Submission 543
Submitted by:
Andrew Bretherton
Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the NDIS Amendment Bill 2026
- Introduction / My Connection to this Issue My name is Andrew Bretherton. I am a disabled person currently receiving support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), and I have grave concerns about the proposed NDIS Amendment Bill. As Convenor, I am writing on behalf of the Accessible Victorian Greens.
The Accessible Victorian Greens are a working group within the Victorian branch of The Greens. Our Aims are to get more disabled people politically engaged and make political parties more accessible and designed with disabled Australians.
I am making this submission as both an NDIS participant and disability advocate with lived experience navigating the failures and barriers within Australia’s disability support systems. I also request the opportunity to provide an oral submission to the Committee. I strongly oppose the passing of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
- My Overall Position on this Bill ☐ ☐ I support it
☐ ☑ I do not support it
☐ ☑ I have serious concerns
Reasons for my opposition
I believe this Bill breaches both the intent and recommendations of the Disability Royal Commission and Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
My concerns include:
☐ Lack of genuine consultation with disabled people and disability organisations.
☐ Increased discrimination and unequal access to supports, particularly relating to age and disability type.
Submission 543
Submitted by:
Andrew Bretherton
☐ Broad ministerial powers that could allow funding to be removed or reduced without adequate safeguards or participant oversight.
☐ The proposed changes to how “permanence” is defined may make it significantly harder for people with chronic and fluctuating disabilities to access support.
☐ Participants may be forced to undertake treatments before being deemed eligible for the NDIS, even where those treatments are inaccessible, unaffordable, harmful, or unsupported by evidence.
☐ “Foundational supports” and “Thriving Kids” programs are not yet properly designed, co-created, or operational, meaning people may lose support without replacement systems being in place.
☐ There is no clear explanation of who will lose access to the scheme or which disabilities may be deprioritised or excluded.
☐ The Bill appears to shift responsibility for care back onto families and unpaid carers, disproportionately impacting women.
☐ Many disabled people do not have family supports and risk isolation, institutionalisation, homelessness, deteriorating health, or abuse if supports are removed.
I am also deeply concerned about the broader narrative surrounding the NDIS. Public discourse around “fraud and rorting” has contributed to increased stigma and discrimination against disabled people. Despite this rhetoric, evidence consistently shows that fraud within the NDIS is relatively low compared to other government systems.
The Government should focus on addressing provider misconduct and strengthening regulatory oversight rather than restricting participant access and autonomy.
- My Key Concerns Eligibility and “Permanence”
One of the most concerning aspects of the Bill is the proposed change to how disability permanence is assessed.
Under these changes, participants may be required to try every available treatment option before being considered eligible for support. This is extremely dangerous for people with poorly understood or contested disabilities, particularly where treatments may be harmful, inaccessible, unaffordable, or unsupported by evidence.
Submission 543
Submitted by:
Andrew Bretherton
My own experience with Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) demonstrates the risks of this approach.
Ministerial Powers and Lack of Safeguards
The Bill grants significant powers to the Disability Minister and NDIA without sufficient accountability or participant protections.
Disabled people must retain the right to:
☐ Appeal decisions,
☐ Be meaningfully involved in decision-making,
☐ Access individualised supports based on their actual needs.
There is no “one size fits all” approach to disability.
Economic and Social Impacts
Cutting disability supports is not only harmful — it is economically irresponsible.
Research shows that every dollar invested in the NDIS generates broader economic returns by enabling disabled people to participate in work, education, and community life.
Reducing supports risks:
☐ Increasing hospitalisations,
☐ Increasing homelessness,
☐ Increasing reliance on crisis systems,
☐ Forcing carers — particularly women — out of the workforce,
☐ Closing disability-related businesses and services,
☐ Causing significant job losses across the disability sector.
The NDIS should be fully funded and protected from being used as a budget balancing mechanism.
Provider Misconduct and Fraud
If the Government’s concern is fraud and rorting, the solution is not to remove participants from the scheme or force them into restrictive provider arrangements.
Instead, the Government should:
Submission 543
Submitted by:
Andrew Bretherton
☐ Properly fund the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission,
☐ Strengthen ACCC enforcement powers,
☐ Increase investigative capacity within the ATO and relevant regulators,
☐ Hold providers accountable for abuse, exploitation, and financial misconduct.
Many of the most serious cases of abuse and exploitation within the NDIS have involved registered providers, not participants.
Labor’s harm of disabled people
☐ It is unconscionable that this Government is cutting $36 billion from the NDIS will remove removing support from 160,000 people while increasing defence spending on weapons and submarines. When other economics measures could be triggered such as taxing the ultra wealthy or taxing Australia’s resources fairly. We do not need to be asking Australia’s most vulnerable to foot the bill. ☐ Cutting the NDIS isn’t just cruel – it’s bad economics. ☐ Evidence shows that every dollar invested in the NDIS returns $2.25 to the economy – because getting the right support means more disabled people can work, increase their hours, and rely less on other supports over time. ☐ Have refused to implement the disability royal commission findings in full. ☐ Broke their promise to the disability community that their would be no cuts to the ndis, no individual assessments and no increasing of government bureaucracy instead they are now implementing the Morrison governments recommendations ☐ Voted against removing partner income tests meaning disabled Australians would not have marriage equality ☐ Failed to respond to recommendation 22 of the inquiry to the purpose intent and adequacy of raising the disability support pension ☐ Introduced “disability scales” making it harder for disabled people to access the DSP they are now repeating this with the NDIS
- What I Believe this Bill Gets Wrong This Bill approaches disability support primarily through the lens of cost reduction rather than human rights, inclusion, and long-term social outcomes.
It risks:
☐ Removing supports before replacement systems exist,
Submission 543
Submitted by:
Andrew Bretherton
☐ Increasing discrimination against people with invisible disabilities,
☐ Re-institutionalising disabled people through neglect and isolation,
☐ Punishing participants for systemic failures within government regulation,
☐ Removing freedom of information requests that hold ministers and the government accountable
☐ Creating fear and instability within the disability community.
The Bill also fails to adequately recognise the expertise and lived experience of disabled people themselves.
Disabled people must be at the centre of any reform process.
- What Needs to Change or Be Protected I urge the Committee to recommend:
☐ Genuine co-design with disabled people and disability organisations, not paying our antagonists excessive grants just to deny us access
☐ Protection of participant rights and appeal mechanisms,
☐ Strong limits on ministerial powers,
☐ Clear safeguards against discriminatory eligibility changes,
☐ Proper funding and implementation of foundational supports before any transition occurs,
☐ Increased investment in fraud prevention and provider regulation,
☐ Recognition of fluctuating and invisible disabilities,
☐ Earlier and fairer access to the NDIS and DSP,
☐ An end to the NDIS preferencing harmful, abusive, coercive, dangerous and discredited treatment approaches without consulting effected communities such as GET for ME/CFS as cost saving measure for the budget.
☐ Public education campaigns to reduce stigma and improve understanding of disability.
Submission 543
Submitted by:
Andrew Bretherton
☐ Protecting our right to information and decision making processes e.g. FOI’s
The NDIS should remain:
☐ Fair,
☐ Individualised,
☐ Rights-based,
☐ Accessible regardless of disability category,
☐ Focused on independence, dignity, and participation.
- Final Statement The proposed changes to the NDIS risk causing serious harm to disabled Australians.
I ask the Committee to carefully consider the lived experiences of people who rely on these supports to survive, participate in community life, and live with dignity.
The NDIS is not simply a budget expense. It is an investment in human rights, social inclusion, and Australia’s future.
I ask the Committee to consider my lived experience when reviewing this Bill.