Submission regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026
To: The Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
From: Canberra, ACT
29 May, 2026
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry.
I am concerned about this bill for two main reasons.
I have a grandson who has been diagnosed with autism, and the bill raises significant uncertainties for his future management. I am also concerned because looking after the most vulnerable people in our community should be a budgetary priority, and yet this bill appears to undermine that important principle.
Following are my main specific concerns, with some recommendations.
Rushed consultation and reporting process
The current consultation process has an unacceptably short timeframe for proposed changes that could have far-reaching consequences for some of the most vulnerable Australians.
A mere two weeks (plus an extension to cover a weekend) has been allowed for public submissions, and a further two weeks for the Senate Standing Committee to report. Such a rushed process is almost a recipe for some people with a disability being further marginalised and left behind, and decisions made that are politically expedient but socially damaging.
People with a disability and their families must have a meaningful say in how the difficulties they face are managed. That takes far more time than the current process is allowing.
Excessive ministerial powers
Under this bill, the Minister will have new powers to cut funding across entire categories of NDIS support. An NDIS participant’s benefits could be cut arbitrarily without warning and
- without any right to appeal - with no parliamentary debate, public scrutiny or consideration of the impacts on individuals and their families.
Participants may not know that supports or eligibility rules have changed until their plan is affected. Challenges to decisions made about supports and funding could be harder.
Recommendation: •That decisions in relation to NDIS eligibility and funding should be legislated, not left in the hands of a single minister
- Greater automation - and risk - in decision-making
The legislation also appears to be a first step towards greater use of algorithms and automation in decision-making, rather than professional judgement.
Such reliance on automation when human judgement is needed is a dangerous development, which is - rightly - coming under greater scrutiny in many sectors of society. Automation can be a useful tool for some tasks but it can also make errors. It should not determine who can access disability funding.
Recommendation: •That automation be explicitly ruled out in the making of decisions about an individual’s access to NDIS funding
- Greater social isolation
Planned cuts to budgets for social, civic and community participation also raise concerns.
The participation of people with a disability in social and community life has been an important goal of the NDIS since its inception.
In the case of my grandson and other children with current NDIS autism supports at school, The removal of these supports could mean a significantly greater burden on others, with very broad impacts.
Depending on the availability and suitability of replacement services (see below), there may be an unaffordable financial burden for the parents in funding services themselves. There is also the possibility of extra time away from their own employment to try to manage the situation, thus diminishing the valuable contributions that parents make in the workplace.
For the teachers, many of whom are already over-stretched and struggling, adding another burden of responsibility would be unacceptable. It would also tend to detract from educational outcomes for all students in the class.
Page 3
The risk of greater social isolation for children with autism or developmental delay is increased by the fact that planned replacement services are not yet in place. While the Thriving Kids program is planned to be in full operation by January 2028, there is no guarantee that that timeline will be met or that the program will be an adequate replacement for current NDIS-funded services.
Recommendation:
- That legislation include a “no harm” safeguard to ensure that no current NDIS participant loses access to supports unless equivalent supports are in place, are adequately funded and are shown to be a suitable replacement. Independent review rights should be ensured.