Submission 420
IALEC Submission: National Disability Insurance
Scheme Amendment Bill 2026
Author: Indigenous Australian Lived Experience Centre
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au Date: 01/06/2026
The Indigenous Australian Lived Experience Centre (IALEC) welcomes 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.
IALEC is a First Nations-led national lived experience advocacy body representing and elevating the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with lived experience of suicide, mental health challenges, psychosocial disability, and social and emotional wellbeing. IALEC is not a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participant, provider, family member or carer; however, its work is informed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who may be NDIS participants, people with disability, family members, carers, kin, Community members, and lived experience advocates.
IALEC seeks to outline the potential harm this Amendment Bill may cause if it passes Parliament in its current form. IALEC considers the Bill too far-reaching to pass as it stands and believes it requires further scrutiny, amendment and consultation before it proceeds.
Introduction
This submission provides a First Nations lived experience-informed response to the National
Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill
The Bill has the potential to disproportionately and adversely impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with lived experience of mental health challenges, suicide, psychosocial disability and social and emotional wellbeing. As Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in the NDIS is expected to increase at twice the rate of the non Indigenous population,1 First Nations perspectives must be central to determining whether the Bill is appropriate, safe and fit for purpose.
IALEC presents this submission as a preliminary lived experience-informed perspective on the potential impacts of the Bill if it were to be passed. It is not intended to replace ongoing,
1 “The lack of NDIS services for First Nations People with disability ‘a national crisis’,” Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, June 26 2023. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/news-and-media/media-releases/lack-ndis-services-first-nations people-disability-national-crisis Page 1 of 7
Submission 420
meaningful and culturally responsive engagement with diverse First Nations voices, including those with lived experience, but rather to highlight key areas of concern and the need for further consultation.
This submission is grounded in the understanding that NDIS reform must not further entrench existing inequities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Any changes to the Scheme must recognise social and emotional wellbeing, cultural safety, connection to Country, family, kinship, Community, and First Nations ways of knowing, being and doing.
Transparency and Consultation
The consultation period for the Amendment Bill is two weeks, which is insufficient to allow for appropriate consultation, considering accessibility and communication needs. The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days where possible.2
The short consultation timeline limits the ability of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, NDIS participants, people with disability, carers, kin and people with lived experience to meaningfully understand, consider and respond to the proposed changes.
For First Nations people and Communities, proper consultation requires time to support culturally safe engagement, accessible communication, Community discussion, and the involvement of the right people, including Elders, lived experience representatives, Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, families and carers. A shortened timeframe risks excluding people who need additional time, support or accessible information to participate properly, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, psychosocial disability or NDIS experience, and those living in rural, regional and remote Communities.
Compounding Colonial Load (often referred to as Cultural Load) Lived experience bodies are united on the fact that the NDIS is currently inadequate to meet psychosocial needs. This claim is supported by the Bridging the Gap report, which found that while 66,000 people with a psychosocial disability receive NDIS support, a further 130,000 adults with psychosocial disabilities are not supported by the scheme.3 Additionally, the 2023
Disability Royal Commission found that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NDIS participants
are 28 per cent less likely to receive care via the NDIS than their non-Indigenous counterparts.4 This indicates an existing landscape where First Nations people with disability are not being provided with necessary care.
2 “Australian Government Guide to Policy Analysis,” Office of Impact Analysis, February 17 2023. https://oia.pmc.gov.au/resources/guidance-impact-analysis/australian-government-guide-policy-impact analysis 3 Sam Bennett, Mia Jessurun, and Reilly Polaschek. “Bridging the gap: Meeting the needs of Australians with psychososical disability,” (Report, Grattan Institute, 2025). 4 “The lack of NDIS services for First Nations People with disability ‘a national crisis’,” Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, June 26 2023. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/news-and-media/media-releases/lack-ndis-services-first-nations people-disability-national-crisis Page 2 of 7
Submission 420
It is clear that tightening access criteria of the NDIS will result in the cessation of support for people who are currently receiving NDIS funding. This will further widen the gap of people without NDIS-funded psychosocial supports.
When these supports are not available or are removed, much of the responsibility falls on family, Community, and kin. The Bill recognises the work of these “networks of informal support” as providing much-needed care for people with disability. While the responsibilities and obligations that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people hold to their families, Communities and kin is a significant strength, this is not a replacement for systemic care such as the NDIS. Shifting the responsibility of care onto communities does not do justice to those who are receiving support, nor those who are giving it, and increases colonial load rather than supporting the strengths of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Furthermore, in the case of First Nations communities, this reliance on unpaid labour continues historical practices of wage theft and exploitation of unacknowledged and unrespected work and expertise.
