SIL). o Emergency accommodation. o Justice system involvement.
6
This approach is particularly important for children and young adults, where early intervention can significantly improve lifelong outcomes.
Potential outcome: Better participant outcomes and substantially lower long-term government expenditure.
- Reduce Provider Price Inflation The NDIS has contributed to inflated pricing in some areas of the disability market. Addressing excessive pricing, while maintaining a skilled workforce, would improve the Scheme’s long-term sustainability.
Recommendations
o Pricing is to be independently set and not by the Minister. o Inadequate pricing has market sustainability implications. o Use competitive procurement for high-cost services where suitable. o Encourage cooperative delivery models. Any pricing reforms should maintain a sustainable workforce and ensure participants continue to have access to high-quality supports.
Potential outcome: Better value for public investment while maintaining a stable and skilled disability workforce.
- Reduce Tribunal and Review Costs Review and tribunal processes are expensive for participants, the NDIA and taxpayers. Many could be avoided through clearer, more transparent decision-making and earlier dispute resolution.
Recommendations
o Improve co-design of legislation and operational policies. o Increase transparency in decision-making. o Resolve disputes earlier. o Apply planning frameworks more consistently. o Avoid duplication of specialist report requests. Example: Our family spent three years in the Administrative Review Tribunal after the NDIA rejected three independent allied health reports supporting our son’s needs. The NDIA then commissioned its own independent expert, who reached the same conclusion. Despite this, the matter continued over three years, involving multiple changes of legal representatives before being resolved only 30 minutes before a scheduled tribunal hearing. Earlier decision-making 7
would have avoided significant legal costs and unnecessary stress for everyone involved. Our Legal Aid assistance was also a cost to Government albeit not from the NDIA.
Potential outcome: Fewer tribunal matters, lower legal costs and faster access to reasonable and necessary supports.
- Avoid Cost-Shifting Through Aggressive Cost-Cutting Reducing essential supports may produce short-term savings, but often results in significantly higher costs elsewhere across government. Examples include: o Reduced therapy leading to increased future support needs. o Reduced family supports contributing to family breakdown. o Inadequate behaviour supports increasing hospital or justice involvement. o Delayed equipment resulting in avoidable injuries and hospital admissions.
Potential outcome: Lower long-term government expenditure across many departments and improved outcomes for people with disability.
- A more Sustainable NDIS The long-term sustainability of the NDIS is best achieved by improving how existing resources are assessed and used rather than reducing essential supports.
The greatest opportunities for sustainable savings are to: o Reduce fraud and waste. o Improve administration and decision-making. o Strengthen collaboration across government services. o Invest earlier to prevent crises. o Build participant independence and capacity.
These reforms would improve participant outcomes while ensuring the NDIS remains financially sustainable for future generations.
8