Submission 575
Submission to the Senate Inquiry on the NDIS Changes
Submitted by: Anonymous
Date: 23/05/2026
Summary: My submission argues that the proposed NDIS changes risk undoing the very reforms created to address decades of systemic neglect, inequality, and failure in disability support. Before the NDIS, access to care was fragmented and inequitable, often determined by where a person lived, family wealth, disability type, or whether services were willing to help them. Marginalised groups (including First Nations peoples, LGBTQIA+ communities, and others already facing disadvantage) were disproportionately impacted. Australia created the NDIS in response to these failures and in line with its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to uphold dignity, autonomy, inclusion, equality, accessibility, and independent living.
I argue that these amendments risk recreating the very conditions the NDIS was designed to prevent. History shows that when disabled people are under-supported, the consequences are not theoretical, they are measured by Australian and international reports which confirm this will cause neglect, exclusion, institutionalisation, poorer health outcomes, housing instability, preventable deaths, and profound human cost. The Senate must view these changes not only as budget decisions, but as human rights decisions, because disabled Australians are asking for the right to live safely, participate equally, and exist with dignity in their own communities.
Full Submission:
To the Senate Committee,
I wish to address the devastating and detrimental implications that changes and cuts to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) will have on the disabled community, should they continue ahead. And, I strongly urge the committee to reconsider these changes in light of the disabled community’s and their allies pressing needs and vehement dissatisfaction.
As stated by the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Productivity Commission released its report in 2011, called ‘Disability Care and Support’. This report found that ‘disability support arrangements [were] inequitable, underfunded, fragmented and inefficient, and [gave] people with a disability little choice.” Prior to NDIS’s inception, what people received in states and territories, depended heavily on where they lived, what disabilities they had, how wealthy their family was, and whether services wanted to assist. If services were available locally, they were often facilitated through churches that refused people who were part of the LGBTQIA+ community, our Indigenous population, and those who weren’t wealthy enough to afford the services.
Australia carries obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which we ratified in 2008. These obligations include protecting autonomy, community inclusion, participation, equality, accessibility, and independent living. The basis of the CRPD was what founded the NDIS framework from very the beginning.
Submission 575
The NDIS was intended to correct systemic inequality caused by significant breaches in duty of care, on a state level. However, the current trajectory of NDIS with the amendments, risks recreating these conditions. Thus causing further loss of life on a scale we’ve not seen before, as well as an overall loss of GDP and additional costs to Australian tax payers.
It’s often we humans forget history. So I will remind you, the Holocaust didn’t begin with Jewish people. It began with secluding and punishing the indigent disabled people in the country. Just as Labour, Liberal and One Nation have voted for. This then turned into eugenics by segregating people with disabilities they felt were ‘tolerable’ and others were euthanised. The changes we already see are eerily on path for this sort of society, and as a participant this truely scares me.
Consequences of inadequate disability support are already visible. We’ve seen over 6012+ lives (by AHIW reports in 2023) lost while waiting for NDIS to appropriately fund them. Hundreds of them being concluded as potentially preventable deaths.
Evidence presented through the Disability Royal Commission, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reporting and other inquiries, has repeatedly shown that people with disability experience poorer health outcomes, higher rates of preventable harm, institutionalisation, abuse, neglect, housing insecurity, and social exclusion. So why are the government punishing it’s constituents when all we want is to survive and have the same quality of life and freedom to live as our peers and family around us?
Australia has also faced longstanding concerns regarding younger people living in residential aged care due to insufficient disability-appropriate supports and disability specific housing pathways. Currently, the number is over 70,000 young people in residential aged care. These outcomes are not simply statistics; they represent people whose independence, dignity, and quality of life have already been compromised.
Under these changes, participants could be expected to try all available treatments before being considered eligible for the NDIS. Importantly, treatments may still be considered “available” even if they are unaffordable or not available in your area. Which means there will be severely limited progress for people with a disability and thus reduction in quality of life, and further deterioration of the bodies and minds.
For Bill Shorten or Mark Butler to say that the NDIS isn’t being used as intended when it was created is also factually incorrect. In 2005 the Australian National Audit Office reported over 880,000 people would be needing disability supports. 21 years later they are changing what they consider ‘disabled enough’ outside of international and recognised professionals recommendations. Our country always knew the NDIS was needed and provided vital support where the states and territories were proved to be highly ineffective. This change in legislation is merely eugenics in motion Biden under the guise of ‘safeguarding the NDIS’ for the future.
As a content creator for a disabled community, we have real concerns. I’ve had people messaging me that NDIS refused them wheelchairs when they are paraplegic. I was refused housing because ‘housing isn’t essential for someone with a disability’ despite all my assessments and evidence stating otherwise and others who have (like the reports above) almost lost their lives due to the constant delays, constant push back and inaccessibility for NDIS. It’s never okay for Australian lives to suffer like this, let alone for the disabled community too.
