Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Date: 30/5/2026

I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

I want to outline the severe community harms and impacts of this rushed amendment legislation, and echo the call for it to be scrapped, in favour of proper co-design with the disabled community, and proper disability-led NDIS reform: because there should be nothing about us without us, and our rights and lives matter.

1. Introduction

My name is . I’m a multi-award-winning journalist, speaker, consultant, lived experience expert and a fierce disability advocate, who lives with multiple mental and physical disabilities. I am also an NDIS participant, and the family member of another NDIS participant. In my professional work, I engage with a lot of people in the disabled community as part of consultations, research, reports, and journalism. I therefore have a very clear idea of the challenges and issues many people are facing, and sentiments towards this rushed, complex bill, which I unequivocally oppose, as do many in the disabled community. It will be exceptionally harmful to many, including participants, carers, families, providers, and those who work in the sector. Both lives and jobs are at risk, and I urge the committee to listen to the disabled community.

There is no doubt: this bill will cause extreme harm, suffering, and preventable deaths for the disabled community. We have already seen previous cuts result in the death of disabled people, including children, like 4-year-old Koa Gibson, and 22-year-old Noah Johnston. Their families begged for their supports to be restored. They weren’t. And their children died preventable deaths. Can you live with knowing these cuts will cause more deaths?

Koa and Noah are just two that we know about. We know there are more, and many whose names we’ll never know. This amendment bill has disabled people on the NDIS genuinely worried about how they are going to live. I am worried how I am going to live. And it will be the people who are most marginalised who will be most impacted: when they are the ones who need it most.

Disabled people are not collateral damage, and the NDIS is not the government’s piggy bank to fund and support genocidal wars. When we are told there is not enough money in a wealthy country for disabled lives, but we can fund the possibility of war machines nobody wants. It sickens me to my core. Shameful is an understatement. This is eugenics.

This complex, 100-page amendment bill requires significantly more scrutiny and amendment: specifically, proper consultation with disabled people and Disabled People’s Organisations. It is a joke that Minister Buttler dared to say “nothing about us without us” while announcing the bill, while simultaneously not including us, and urging this rushed amendment to be legislated. It has far-reaching impacts, and many impacted may not have the energy, time, or emotional capacity to digest complex legal jargon. Particularly when many in the community are fighting just to survive.

Page 2

The consultation period of two-weeks, including a “generous” (this is sarcasm) three-day extension, is not remotely enough for proper community consultation, especially considering accessibility and communication needs for many in the community. Quite frankly, this consultation period is a joke. You know we are all already exhausted. We are constantly writing submissions, constantly advocating, constantly fighting, on top of dealing with our disabilities, and the very real discrimination and violence we experience on a daily basis. Many in our community are chronically ill, multiply disabled, already struggling to just exist, let alone have the opportunity to look into and digest over a hundred pages of complex changes, and provide a detailed response.

The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says consultations should occur for at least 30 days. Given the access needs of those in the disabled community and the importance and complexity of the amendment, this period should be significantly extended. Making the consultation period two weeks (only ten business days) was a choice, and calling three days—over a weekend—is also a choice. A choice to make it deliberately harder for us to respond properly to this amendment, some it can be rushed through, and the razor gang can have its blood.

But as you will see, we are a passionate community, who believe disabled people deserve to live good safe lives. Should the consultation period be extended to the minimum proper best practice period, significantly more people will have an opportunity to contribute—and in significantly more detail, although I urge you to consider the energy, time and expertise of the hundreds of us who are already making submissions. I urge you to also consider that there are thousands and thousands of people who want to make submissions, but can’t. Some people want to speak out, but they’re afraid of what ramifications it might have—and we’ve seen that fear come to fruition, with past advocates having been targeted with previous cuts. Remember that for the stories you do hear, there are so many you won’t. And all of our lives matter. Remember we are people: not just numbers. Please don’t let us become another statistic.

For me personally, this rushed consultation period has caused significant harm to my physical and mental well-being—as it has for many in the community, who are stressed, burnt out, and overwhelmed. Living with extreme chronic fatigue and chronic pain, writing this submission has used almost all of my energy. Some days, I am so unwell I can’t move, think or speak. And yet I am using that precious energy to urge you to listen to the disabled community, and recognise the extreme harms this bill will have for so, so many people. The fear in the community is palpable: and that’s because for many people, this bill will be a matter of life or death. Disabled people are worried if we’ll be able to eat, leave our homes, go to work, go to school, and exist. Carers don’t know if their loved ones will have the support they need to live. Lives are on the cusp of being completely upended: and we know this, because it is already happening—and introducing an amendment bill with such vicious ramifications for the disabled community will only worsen this crisis.

