National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3963
Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I am the father of two boys, 27 and 24, with minor disabilities. Through ongoing support provided by us they now live independently and don’t consider themselves as being disabled. Support from mainstream schools was minimal to non-existent at the time, and these supports have largely disappeared by now.
I am in favour to keep especially children out of the NDIS as far as possible, else they get conditioned to rely on paid supports, rather than learning skills to stand on their own two feet.
A major concern for me is that making access to the NDIS harder, and moving 150,000 participants off the NDIS will lead to very poor outcomes for these people. There are currently no support models around; and even the Thriving Kids program will not be ready in time. Supports in these magnitudes cannot be scaled up successfully in such short timeframes
I also work in the disability sector as a CEO of a niche provider that has successfully specialised in supporting people with disability to live in community for over 40 years.
While the changes to the NDIS will have a significant impact on our already stretched resources and lead to redundancies and cut backs to unfunded services, and therefore there is a perceived conflict of interest, I am writing as an individual with my own concerns.
The first concern I have is that the Minister will be given excessive powers by allowing them to set prices, reduce funding for specific groups of supports or introduce funding ratios, amongst others. This removes accountability and transparency and does not allow for government to be hold accountable.
I see this as a gross breach of trust between government and citizens.
There is a clause in the legislation that states that the Minister has to consider the safety of participants. This clause is worthless as cut to funding across all participants does not take the individuals circumstances into account. This will lead to poor and sad outcomes for individual participants.
The 2023 Disability Royal Commission clearly stated that social support networks (that) provide protection for people with disability by increasing connections, relationships, and visibility in the wider community. A reduction of Social & Community Participation by 50% clearly contravenes the findings of the DRC, and will prevent people living with disability to participate in their community. It will restrict their ability to grow as a human being, make friends, volunteer, learn new skills etc.
The alternative offered; i.e. an increase in segregated activities, together with forcing people to live in group homes through funding ratios will lead to a re-institutionalising of disabled people, with the same poor outcomes as previously. I predict an increase in the use of positive behaviour support plans and restrictive practices, which the NDIS apparently wants to eliminate?
It also removes choice and control.
I understand that segregation and congregation is cheaper, but it also removes the dignity of the people segregated and congregated. To me, segregation and congregation is apartheid.
The reason given by the Minister to reduce funding for Social & Community Participation highlights clearly that the provider doesn’t understand their role in connecting people to community; it also highlights that the accreditation standards are not fit for purpose as they don’t focus sufficiently on quality of life outcomes.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3963
Making it harder for participants to lodge Change of Circumstance requests will also have unintended consequences. Where a persons needs increase beyond the available funding, i.e. services cannot be provided in a manner that is safe for the person and worker, then these people will need to find other support mechanisms. In many instances this will be hospital, as no other provider will want to take on a person with insufficient funding.
Lastly, the rushed nature of these changes with no consultation by people that have limited understanding of the impact of these changes shows clearly that this is not about saving the NDIS but an exercise in savage budget cutting at the expense of the most vulnerable members of society.
I fear this is Robodebt Mk II in the making, but at a much larger scale.
To rectify the problems as I see them,
- The legislation should be shelved until sufficient consultation has been undertaken
- The Minister, Senior Members of the NDIS and Senators should seek out providers that provide truly individualised services and successfully connect participants to community to learn from their approaches
- Accreditation standards need to be strengthened to focus on outcomes generated for participants in line with the learnings from #2 above
- Changes should be made in line with DRC recommendations
- The sweeping powers of the Minister need to be curtailed to ensure that they can be held responsible for their actions, including unintended consequences
- Any restrictions to entry to the NDIS and removing of participants should be delayed and then graduated to ensure sufficient other quality supports are in place