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 Date1 June 2026

I am a disabled person in my late 40s living in Victoria, and I live alone with support from the NDIS. Without these supports I could not safely live independently or continue contributing the way I do now. I would likely be forced to move back interstate to live with my elderly mother, which is not sustainable for either of us and would leave me with no clear future once she is no longer here.

Before I talk about the details of the Bill, I want to say something about how this consultation has been run. The Bill is more than 100 pages long and we were only given two weeks to read it and respond. That is not enough time for many disabled people to properly understand complex changes and explain how they will affect our lives. I am asking the Committee to extend the consultation period for this Bill, and to recommend that any future consultation on major NDIS changes must be at least 30 days.

The proposed changes to the NDIS create more insecurity and confusion for disabled people who rely on the scheme especially since these changes take place over several years. This pushes us to constantly second‑guess our supports and future, increasing anxiety and making it harder to plan basic things like housing, transport, work, and support.

The proposed changes allow budgets for social and community participation to be cut by up to 50%, which will drastically reduce disabled people’s ability to leave the house, see friends, voluteer, and be part of community life. Cutting support for art, sport and other community activities doesn’t just take away ‘nice extras’ – it removes key sources of connection, significance, and wellbeing for disabled people, and for some people it also cuts off the community-based pathways that can lead to professional arts and sports careers.

The government’s own information mentions a ‘10% cut’ to a line item that does not currently exist, which is confusing. It is unclear whether a completely new line item will be created, or whether this was a mistake in the documents. It is impossible to understand what is actually being cut, and either way further cuts to disabled people’s funding will be detrimental.

Inaccessible Budgeting System

In 2027, participants will be moved onto a new ‘framework planning’ system, where a long, computer-based assessment will be used to generate budgets. Reports say this assessment takes around three hours, which is not accessible for many people who cannot sit through such a long appointment in one go. There have already been reports in aged care of people missing out on the supports they need when this kind of computer-based assessment is used (ABC). People’s needs are varied and often complicated, and if the tool makes a mistake or does not capture something important, the person administering it cannot easily adjust the outcome. This kind of computer-based budgeting is very similar to what was used in the robodebt system, where automated decisions overrode human judgement and were extremely hard to challenge once made. I am very worried about the Australian Government repeating that harm.

A lot of disabled people live with disabilities that are permanent but fluctuating. That means the underlying condition is not going to go away, but the impact on day‑to‑day life varies. On some days they can do more, and on other days their symptoms mean they can barely function or leave the house.

I am very worried that the proposed changes will judge people based on a short assessment or a few ‘good days’, and then lock in lower budgets that do not reflect the real, long-term impact of living with an fluctuating disability.

Flexibility within the Scheme is important, but these changes in the Bill go too far. I am very worried about how much this Bill allows to be done by ‘rules’ that the Minister can change without going back through Parliament. If big decisions about what supports are in or out can be made this way, they can be changed at any time without real co-design with disabled people and our organisations. That goes against the principle of ‘nothing about us, without us’. It also means changes can slide through without the same level of public debate, media scrutiny, and Parliamentary oversight. While I understand that rules can sometimes make it easier to update details quickly, there has been no proper public discussion about what can be put into rules and what must stay in the Act. This Bill would let the Minister move the goalposts at any time, with too many important decisions made in a way that is less transparent and more frightening for disabled people who are trying to understand the Scheme and trust that their supports will not suddenly change or disappear.

Recently there have been reports of people missing phone calls from the NDIS and then having decisions made about their plan without them. For many of us, a phone call is not an accessible or appropriate way to do planning. Some people are Deaf. Others have autism, intellectual disability or other neurodivergent disabilities that make phone calls confusing, stressful or impossible. Many disabled people simply cannot process complex information or advocate for themselves well over the phone. It is not fair or safe to say ‘we could not reach you on the phone, so we just rolled over your plan or made decisions without you’ and then call that genuine choice and control.

Disabled people also need proper notice and a set time for any planning meeting so we can actually be present. We have to organise a safe, quiet place to take the call, and arrange for our advocate or support person to be there – whether that is a support coordinator, recovery coach, support worker or family member. You cannot just ring people at random times when they might be on a bus, out in the community, or have workers in their home, and expect

Recommendations

1. Extend the consultation period for this Bill, and to recommend that any future consultation on major NDIS changes must be at least 30 days.
2. The Minister should not be able to change what is and isn’t funded just by making “rules” without Parliament and a real public submissions process.
3. Any “NDIS needs” or “reasonable and necessary” framework must be in the Act itself, not buried in changeable rules.
4. Computer tools, algorithms, and averages must not replace proper individual planning based on medical and professional evidence.
5. The Bill must not allow people with permanent, fluctuating disabilities to have their supports cut just because they sometimes seem to have better days.
6. The Bill must protect the supports that keep disabled people living safely in our homes and communities, not make it easier to cut them.
7. Community and social participation supports, including access to arts, culture, and sport, must be protected and not downgraded to ‘nice to have’ extras, because they are essential to connection, meaning, mental health, and future pathways for disabled people.

All of this must be consistent with Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including the right to live independently and be included in the community, and to take part in cultural life, recreation, leisure, and sport.

These amendments must strengthen, not weaken, the NDIS’s original promise: to support the independence and social and economic participation of disabled people, and to enable disabled people to exercise choice and control. This promise applies to all disabled people in Australia, not just one group, and disabled people like me are looking to you not to let us be left without the supports we need to live our lives.