I’d like to remind the committee of the extreme harms and risk the disabled community already faces, as highlighted in the Disability Royal Commission. Read the Final Report from the Disability Royal Commission, because the reality of what we face will shock you to your core. It is also so exceptionally different from the narratives being portrayed by media and politicians. Please see the t ruth in our words, in our stories.

In my work as a writer, I’ve heard first-hand the impact NDIS cuts have on disabled lives, and the lives of those around us. These impacts become more severe when the person experiences multiple layers of marginalisation: for example, First Nations people, people from culturally and racially marginalised backgrounds, LGBTQIA+ people, particularly the trans and non-binary community, as

well as those who are from low socioeconomic backgrounds, those who live in rural areas, and those with multiple, complex disabilities, including intellectual disabilities.

I cannot understand how the solution to fixing a system that is already causing preventable deaths is to cut more from it. Especially when we know that even in its current form, it brings a significant net economic gain. The argument that it costs too much does not take this economic gain into account: not to mention, the fact that it supports disabled people to live safe, ordinary lives, with choice and control at the forefront. Furthermore, the argument that the NDIS is bigger than projected simply means the initial projections did not take into account the prevalence of disability in the community. More than 20% of Australians are disabled, and yet only a small percent of us are able to get support. And even for those who do have support, it’s often not enough.

It destroys me to see my friends fading away into nothingness, because they do not have the funds they need to live. Friends who are in dark, quiet rooms because they cannot tolerate light or sound. Friends who are so unwell they can’t leave their beds—that they can’t eat, think or speak. And the NDIS still tells them they are not disabled enough, despite extensive reports and evidence to the contrary. It’s so scary to think your friends might die. That they might be forced back into institutions, where history tells us we experience so much more harm and abuse. It’s scary to know that if I were born into a different generation, that would likely be my reality. We cannot go back.

The NDIS only “lost its social license” because this hatred was created

I want to highlight these changes are occurring under the context of an extremely hateful media campaign. Given the 2023 Redbridge Reports, where research was done to see how people would respond to potential cuts, it is no surprise words like “fraud”, “scam”, “rort” and “overspending” have become synonymous with the NDIS to everyday Australians: because that was the exact intent. I find it diabolically evil to spend taxpayer money to find out how to frame these cuts to our lives— that will cause significant harm and death—only for the everyday person to have harmful, misguided opinions from both media and politicians who have perpetuated this messaging.

I want to be clear: this language causes extreme harm and violence, and it has real impact on disabled lives.

As an advocate in the community, I am experiencing thousands and thousands of abusive comments and emails from people who believe the NDIS is a scam. I am being yelled at and abused in the streets because of this hatred, and I am afraid to leave my home more so than I already was. I’ve also had other people in the community tell me they have been out having a coffee at a café, only to have a random member of the public yell at them: “hope you enjoyed your taxpayer-funded coffee!”

I have people calling us “leeches”, “entitled”, “scammers”. I have people telling us we do not deserve to live—and the rampant: “what about us?” mentality.

The sheer amount of public hatred and misunderstanding towards the NDIS is no mistake. It was purposefully manufactured, in order to gather support for these rushed cuts, rather than actual, proper reform.

Disabled people rely on supports to live ordinary, safe lives. And yet, there will be $37.8 billion cut directly from participant plants over the next four years, and a re-set of social and community participation and supports, cutting 30-50% per person. It will also significantly reduce who can access the scheme, which is exceptionally concerning when people become disabled every single day and need support. I want to remind the committee that you can become disabled at any time and suddenly need support. You can catch a cold, catch COVID, catch a flu. You could be in an accident. A

My lived / professional experience

Before the NDIS, I struggled to survive and exist. Due to my disabilities and chronic illnesses, I couldn’t cook, clean, independently leave my house, and struggled significantly with everyday tasks. I would eat packets of dried noodles, because I simply did not have the energy to stand up and cook something, even a few minutes. The pain was so severe. Any exertion left me bed-bound, unable to speak, or even think. I vividly remember a time where I was so beyond exhausted that I could not work out how to even charge my phone. It was like being trapped inside my body. Inside my house. I could only watch it from a screen or a window, as everyone else could carry on with their lives.