Submission 575
I urge the Committee to reconsider these changes. Instead, Australia should be strengthening and safeguarding the scheme for participants while addressing fraud from dodgy providers (directly) who are overcharging purely because we have an NDIS packet, and/or taking funds unlawfully; rather than reducing supports to current and hopeful participants who are in desperately need of help.
In 2021, we found the NDIS brought $2.25 to the GDP per $1.00 of funding. This means these changes will cost us money as a country, should they move forward. So logically, with what we know from government reports, the excuses provided by the government aren’t cutting it here for our community or allies. If fraud were an issue, that’s when you address it directly, not punish the most vulnerable of our society.
Furthermore, reductions to support for both current and hopefully participants, risks increasing pressure on emergency departments, hospitals, mental health systems, informal carers, homelessness services, and residential care systems. Costing the tax payer far more than appropriate and preventative supports. Restricting early intervention as well as community support, does not eliminate costs or make the disabled community disappear; it compounds the costs and transfers them elsewhere thus costing the tax payer more than preventative measures would in the first place. It would also overwhelm our already failing public health care system.
The impacts are particularly concerning for people with psychosocial disabilities, fluctuating disabilities, Autism, Intellectual Disability, connective tissue disorders, and other genetic conditions where support needs vary over time. Reducing disability to ‘circumstance’ narratives or picking and choosing which disability you personally find more appealing for funding risks perpetuating ableism and echoes harmful historical ideas akin to eugenics; mentioned earlier. To conclude that disability results from personal or family failings is also incorrect. Psychologists and neuropsychologists around the word have proven autism is considered one of the most heritable neurodevelopmental disabilities. It is not something created through environment or circumstance. Nor is it something that you can out parent. Taking autistic children off NDIS risks overloading unequipped teachers who are already over worked. And thus traumatises the disabled rather than preventing behavioural issues from escalating.
Many people do not experience disability in a fixed or predictable way. Symptoms can fluctuate, however it does not mean their disability is any less valid or disabling. Function changes, needs increase and decrease. Yet policy frameworks often assume static disability experiences. When support systems fail to accommodate variability, people are forced into crisis before assistance becomes available. For people with physical disabilities and chronic conditions, delayed support can mean worsening health outcomes and higher long-term costs for both the participant and the tax payer.
For individuals with psychosocial disability, this may mean preventable hospitalisation, institutionalisation, loss of housing, disengagement from education or employment, increased emergency service involvement, or deterioration in both physical and mental health. This is because the NDIS is preventative as well as supportive. Removing or reducing supports undermines that.
It will cost us money every time we feed a computer system data to complete a humans job. Because computers are unable to truly understand disability as humans do. And participants all over will need to fight these automated plans each time causing lawyers to
Submission 575
and court fees, as well as other costs at tax payers expense. Not to mention the security concerns we all have around our private and confidential medical documents.
All this, and I haven’t even mentioned the 8% of participants on NDIS who are indigenous and were promised better access to said services, Indigenous Data sovereignty and protection from further harm. Changes that reduce accessibility or create additional evidentiary burdens risk deepening existing inequalities and undermining commitments under Closing the Gap.
Policies that reduce supports without adequate alternatives risk conflicting with both the spirit and intent of these commitments.
Disability support is not merely expenditure; it is social infrastructure. It is investing in all Australians because anybody can become disabled in a moments notice. The economic argument for investment remains equally, if not more compelling than gutting the NDIS. And that is exactly what’s occurring, regardless of any word salad Albanese, Butler, Shorten, Labour, Liberal or One Nation can provide us.
Investment in disability support enables participation in education, employment, caregiving, community engagement and independent living. It reduces downstream costs in healthcare, crisis services and institutional systems (which are overwhelmingly overrun and already at breaking points).
People with disability contribute to Australia every day: as workers, taxpayers, carers, parents, students, volunteers and community members. Without the NDIS, how much will we lose? As people? As a society? Truely, I beg you to ask and consider these questions.
Disability is also universal in its potential. As mentioned, any Australian may become disabled through illness, accident, accelerated ageing, trauma or genetic conditions.
The strength of a society is reflected in how it treats people when they are most vulnerable. Let’s not make Australians feel like they are turning into a third world country when we have an abundance of evidence to show we can support people with disabilities in meaningful ways.
I respectfully recommend that the Committee consider:
-
Maintaining and strengthening participant supports rather than implementing broad reductions.
-
Increasing regulatory oversight of providers, overcharging and fraud, rather than reducing participant budgets.
-
Rejecting over-reliance on automated decision systems where these will reduce procedural fairness, transparency or individual assessment; this will lead to loss of life. Instead hire more agents and reduce KPI’s to ensure each case is handled appropriately and documents are properly handled and reviewed.
-
Protecting access for psychosocial, fluctuating and complex disabilities, including Autism, Intellectual Disability and conditions requiring adaptive support.
-
Expanding disability housing pathways and community supports to reduce institutionalisation and inappropriate placements. This will have a significant impact on our GDP and assist our rental market.
