Submission 745
Committee Secretary Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Parliament House,
Canberra ACT 2600
01/06/2026
SUBMISSION: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
To the Committee Secretary,
I am making this submission as an Allied Health professional with 25 years of experience spanning the pre-NDIS era to the present. While the Bill is framed as a “course correction,” I am deeply concerned that it prioritises short-term fiscal optics over long-term human and economic outcomes and will harm not only people with disabilities but ultimately every Australian taxpayer.
From my perspective as a veteran provider, this Bill does not solve the NDIS’s systemic issues; it simply shifts the burden onto the most vulnerable and the women who prop up the care economy.
- The Gender Gap: This Bill is Attacks Women The NDIS and the care sector at large are built on the labour of women. This Bill disproportionately penalises them in two ways:
● The Provider Workforce: The majority of the disability support and allied health workforce are women. Proposed changes that tighten funding and increase administrative compliance (without addressing the actual cost of NDIS related business operations) lead to poorer working conditions, stagnating pay, and job losses. ● Unpaid Carers: By narrowing the definition of “NDIS supports” and tightening budgets, the Bill effectively transfers the “cost” of support back to unpaid carers, the vast majority of whom are women. This forces women out of the paid workforce to fill gaps left by the Scheme, further entrenching the gender pay gap and retirement insecurity.
We know that’s not the intent but that will be a direct outcome of the Bill as it presently stands.
- Misplaced Focus: Cutting Supports Instead of Reducing Waste The Bill attempts to achieve sustainability by cutting access and support for participants, yet it is silent on the staggering bureaucratic and administrative waste within the NDIA.
● Providers and participants spend countless hours writing reports that are required but don’t get read, navigating redundant portals, correcting Agency errors, and fighting inconsistent decisions. ● A “smaller” NDIS is not a “better” NDIS. Removing support does not remove the need for support; it simply creates a more fragmented, inefficient, and stressful system for those who rely on it.
Submission 745
We agree that the system needs to change to enhance sustainability but cutting waste and streamlining processes should be the priority rather than cutting off disabled people from reasonable and necessary support.
- Disproportionate Harm to the Most Vulnerable The move toward standardised “needs assessments” and rigid funding lists will again most adversely affect those who lack the resources to self-advocate:
● Children: Missing the window for early intervention due to rigid “in and out” lists results in permanent, higher-cost support needs later in life. ● Rural, Remote, Indigenous and CALD Communities: These participants already face “thin markets.” Rigidly defined supports and standardised assessments fail to account for the cultural and geographic nuances required to deliver effective care in these regions. It is harder and costs more to access and provide services in these areas. Cuts across the board like this disproportionately affect those already falling through the gaps. The government claims to be working to “close the gap” but the Bill actively widens it.
-
The Need for Transparency, Not Restriction The Scheme currently suffers from a lack of transparency and “postal code luck.” We do not need more restrictive criteria; we need enhanced transparency and consistency in how access is determined. The Bill should focus on making the NDIA’s decision-making process visible and contestable, rather than granting the Minister broad powers to redefine support via legislative instruments. If the NDIA would actually listen to and trust allied health professional recommendations within pre-set parameters we could solve a number of issues and save millions of dollars by having the people who know a participant best identify the supports that are needed and work best for them without having to waste time and money jumping through unnecessary and wasteful bureaucratic hoops. .
-
Funding period restrictions result in harm and no protection. Disability is not a set and forget “production line”. The Bill’s focus on strict “funding periods” and preventing “spending too fast” ignores the reality of living with a disability.
● Variability is certain: Life with a disability involves fluctuations. A participant may need “front-end load” support or variable support throughout a plan and across funding periods due to fluctuating functional capacity due to their disability, a life transition, a change in family circumstances or even starting work on a new goal. ● Flexibility is essential: We must allow for variability in spend from one period to another. Treating disability support like an old-school factory production line is dysfunctional, clinically unsound and fundamentally dehumanising.
This Bill appears to attempt a perception of funding whilst actively preventing effective utilisation. People with disability and the 25-50% of Australians who support or care for them aren’t falling for that lie. This aspect of the Bill indicates the government intends to actively harm people with a disability.
- The “false economy” of NDIS cuts
Submission 745
Reducing NDIS expenditure is a hollow victory if it triggers a cost blowout in other taxpayer-funded systems. Every dollar “saved” by denying a participant support today will be paid back multiple times over by the taxpayer in the future through:
● Increased health system costs, both for physical healthcare and mental health care. Higher hospitalisation rates, longer stays in hospitals as well as more acute and chronic mental health support needs are just the beginning. ● Lower educational outcomes and higher unemployment for people with disabilities and women. This is a step backwards for our whole nation, not just the disability community. ● Increased rates of homelessness and interactions with the criminal justice system. SEarly intervention and appropriate disability support are MUCH cheaper than managing these issues later in life.
True sustainability requires looking at the “whole of life” cost to the Australian public, not just the NDIA’s balance sheet. This Bill not only fails to address this core issue, it will result in higher overall costs to our society and Australian taxpayers.
Conclusion
As a clinician who remembers the “bad old days” of state-based rationing, I see the shadows of that failed system looming over us in this Bill.
I urge the Committee to reject the components of this legislation that prioritise rigid fiscal targets over the clinical realities and human rights of Australians with disabilities and focus instead on alternative options that will result in overall reduced cost (both human and fiscal) for all Australians.