Now because of the NDIS, I have support. I have someone to help cook good, nutritious meals for me. I have clean clothes, clean sheets, a clean place to bathe. I no longer have to destroy myself with basic survival. I have support workers so I can go to my medical appointments, so I can get groceries, medication, and even go to work. I’ve been able to participate in a program for disabled people in media. I’ve been able to gain more independence, and even take on a part-time job. I’ve been able to do things I never thought I’d be able to do again. I cannot express how different my life is because of this support. And it’s not extravagant: it’s just basic things to help me live that most non-disabled people take for granted. This is something I firmly believe every single disabled person deserves to have, particularly those with high support needs. But the truth is: the vast majority of people do not.

Despite how grateful I am and how life-changing support has been, most of my disabilities aren’t recognised by the NDIS, neither are my chronic illnesses and my complex mental health condition.

Page 5

any at all, especially when medical gaslighting and medical misogyny are rampant in our healthcare system, and many can’t get a diagnosis to even begin to access support.

When basic everyday supports are considered a “luxury”, something is very wrong: and I am not at all alone in the extreme dread and terror at the proposed cuts. And let me be clear: this is not a fear of change. It is a fear of losing people in our community. Of mass suffering. Mass harm. Preventable deaths. And the notion that our lives are put down to a simple cost: a burden. An item on a budget, rather than a real human being who can do amazing things and live a good, safe life with the right supports.

It is exceptionally heavy to know how much harm this amendment will cause if it is passed: and it is already causing harm now. Budgets are already being slashed. A close friend of mine had her budget slashed by 80%, so now she can’t get the support she needs to exist or leave her house. I am so afraid of what will happen to me if my budget is slashed.

Will I go back to being unable to eat, unable to work, unable to live?

As a suicide survivor, this rushed amendment bill and its extremely short consultation period has also made me experience significant more mental health challenges, stress, and suicidal ideation, and I fear for others in the community who are struggling immensely with their mental health—and physical health—before these changes have even taken place. This also needs to be urgently considered, as autistic people, who are largely targeted in these cuts, are nine times more likely to take our lives. The risk for suicide also increases when someone is First Nations, LGBTQIA+, or from culturally and racially marginalised backgrounds. As someone who worked with the Australian Government on the National Autism Strategy where they claimed to care about our lives, I’m ashamed and appalled. Autistic kids deserve to grow up to be autistic adults and live good, safe lives, as should anyone with disability.

Because of what’s happening, more participants, families and workers in the sector are experiencing more stress, mental ill health, burnout, overwhelm, and financial stress. It also has a significant impact on a person’s perception of self-worth. Because of the narratives that call us burdens, frauds and scams, I’ve had young people in the community tell me they do in fact feel like a burden: like they don’t deserve to live. They feel guilty for simple things that help them live better, safer lives. How utterly awful is that? I fear this will increase the prevalence of mental health challenges and suicide rates in our community, as well as risk of self-harm. Even I have been experiencing significantly increased thoughts of self-harm and suicide. But part of me believes that is what those in charge secretly want: even if its for the simple fact that it will “reduce costs”. So, I will live, out of spite, and continue being the squeaky wheel.

5. What I believe this Bill gets wrong

This bill could be such a powerful opportunity for proper reform and change disabled advocates and participants have been screaming for. As someone that has worked with disability advocacy organisations and seen first-hand the harms the NDIA and NDIS has caused before these changes have been made, it is clear vital reform is needed: but it’s not this.

Non-disabled people with zero lived experience have led this amendment with the plan of cutting costs—rather than actual reform that will improve both safety for disabled people, and improve financial expenditure. Disabled people on the NDIS know of many ways money could be saved, that do not require destroying lives and families. The risk this amendment carries far too great, and it

Should not be allowed to pass

Especially when it is grounded in an illogical argument about cost, when the NDIS brings a significant economic benefit of $2.5 billion for every billion spent. The fact that the crew tasked with cutting costs was dubbed the “razor gang” tells you everything you need to know about its brutality and cruelty. I urge the committee to listen to disabled voices, and disabled stories, and reject this assault against disability rights in Australia. I urge the committee to remember that we are the experts in our lives, and we should be at the forefront of reform, with genuine co-design, rather than the laughable guise of 2-week consultation period. There should be nothing about us without us. Together, we can genuinely strengthen the NDIS. But this will destroy it. And disabled people and those that support us are the ones who will bear the brunt of these cuts, in the form of suffering, risk, and potentially, the end of our lives.

