National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 62
—–Original Message—– From: Sent: Wednesday, 20 May 2026 11:51 To: Subject: Submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future GeneraƟons) Bill 2026
To the CommiƩee,
Please accept the aƩached submission regarding the NaƟonal Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future GeneraƟons) Bill 2026.
I am lodging this submission because I do not believe the Australian public has been presented with a complete or honest picture of the foreseeable consequences aƩached to the current reform direcƟon.
At present, the Government conƟnues to publicly frame these reforms as “sustainability measures,” while failing to transparently demonstrate whether the projected reducƟons remain genuine whole-of-government savings once downstream impacts across health, housing, safeguarding, jusƟce, mental health, regional healthcare and unpaid family care are properly accounted for.
Reducing visible expenditure inside one federal funding line is not the same thing as reducing actual societal cost.
And where foreseeable downstream harm is known, this ceases to become a simple budget discussion.
It becomes a legal, ethical and safeguarding issue.
This reform does not occur in isolaƟon.
Australia is already bound by domesƟc and internaƟonal obligaƟons, including: • the United NaƟons ConvenƟon on the Rights of Persons with DisabiliƟes • the Disability DiscriminaƟon Act 1992 • the NDIS Act 2013 • safeguarding obligaƟons embedded throughout the NDIS framework • procedural fairness obligaƟons under administraƟve law • broader human rights and anƟ-discriminaƟon principles
The current reform direcƟon risks substanƟal incompaƟbility with these obligaƟons where it: • reduces preventaƟve supports • narrows access • weakens parƟcipant certainty • shiŌs burden onto unpaid families • delays intervenƟon unƟl crisis point • increases bureaucraƟc barriers • reduces community parƟcipaƟon • centralises discreƟon without equivalent safeguarding expansion
The foreseeable consequences are already well understood by parƟcipants, carers, clinicians, advocates and families: • increased psychiatric admissions • increased suicide risk • increased carer burnout • family collapse
1
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 62
• insƟtuƟonalisaƟon • delayed healthcare intervenƟon • safeguarding failures • increased police interacƟons • homelessness • increased pressure on already overwhelmed state systems
These are not hypotheƟcal possibiliƟes.
They are foreseeable outcomes.
Which means Parliament is now making a conscious policy choice despite being aware of the likely consequences.
That disƟncƟon maƩers profoundly.
Because there were, and sƟll are, safer pathways available.
The Government could target: • provider profiteering • ghost shiŌs • inflated invoicing • conflicted SIL/SDA arrangements • excessive legal expenditure • duplicated assessments • administraƟve waste • fragmented safeguarding systems • poor oversight mechanisms • regional market failure
Instead, parƟcipants themselves increasingly appear posiƟoned as the source of “unsustainability.”
That framing is both dangerous and fundamentally dishonest.
Disabled Australians did not create the structural inefficiencies now being used to jusƟfy restricƟon.
Yet disabled Australians are being asked to absorb the consequences.
This submission also requests formal consideraƟon of Harley’s Law and other community-led safeguarding proposals before any further narrowing of parƟcipant rights or supports occurs.
The Ministerial response to Harley’s Law became overdue on 10 May 2026.
That fact is significant.
Because while Parliament debates “integrity” and “safeguarding,” a safeguarding proposal developed directly from lived experience remains unanswered.
Harley’s Law represents the kind of preventaƟve safeguarding reform this process should actually be centred around: • earlier intervenƟon • parƟcipant-centred escalaƟon pathways • mandatory safeguarding triggers • accountability before crisis • protecƟon for high-risk parƟcipants • protecƟon for advocates and families raising concerns • reducing deterioraƟon before systems collapse
That is both fiscally responsible and human-rights compliant reform.
Crisis systems are always more expensive than preventaƟve systems.
2
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 62
The aƩached submission outlines an alternaƟve reform framework grounded in: • safeguarding • early intervenƟon • provider accountability • transparency • parƟcipant autonomy • genuine whole-of-government sustainability • regional stability • human rights compliance
Because the central quesƟon before Parliament is no longer whether reform should occur.
The real quesƟon is whether Australia wishes to pursue reform through: • prevenƟon • intelligence • safeguarding • transparency • and human dignity
—or through foreseeable deterioraƟon, crisis transfer and bureaucraƟc raƟoning of vulnerability.
History will judge this reform not by its slogans, but by its outcomes.
Whether people became safer or less safe. Whether communiƟes strengthened or fractured. Whether costs genuinely reduced or merely shiŌed elsewhere. Whether rights were protected or quietly raƟoned.
And whether Parliament listened when the disability community warned what was coming before the damage became irreversible.
Kind regards,
Katherine McDowell
3