Dear Senator Cox, Senator Steele-John and Committee members,
I urge the Committee to amend (or discard) the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, to protect the dignity and rights of disabled Australians, their families, and in particular women – both as participants and carers – for whom this Bill, if passed as-is, will have a disproportionate impact.
This submission focusses on three key messages:
- The gendered impact of this Bill
- The economic impact of this Bill
- The concept of exhausting “all available options” for treatment The gendered impact of this Bill
The Status of Women report card1 is very clear that:
i. Women do more unpaid work and care than men, across all demographics, but particularly in households with children. ii. First Nations women do more than non-First Nations women. iii. Women face higher healthcare costs over time than men.
We also know, for the NDIS specifically2, that:
i. Women with disability have significantly lower NDIS participation rates ii. Male access requests are approved at a higher rate than female (and ‘other’) access requests. iii. Half of all NDIS participants are children and nearly 90% of primary carers for children are women.
Furthermore, we can extrapolate from that information, that this caring work does not end once a child with disability turns 18. I myself am the primary carer for a 17-year-old NDIS participant and not much will change once she turns 18.
No gendered impact analysis has been done on this Bill.
The economic impact of this Bill
Inextricably linked to the first message, is the economic impact this Bill will have. While economic impact is not always a irrefutable argument for or against a piece of legislation, it is important in this instance because the community is being told this is necessary for economic reasons.
1 https://genderequality.gov.au/status-women-report-cards/2025-report-card 2 https://theconversation.com/there-is-overwhelming-gender-bias-in-the-ndis-and-the-review-doesnt-address-it 220042
Successive Governments have told us how vital women’s workforce participation is to Australia’s economic growth. Gender equality is recognised as not only a fundamental human right but a key driver of a country’s overall economic performance3.
If key supports are removed from NDIS participants, women, who primarily fulfil the caring role, will be less able to participate fully in the workplace, hampering Australia’s economic growth and progress towards WGEA targets.
Case study:
A woman I know is in her 50s with a young adult child who has multiple disabilities. Let’s call them Sally and Bob. Until a few years ago Bob lived in the family home, but this was not safe for Sally and her other children. With NDIS support, Bob has been in Supported Independent Living accommodation where Bob requires 1:1 support. This has allowed Sally to return to paid work. If Bob’s supports are cut, it will not be safe for Bob to continue living in SIL. The only option for that family will be for Sally to leave the family home (her husband and other children) to live with Bob. Sally will have to give up paid work and is fearful of what this living situation will mean for her mental health.
Furthermore, the supports offered by the NDIS are, in many cases, the difference between people with disabilities being able to participate in the workforce or not. This can be due to early capacity-building as well as ongoing support.
The concept of exhausting “all available options” for treatment
There are two obvious problems with this change. Firstly, who decides what counts as an “available option”? As people with disabilities, and parents of people with disabilities, will know, we are constantly being presented with “options” that may actually harm us further.
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy for autistic people is just one example of this. Many autistic people are vehemently against this type of therapy and believe it causes further harm. Will autistic participants be forced to undergo ABA therapy before they are considered to have exhausted “all available options”?
Secondly, this idea of exhausting “all available options” fails to take into account the limitations faced by participants and carers, often because of their disability – essentially it embeds disability discrimination into a scheme that is supposed to support and protect people with disabilities.
Cost, distance and health can all affect what options participants and carers can reasonably access, particularly if these are supposed to be explored before gaining access to NDIS supports.
3 https://www.wgea.gov.au/publications/gender-equality-business-case
I am in my 40s, work full-time and am the primary carer for a 17-year-old NDIS participant, and also a 9-year-old. I have two older children who are now adults. I also have elderly parents who thankfully, are in good health and don’t require me to care for them – but this ‘sandwich generation’ is common in women of my age. I earn a good income, but what hampers my ability to trial a wide range of therapies and options is distance (I can’t drive), and time (there’s only so much personal leave available at work). For many others, cost would be the primary barrier. My daughter is transferring care from a paediatrician to a psychiatrist, and the initial appointment is $1000, with about $200 back from Medicare – that’s just one example of basic required care.
In the absence of time to make a more detailed submission, I would urge the Committee to refer to the submission from Women with Disabilities Australia, who articulate these points in much greater detail and much more effectively than I can.
Yours sincerely