Some key issues in the bill

I want to acknowledge that this is a complex 100-page amendment bill, and I cannot hope to sufficiently cover all the issues adequately, especially with the extremely limited consultation period, and my disabilities and chronic illnesses, including chronic fatigue. I am running on fumes to get this out, as are many of us. But I hope these fumes can light the fire of those who read it, that human rights will prevail, and the committee will recognise the extremely problematic nature of this amendment, and the significant harms and risk it presents.

Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law

The issue: The Bill allows Ministers to change who gets NDIS support (Schedule 1 Parts 8 and 9) and how much funding people receive (Schedule 1 Part 4; Schedule 3) by signing an instrument, without going back to Parliament. The rules that will determine critical eligibility thresholds (Schedule 1 Parts 1, 8 and 9) have not yet been written.

How this affects participants: The decisions that shape the lives of participants, whether they qualify for the NDIS and what supports they can access, could be changed without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny. Participants may not know supports or eligibility rules have changed until their plan is affected.

This is utterly terrifying for participants and families. How is a non-disabled minister who has no idea on what it’s like to be disabled or need support the one who can make these changes, without oversight or public input? This could have horrific impacts for many groups of people. It means we can suddenly have our lives turned upside down, putting us at risk, without proper oversight or even a chance to challenge it. This is utterly terrifying for those of us who rely on the NDIS to live.

Recommendation: Require that all decisions affecting NDIS eligibility and funding levels be made through primary legislation subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory advance notice to affected participants before any changes take effect.

Existing participants face narrower criteria and fewer rights to challenge decisions

The issue: The Bill changes the rules for existing NDIS participants and makes it harder to challenge some decisions about supports and funding. It also restricts when you can request a reassessment, removes review rights for automatic plan renewals, and makes funding reductions unreviewable

• (Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 8). Combined with restrictions on reassessment requests (Part 2), automatic plan renewals without review rights (Part 5), and unreviewable funding reductions (Part 4), existing participants face narrower criteria with significantly fewer avenues to challenge decisions about their supports.

How this affects participants: This does not protect participants already on the NDIS, who could be reassessed under stricter rules. If someone’s funding is reduced or their plan renewed automatically, they may have limited or no ability to challenge that decision. This could make it harder for people to get extra support when their circumstances or disability change.

A huge concern I have with this is many participants on the NDIS have more than one disability, but cannot get it recognised. I have multiple disabilities that significantly impair what I can do, to the point where I am largely house-bound and can only leave with an electric wheelchair. However, to the NDIS, I am only autistic. Only my autism diagnosis is accepted, despite the fact that I have years of evidence and diagnosis for my other conditions, including bipolar and fibromyalgia. As a result, I can’t get supports for most of my physical and mental disabilities. For example, despite the fact that I am a wheelchair user (which I could not get funded through NDIS), I’ve had to fight for extremely obvious and basic things: like a ramp so I can independently get in and out of my house with a wheelchair, or my walker. How am I supposed to have social and community participation, when I cannot even leave my house independently? I have managed to be able to rent a ramp as it’s a lower cost. However, to buy it, I have to spend thousands of dollars on an OT report, and continue to pay for a ramp throughout this process which could take months or years. These changes will only make it harder for basic and obvious things disabled people need to live full, safe lives.

I know many people are in a similar situation, especially for conditions like myalgic encephalomyelitis (also known as ME or ME/CFS). Criteria for access is already narrow. Already, people with severe disabilities are unable to get enough or any support. Already, I have friends who are afraid of dying.

A minister who does not understand the impacts these changes can have should not be in charge of them: especially without a chance to challenge.

I am also concerned that plans might be reduced automatically, with no way to challenge. Errors happen. Wrong decisions happen. Life changes happen, and they are often unforeseen. For example, if a disabled person’s carer passes away and suddenly there is no one to fill the gap of unpaid care. If a disabled person—or their supports—become sicker or develop additional disabilities. If someone experiences violence, or a natural disaster. Circumstances can change in an instant: and rulings by the NDIA are often unjust. It’s why the vast majority of tribunal cases see disabled people win. For us to not have the opportunity to even challenge decisions will cause extreme harm, suffering, risk and death. It already has.

