National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 671
Submission Regarding Proposed NDIS Reforms and Future Generations Legislation
Submission by Louise Dragonfly Autistic advocate, human rights activist, parent, NDIS participant, and disability sector professional. I write this submission with serious concern regarding the direction of the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme reforms and the broader policy narrative currently being used to justify them. The government has framed these reforms as necessary measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of the NDIS. However, the projected figures and policy trajectory indicate that the reforms are not merely about moderating growth. They are about significantly reducing access to support. Current participant numbers sit at approximately 760,000 people. Based on recent annual growth trends, participant numbers could reasonably exceed 900,000 by 2030 without major intervention. Government projections under the proposed reforms instead forecast approximately 600,000 participants by 2030. This reflects a potential exclusion of more than 300,000 people from the scheme, substantially higher than public claims suggesting far smaller impacts. Similarly, the discussion around growth targets has shifted considerably. Earlier policy discussions focused on reducing annual growth to around 8%. Current reforms instead aim to reduce growth toward 4%, then progressively lower still. This is not simply administrative reform; it represents a structural contraction of disability support. At the same time, there remains no adequately funded alternative support system for those who will no longer qualify for assistance. The likely consequence is not reduced need, but increased pressure on state-funded systems including hospitals, homelessness services, mental health systems, child protection, aged care, and the justice system. The current public narrative surrounding the NDIS is also deeply concerning. Public discourse has increasingly focused on fraud, misuse, “overdiagnosis,” and unsustainable spending. This framing risks portraying disabled people as economic burdens rather than citizens entitled to dignity, safety, and participation in society. The commissioning of the RedBridge Group report in 2023 highlighted strategies for reshaping public opinion regarding the NDIS and public perceptions of disability spending. The subsequent media focus on “rorts,” autism diagnoses, and participant spending has contributed to growing stigma toward disabled people and their families. Public confidence in disability rights should not be undermined to create political support for funding reductions. One of the most concerning aspects of the reforms is the apparent narrowing of access to early intervention supports, particularly for children under eight years of age. This contradicts one of the foundational purposes of the NDIS. Early intervention has long been recognised as both socially beneficial and economically responsible, reducing future support needs and improving long-term outcomes for children and families. There is also significant concern regarding increased ministerial powers under the proposed legislation, including broad discretion over what supports may be excluded from funding. In practice, this creates uncertainty and instability for participants who rely on supports to maintain daily functioning, employment, education, and community participation. Of particular concern are proposed restrictions on social and community participation supports.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 671
These supports are frequently mischaracterised as non-essential, despite their critical role in preventing isolation, institutionalisation, hospitalisation, and mental health deterioration. Community participation is not a luxury; it is central to human wellbeing and social inclusion. Furthermore, this just shifts the financial responsibility from Federal budget expenditure promoting access and inclusion to a state government funding crisis management through hospitals, jails, Mental Health institutes and programs like Homelessness and leaves vulnerable people at risk of harm, incarceration and death. Similarly, proposed changes relating to “ordinary parental responsibility” risk shifting care obligations back onto unpaid carers, predominantly women, including mothers, grandmothers, and sisters. Without clear definitions and safeguards, these reforms may force many carers out of the workforce, increasing financial insecurity, burnout, and long-term reliance on other social systems. The move toward standardised and increasingly automated assessment processes also raises significant concerns. Disability is highly individualised and cannot be accurately captured through rigid templates or algorithmic decision-making. Australia has already witnessed the devastating consequences of overreliance on automated government systems through Robodebt. The NDIS must not repeat those failures. I am also deeply concerned about the broader social consequences of rhetoric targeting autism and questioning the legitimacy of support needs. Many autistic people are able to study, work, parent, and contribute to society precisely because they have support. Removing those supports does not reduce disability; it simply removes the scaffolding that allows participation and stability. Disabled people are not the cause of economic hardship in Australia. They are members of the community entitled to the same human rights, dignity, safety, and opportunities as everyone else. A civil society should be measured by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Reform must focus on improving transparency, consistency, ethical practice, and genuine safeguards against exploitation, not reducing support to vulnerable people while increasing surveillance and administrative control. I know of so many people who will be worse off and at unacceptable risk should this Bill pass as it is. I urge the government to reconsider reforms that prioritise cost reduction over human outcomes, and to ensure that any future changes to the NDIS remain grounded in human rights, inclusion, evidence-based policy, and meaningful consultation with disabled people and their communities.
About the Author Louise Dragonfly is an autistic advocate and human rights activist dedicated to advancing meaningful reform within the disability sector. Drawing on lived experience as a parent, participant, and sector professional, her work spans support coordination, advocacy, mentoring, and community engagement. She is committed to promoting ethical, person-centred practice and strengthening accountability, inclusion, and professional standards across the NDIS landscape.