It is also important to consider, alongside the colonial load of unpaid and undervalued care work that communities will undertake as part of the changes proposed by the Bill, the financial strain that a reduction in NDIS supports will place on First Nations families and Communities. Due to factors such as racism, discrimination, and socioeconomic neglect, First Nations people are disproportionately affected by low income, employment instability and high costs of living. As such, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who may have to pay for their supports out of pocket because of the Bill will experience a greater financial burden than the mainstream population.
Service Access and System Design
As previously outlined, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NDIS participants are less likely to receive care than the non-Indigenous population. However, this issue is not addressed in the Bill. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly those living in rural and remote locations, face significant barriers to accessing appropriate care. These barriers can range from lack of culturally safe services to outright absence of services in that area. It is for this reason that the suggested definition of appropriate treatment in the Bill raises concerns. By legislating that “treatment may be appropriate treatment for a person’s impairment or impairments regardless of whether the person’s individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment,” Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NDIS participants may be forced to choose between accessing unsafe services or going without the support they sorely need.
For similar reasons, the suggested definition of a permanent disability as having accessed all available treatment has the potential to negatively affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There must be considerations given to the economic feasibility of accessing treatment, the availability of treatments within an individual’s place of living, and the cultural safety and appropriateness of treatment methods.
This concern carries for Part 6, after subsection 34(1), which reads:
“… in deciding whether a support represents value for money, the CEO: Page 3 of 7
Submission 420
(a) Must consider whether comparable supports are available at a lower cost than the support; and (b) If there are – must consider whether one of these lower cost comparable supports would represent better value for money than the support.”
There is no indication that cultural safety, and other issues such as linguistic access and service location, will be considered when determining the value for money of a service. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a right to maintain their relationship with their traditional lands, as outlined by Article 25 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), of which Australia is a signatory. This means that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be supported to continue to live in locations that hold deep spiritual, cultural, and Lore significance, as well as a protective factor for overall health. Assigning NDIS funding without consideration to the ability to access appropriate, safe services has the potential to be a coercive measure in moving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in rural and remote areas into urban centres, in order to access the services for which they have been funded – a continuation of racist practices of displacement.
Part 9 of the Bill, which concerns eligibility for NDIS funding based on availability of other services, also presents potential problems for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s ability to access necessary supports. Priority 9 of IALEC’s Priorities for Suicide Prevention: A First Nations Lived Experience Collective Statement calls to “remove red tape and build systems that move with our people.” National Indigenous Lived Experience Group (NILEG) representatives described the current health system as “fragmented, inflexible and poorly designed for the realities of First Nations lives.”5 Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people face the difficult task of navigating multiple services and systems for various concerns. Lived experience voices have already identified that the NDIS is a complex system to navigate, but moving current participants into different systems compounds this complexity. Much like transitioning from one state’s health system to another, “each move requires relearning new systems, retelling stories, and re-establishing eligibility, creating barriers to care and continuity that compound distress.”6
It is also imperative that consideration be given to the many unique cultural and living arrangements of many First Nations peoples when making a “reasonable” determination to the attempts to make contact with a First Nations participant.
(1A) The CEO may also revoke a person’s status as a participant in the 9 National Disability Insurance Scheme if the CEO is satisfied that: 10 (a) both: 11 (i) the CEO has made reasonable attempts to contact the 12 participant for the purposes of making a request under 13 section 36 or 50 for information or reports; and 14 (ii) the participant is not contactable;
Many services in communities are inappropriate or not reliable in comparison to metropolitan areas, placing our people at higher risk of this section adversely affecting access to support.
5 IALEC, “Priorities for Suicide Prevention,” (Report, 2026, 8) 6 IALEC, “Priorities for Suicide Prevention,” (Report, 2026, 8) Page 4 of 7
Submission 420
Additionally, cultural responsibilities may require a participant to be unable to respond to the CEO’s “reasonable attempts” if they are not individually adapted to First Nations obligations.
This is also the case under S40(A). IALEC again asserts there may be many avoidable, adverse interpretation and implementation incidents, unless the Bill specifically addresses the issues raised in relation to environmental and cultural factors. It is acknowledged that this is a reviewable decision, however, during the time of potential suspension, the participant is likely to have services removed pending this review.
First Nations Knowledges
Overall, the Bill shows a concerning lack of consideration of First Nations ways of knowing, being, and doing. There is little evidence of consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly those with lived experience. This is immediately evident from the proposed definition of functional capacity, which requires assessment to be made “in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.” The SEWB model recognises that an individual’s physical, mental, and social wellbeing is inextricably linked to the wellbeing of their community, their Country, their culture, and their spirituality. Failure to recognise this interconnectedness shows a lack of respect for First Nations knowledges, which have been generously shared time and time again. While IALEC notes that this exclusion may be applied appropriately by culturally safe assessors, IALEC is deeply concerned that this will not occur consistently, given the current lack of specialist knowledge in this area. IALEC urges that any change of this kind include a mandatory obligation to recognise the special position of First Nations people in Australia and the need to tailor services accordingly.