Unscheduled reassessments also cause extreme stress, anxiety, depression, and fear, and does not recognise the systemic issues disabled people face. Medical waitlists are often months, if not years, like in the public healthcare system. Not to mention the fact that getting specialist reports is simply inaccessible for so many, whether it be for financial reasons, locational reasons, or because there are no suitable, safe specialists around. A report can cost us thousands of dollars. Many people cannot bear this cost, or the additional administrative burden.

This is cruel, harmful, and must not pass.

Recommendation

Require a “no harm” safeguard ensuring no current participant loses access to

supports unless equivalent supports are in place, with independent review rights before any exit decision and access to unscheduled reassessments preserved.

Unreviewable ministerial power to cut funding across all support categories

The Minister can reduce funding for any support or group of supports by a specified percentage through an instrument that cannot be challenged (Schedule 1 Part 4). This applies across all budget categories. Unspent funds will no longer carry over at plan renewal (Schedule 1 Part 5).

How this affects participants:

A participant’s community participation, capacity building or assistive technology funding could be cut without warning and without any right to appeal. Participants who save unspent funds across plan periods for high-cost items will lose that ability entirely.

Do I even need to say why “unreviewable power” for a minister is concerning? It brings significant risk of harm, with decisions being made by someone who has not got the lived experience of being on the NDIS to do so. It’s frightening that one move from a non-disabled person might cut an entire category, in the blink of an eye.

Not to mention, many people who have unspent budgets are in that situation because they might not have suitable supports available. They might need it, but simply not be able to spend it, whether because they live rurally, can’t find the right supports, or the right safe, inclusive supports. Disabled people deserve the right to choose. Furthermore, high-cost items take time. It might be months or even years before a participant can actually purchase what they need, due to administrative burdens, hoop-jumping, and the cost of reports in order to be able to spend funds.

Recommendation: Require that unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for participants saving for high-cost items and require independent review rights before any funding reduction takes effect.

Requirement to exhaust treatment options before eligibility

The issue:

A person with disability will need to exhaust treatment options before they can be eligible for the Scheme (Schedule 1 Part 8). There will also be a removal of whole-of-person assessment, replaced by single eligible impairment consideration (Schedule 1 Part 3). The note that previously acknowledged environmental factors and other ineligible impairments could affect support needs will be removed (Schedule 1 Part 3).

How this affects participants:

People with disability will need to prove their impairment cannot be treated before they access the NDIS. Once in the scheme, their supports will only be assessed against a single eligible impairment rather than their whole experience. A person’s individual circumstances will not be considered, including ability to pay for treatment, where they live or whether treatment is actually available to them.

This is diabolical, and entirely inaccessible. Firstly, the medical system is rampant with medical misogyny and medical gaslighting. Many people, particularly women, often have to fight to be heard and helped. This means diagnosis and treatment is often impossible, with many conditions taking decades to be treated. Many also cannot financially access all treatments, and many treatments are simply not available in the public healthcare systems. This will force disabled people into extreme poverty first before the prospect of being helped, when we know early intervention works. Furthermore, disabled people are already experiencing extreme financial strain, particularly with almost half of disabled people living near or below the poverty line.

People who live rurally also might physically not be able to access treatment, especially when

Telehealth services are limited, and the rule still exists in Medicare that you must physically go to the practitioner once every 12 months, which is exceptionally discrimination. Not everyone can leave their homes, especially without support. And not everyone has access to safe supports, including supports that are culturally safe, neurodivergent-affirming, queer-affirming, and trauma-informed.

Only the most privileged will be able to access the NDIS under this rule, and this is the opposite of what needs to happen. So many people will fall between the gaps, when early intervention and proper supports can have make a world of difference.

Furthermore, I am significantly concerned with this rule for those who live with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME, also known as ME/CFS, chronic fatigue syndrome). Under Australian medical guidelines, treatments such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Graded Exercise Therapy are still recommended, when it has been proven globally that it causes extreme harm. For this condition, exertion makes you sicker. This is a condition where even mild ME means you’re housebound, while people with severe and very severe ME are often bed-bound, trapped in darkness, unable to tolerate light or sound, and not able to even eat or breathe without support. There have been many cases where someone has been prescribed the wrong treatment by a doctor who is unfamiliar with the condition (or purposefully harmful), and the patient’s health has regressed. This is what has happened to so many of my friends. I am terrified we will be forced to get sicker, and even potentially die, so we can have the CHANCE at getting support. It’s so incredibly wrong.