Submission 575
-
Ensuring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are meaningfully consulted regarding impacts and implementation. Ensuring we are still sticking to the commitments made only a few years ago.
-
Embedding lived experience organisations into policy development, ensuring reforms reflect real participant experiences. Hiring more people with disabilities and those who have appropriate training such as diplomas and other training in disability sectors.
The NDIS was established because previous systems failed Australians with disability. Robo-debt already cost us over 2000+ Australian lives and we are still in the process of settling Class Action Lawsuits with families and other victims. How much will these changes cost the Australian tax payers? To fund the lawyer fees, the extra hospital costs, and ultimate reimbursement to their families for when the disabled community perish?
We should not ever repeat those failures.
I urge the Committee to consider the long-term human, social and economic impacts of these proposed changes and work toward a stronger, fairer and more inclusive NDIS. We must strengthen our disabled community and prevent further strain on the tax payers through deterioration or further class action law suits that inevitably would occur from the mass loss of life these changes will have.
Thank you for considering this submission.
————————————————————————————————————————
References:
-
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare – Disability Support Reporting
-
Disability Royal Commission Final Report (2023)
-
Disability Royal Commission - Recommendations for Disability Rights Act (2023)
-
Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of People with Disabilities (2023)
-
Disability Royal Commission - Public Evidence on Group Homes and Institutionalisation (2023)
-
Disability Royal Commision - First Nations Material (2023)
-
Productivity Commission – Disability Care and Support (2011)
-
Australian Law Reform Commission Report 124 – Equality, Capacity and Disability in
Commonwealth Laws
-
National Mental Health Commission publications
-
Australian National Audit Office reports
-
Lowitja Institute reports
-
National Agreement on Closing the Gap (2020)
-
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD 2008)
-
World Health Organisation - World Report on Disability (2011)
-
Bring Them Home Report (1997) Studies that show Autism is genetically hereditary:
-
Sandin, S., Lichtenstein, P., Kuja-Halkola, R., Hultman, C., Larsson, H., & Reichenberg, A. (2017). The Heritability of Autism Spectrum Disorder. JAMA, 318(12), 1182–1184. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.12141 (Estimated ASD heritability at approximately 83%.)
Submission 575
- Tick, B., Bolton, P., Happé, F., Rutter, M., & Rijsdijk, F. (2016). Heritability of Autism
Spectrum Disorders: A Meta-Analysis of Twin Studies. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 57(5), 585–595.
-
Hallmayer, J., Cleveland, S., Torres, A., Phillips, J., Cohen, B., Torigoe, T., et al. (2011). Genetic Heritability and Shared Environmental Factors Among Twin Pairs With Autism. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68(11), 1095–1102.
-
Bailey, A., Le Couteur, A., Gottesman, I., Bolton, P., Simonoff, E., Yuzda, E., & Rutter, M. (1995). Autism as a Strongly Genetic Disorder: Evidence From a British Twin Study. Psychological Medicine, 25(1), 63–77.
-
Colvert, E., Tick, B., McEwen, F., Stewart, C., Curran, S., Woodhouse, E., et al. (2015).
Heritability of Autism Spectrum Disorder in a UK Population-Based Twin Sample. JAMA
Psychiatry, 72(5), 415–423.
- Gaugler, T., Klei, L., Sanders, S., Bodea, C., Goldberg, A., Lee, A., et al. (2014). Most
Genetic Risk for Autism Resides With Common Variation. Nature Genetics, 46(8), 881–
- Grove, J., Ripke, S., Als, T., Mattheisen, M., Walters, R., Won, H., et al. (2019).
Identification of Common Genetic Risk Variants for Autism Spectrum Disorder. Nature
Genetics, 51(3), 431–444.
- Satterstrom, F., Kosmicki, J., Wang, J., Breen, M., De Rubeis, S., An, J., et al. (2020).
Large-Scale Exome Sequencing Study Implicates Both Developmental and Functional
Changes in the Neurobiology of Autism. Cell, 180(3), 568–584.
- De Rubeis, S., He, X., Goldberg, A., Poultney, C., Samocha, K., Cicek, A., et al. (2014).
Synaptic, Transcriptional and Chromatin Genes Disrupted in Autism. Nature, 515(7526),
209–215.
- Yuen, R., Merico, D., Bookman, M., Howe, J., Thiruvahindrapuram, B., Patel, R., et al.
(2017). Whole Genome Sequencing Resource Identifies 18 New Candidate Genes for
Autism Spectrum Disorder. Nature Neuroscience, 20(4), 602–611.
- Risch, N., Hoffmann, T., Anderson, M., Croen, L., Grether, J., & Windham, G. (2014).
Familial Recurrence of Autism Spectrum Disorder: Evaluating Genetic and
Environmental Contributions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(11), 1206–1213.
- Constantino, J., Zhang, Y., Frazier, T., Abbacchi, A., & Law, P. (2010). Sibling Recurrence and the Genetic Epidemiology of Autism. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(11), 1349–1356.