Specifically, there is provision for this to occur as set out below, so we urge this mandatory obligation to be utilised:
(2) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may make provision for determining any matter for the purposes of subsection (1).
(3) Without limiting subsection (2), National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of that subsection may prescribe:
(a) methods or criteria to be applied for the purposes of subsection (1), including classifications or thresholds relevant to an assessment of a person’s ability to undertake an activity; or (b) matters that may, must or must not be taken into account for the purposes of subsection (1); or
(c) circumstances in which a matter relevant to the application of subsection (1) is taken to exist or to not exist in relation to a person.
IALEC CEO, Aunty Vicki McKenna, reflected at a recent lived experience sector event in Parliament House, “First Assistant Secretary Gavin Matthews… acknowledged that the Social and Emotional Wellbeing model is widely recognised as one of the most advanced
Page 5 of 7
Submission 420
approaches to understanding mental health and service delivery. If we know that, then the question becomes - what are we waiting for?”
Furthermore, failure to consider circumstances surrounding an individual’s functional capacity has the potential to fall into deficit-based models of health. Deficit discourse places the blame on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for their experiences of disability and health, among other aspects of wellbeing, rather than recognising the complex and interrelated effects of colonisation, racism, discrimination, and socioeconomic neglect. These approaches position First Nations people and Communities as the problem, rather than identifying the real barriers to attaining the highest possible standard of health and wellbeing.
IALEC would also draw attention to the section Part 6, after subsection 34(1) of the Bill, which reads:
“in deciding whether a support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, the CEO must, if considering 2 or more of the 9 following matters, consider them in the following order of importance:
(a) research and evidence in relation to the support that is published, peer reviewed and generalisable; (b) evidence as to the effectiveness of the support, having regard to the participant’s circumstances (including age and impairment).”
This emphasis on published, peer reviewed and generalisable supports prioritises Western, biomedical means of care. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have developed effective means of care and wellbeing over millennia, and we know that these methods are effective for our people, even if this effectiveness is not always reflected in Western medical literature. All available evidence indicates the application of that model prioritises a clinical approach, and whilst there is a requirement for this, the SEWB and psychosocial model will provide for improved and more appropriate results for our people.
Further IALEC, pursuant to the “effective and beneficial considerations” the mandated areas for consideration by the CEO of “2 or more” areas in assessing the type and level of support for a participant. These matters specifically deal with matters concerning evidence-based information regarding “published, peer reviewed, and generalisable” information and the effectiveness of support. IALEC, again urges the Bill to specifically consider the SEWB model and associated psychosocial inclusion under this area. This is especially important for SEWB related care and support given the autonomous authority of the CEO to determine the suitability of the evidence base.
According to Article 24 of UNDRIP, “Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals.” Access to traditional medicines and cultural healing practices is not only a right, but a significant benefit to overall wellbeing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Unless traditional medicines and cultural ways of healing are
Page 6 of 7
Submission 420
considered under the NDIS, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability will struggle to access their individual highest attainable standard of health.
Recommendations
IALEC recommends:
-
That the Bill not be passed in its current form.
-
That the Bill be subject to a minimum 30-day consultation period before it proceeds, with consultation that is accessible, culturally responsive and informed by First Nations lived experience.
-
That consultation include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, NDIS participants, carers, kin, Communities, Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, lived experience representatives and people with lived experience of suicide, mental health, psychosocial disability and social and emotional wellbeing.
-
That cultural safety, service availability, geographic access, language, continuity of care and the risk of displacement be mandatory considerations in determining whether supports or treatments are appropriate.
-
That the Bill be amended to expressly recognise social and emotional wellbeing, cultural safety, connection to Country, family, kinship, Community and First Nations ways of knowing, being and doing.
-
That NDIS decision-making about access, treatment, value for money, suspension, revocation and functional capacity include safeguards specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and Communities.
Conclusion
IALEC supports reform that improves the accessibility, safety, equity and sustainability of the NDIS. However, reform must not come at the expense of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, psychosocial disability, mental health challenges, suicide-related lived experience, or social and emotional wellbeing needs.
In its current form, the Bill does not adequately reflect First Nations lived experience, cultural safety, social and emotional wellbeing, or the realities of service access across urban, regional, rural and remote Communities. Without amendment, the Bill risks compounding existing inequities and causing avoidable harm.
IALEC therefore urges the Senate not to pass the Bill in its current form. Further meaningful, accessible and culturally safe consultation is required with First Nations people, NDIS participants, carers, kin, Communities, Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and lived experience representatives.
IALEC welcomes the opportunity to assist with further consultation, policy development and amendment of the Bill to ensure that NDIS reform is safe, equitable and responsive to the needs, rights and experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and Communities.
Page 7 of 7