National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3211
Submission: Funding Must Not Be Cut to the NDIS
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to funding cuts to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
I do not believe the NDIS is perfect. I do not think anyone who has dealt with the system honestly believes it is perfect. There are real issues with bureaucracy, delays, inconsistent decision-making, provider misconduct, overcharging, and the emotional exhaustion placed on participants and families who have to constantly prove, re-prove, and defend their needs.
But none of those problems are solved by cutting funding.
They are solved by better administration, stronger regulation, more accountable providers, clearer decision-making, and genuine co-design with disabled people. They are not solved by making disabled people absorb the cost of a system they did not design, a market they did not distort, and administrative failures they did not create.
The NDIS should not be treated as a luxury program, a budget inconvenience, or a pool of money to be “reined in” at the expense of people’s lives. For many participants, NDIS support is the difference between isolation and community, between family breakdown and sustainable care, between employment and exclusion, between independent living and institutionalisation, between dignity and survival.
When governments talk about NDIS savings, the language can become abstract very quickly. “Sustainability.” “Growth moderation.” “Returning to original intent.” “Budget repair.” These phrases sound neat in a press release, but the reality underneath them is not neat at all.
A cut to community access is not just a number moving down on a spreadsheet. It is someone no longer being able to leave the house safely. It is someone losing the support that allows them to study, work, volunteer, attend appointments, maintain friendships, or participate in ordinary life. It is a parent, partner, sibling, or unpaid carer being pushed past capacity. It is a disabled person being told, indirectly but unmistakably, that their life is only worth supporting up to the point where it becomes politically inconvenient.
That is not reform. That is abandonment dressed up as fiscal discipline.
I believe strongly that the NDIS must remain properly funded because disability support is not charity. It is social infrastructure. It is part of what allows people to participate in society instead of being pushed to the edges of it. We do not ask whether roads, hospitals, schools, or emergency services are “too generous” because we understand that they are necessary for a functioning country. Disability support should be understood in the same way.
A society is not strong because it balances a budget by withdrawing support from people with the least flexibility to absorb the loss. A society is strong when it recognises that independence is often not created by leaving people alone. Independence is created by giving people the supports they need to have choice, safety, mobility, communication, care, and participation.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3211
I am particularly concerned by any approach that frames disabled people as the problem rather than focusing on the systems around them. If there is fraud, target fraud. If providers are overcharging, regulate providers. If planners are inconsistent, fix planning. If supports are being misused, create clearer rules and better oversight. But do not punish participants broadly for problems caused by poor governance, weak market stewardship, or opportunistic service providers.
The people who rely on the NDIS are already forced to navigate a system that can be confusing, adversarial, and dehumanising. Many participants already spend enormous amounts of time gathering evidence, explaining their disability, appealing decisions, and fighting for supports that should never have been questioned in the first place. Funding cuts add another layer of fear to a system that is already stressful enough.
The NDIS was created because Australia recognised that disabled people deserve more than crisis support, poverty, unpaid family care, and institutional neglect. It was created because the old system failed people. It was created because disabled people should be able to live ordinary, self-directed lives with the support they need.
That promise should not be quietly weakened because the scheme is expensive.
Of course it is expensive. Exclusion is expensive too. Hospitalisation is expensive. Carer burnout is expensive. Homelessness is expensive. Unemployment is expensive. Mental health crises are expensive. Institutional care is expensive. The difference is that NDIS funding is an investment in people being able to live with dignity before their lives fall into crisis.
Cutting supports may create short-term savings on paper, but the human and social costs do not disappear. They are simply shifted elsewhere — onto families, hospitals, community services, crisis systems, and disabled people themselves.
I support reform that makes the NDIS fairer, safer, easier to navigate, and more accountable. I support reform that stops exploitation. I support reform that reduces unnecessary legal battles, improves transparency, and makes sure participants receive the right supports at the right time. I support reform that listens to disabled people and the people who support them.
But I do not support reform that is, in practice, a funding cut.
The goal should not be to make the NDIS smaller. The goal should be to make it better.
A properly funded NDIS is not an indulgence. It is a statement about who we are as a country. It says that disabled people are not burdens. It says that participation matters. It says that safety, dignity, autonomy, and community are not optional extras.
I urge the government not to cut NDIS funding and not to reduce essential supports under the language of sustainability. The scheme can and should be improved, but improvement must not come at the expense of the people it exists to support.
Disabled people deserve reform that strengthens their lives, not savings that shrink them.