Not to mention, the system is already doing a bad job, requiring constant evidence and exertion, with disabled people needing to continually prove their disabilities, despite the fact that disabilities must be significant and lifelong to even access the scheme to begin with.

For example, I have a friend who is an amputee who has to provide evidence that her leg has not miraculously grown back.

Recommendation:

Do not proceed with a requirement to exhaust “appropriate treatment” options – there are no safeguarding measures around participant harm due to side effects or complications, a participant’s financial ability to pay, or their geographic capacity to access treatments.

Unvalidated functional capacity assessment tool risks misidentifying need

The issue:

The Bill shifts assessment from whole-of-person consideration to a single eligible impairment (Schedule 1 Part 3). Read together with the eligibility thresholds in Parts 8 and 9, the tool used to conduct functional capacity assessments must be capable of sufficiently identifying whether a person meets the threshold for that single impairment.

The named assessment tool is the Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN). I-CAN requires validation to ensure it will sufficiently identify the needs of all people with disability, including those whose needs may be fluctuating or episodic and may not be captured through a point-in-time assessment, and to ensure it is culturally appropriate for First Nation people with disability.

How this affects participants:

If the assessment tool does not accurately capture the full extent of a person’s disability, including needs that fluctuate or vary over time, a participant may be found ineligible or have their supports undercounted, with no guarantee the result reflects their actual experience.

I am so exhausted by this. Disabled people have told you again and again that this will harm us, and will be particularly discriminatory to those with dynamic and invisible disabilities, and those who are most marginalised. The nature of many disabilities is that they are dynamic. That does not mean we are any less worthy of support or care.

As someone who does have invisible, dynamic disabilities, we are more likely to not receive support already, and already not likely to be believed. This will further stigmatise us, and harm us, and many, many in the others in the community.

Recommendation: Do not proceed with I-CAN as the functional capacity assessment tool unless it has been demonstrably validated to identify the needs of all people with disability, including those with episodic or fluctuating disability, and demonstrated to be culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.

Supports cut before replacement system is ready

The issue: From 1 October 2026, the government has announced funding for social, civic and community participation supports will be cut by 50 per cent and capacity building daily activities by 10 per cent for all participants, reductions that will be implemented through the ministerial instrument power in Schedule 1 Part 4. The Foundational Supports system intended to fill that gap has no confirmed implementation date and is not yet operational.

How this affects participants: Supports that help participants connect with their community, build skills and maintain independence may be cut before anything exists to replace them, leaving carers and families with greater responsibilities and no additional support. These supports are often what help people stay visible, connected and safe.

I just really don’t understand how this can even be considered when there are no replacement supports. Community, crisis and healthcare systems will be inundated, when they are already overwhelmed.

Furthermore, 10-medicare funded mental healthcare sessions is not enough for anyone with psychosocial disability. My psychosocial disabilities are not recognised by the NDIS, and I am genuinely afraid I will die if I lose these supports. The past year of NDIS cuts and changes have caused me and many others in the community significant harm—we need more support because of this, and the trauma we experience.

The NDIS saves lives. State-based systems are not equipped to handle the fallout of these cuts.

Recommendation: Require that no reductions to community participation or capacity building supports take effect until Foundational Supports are fully operational, adequately funded and demonstrably able to meet the needs of those who will lose NDIS supports.

7. Final statement

I am begging you to listen to the disabled community. To read our submissions. To listen to our words, and our stories. To feel our fear, our rage, our pain.

This legislation is utterly abhorrent. It will not secure the NDIS for future generations; it will destroy it.

Page 11

The NDIS brings a net economic benefit, even with its current challenges. I instead urge for reform that prioritises the safety of disabled people and their families, particularly those from multiply- marginalised backgrounds. Reform must be disability-led, with co-design at its core.

There are other ways we can make savings that don’t involve cutting our lives. It is devastating to know this is what those in power think of us: as burdens and costs, rather than human beings who deserve safety, support, and our human rights.

If this amendment passes, it will be remembered as a step back for disability rights and social justice. I urge the committee to remember that disabled lives matter–our lived experience matters-and to side on the ethical side of history.