Submission 854
Inquiry: The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Committee Members,
I write to express serious concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme legislation.
While reform and long-term sustainability of the NDIS are important objectives, the current bill represents far more than administrative adjustment. The proposed changes fundamentally alter the character of the NDIS from an individualized, rights-based support system toward a model increasingly centred on cost containment and government expenditure control.
Consultation and Inquiry Process
A significant concern is the lack of genuine consultation with disabled Australians prior to introduction of the bill. These reforms affect fundamental aspects of participants’ lives, yet the disability community has been given only a very short timeframe to understand and respond to more than 100 pages of complex legislative change.
The Senate inquiry and submission process has similarly been conducted within an extremely compressed timeframe. This limits meaningful participation by disabled people, carers, advocacy organisations, and service providers, particularly those requiring accessible formats, support workers, interpreters, or additional time to analyse legislation.
Reform of legislation with consequences of this magnitude should be subject to genuine co-design and careful parliamentary scrutiny rather than accelerated implementation.
Ministerial Powers and Reduced Parliamentary Oversight
The bill appears to grant sweeping discretionary powers to the Minister to reduce, cap, or restrict categories of support through delegated legislation and future rule-making processes.
This raises serious concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and parliamentary oversight. It would allow substantial reductions to participant supports without the same level of parliamentary scrutiny normally expected for changes with major human rights implications.
The possibility that support categories could later be reduced according to fiscal priorities rather than participant need creates significant uncertainty and fear within the disability community.
Shift Away from Individualised “Reasonable and Necessary” Supports
The NDIS was established on the principle that supports should be based on the individual needs and circumstances of each participant.
The proposed legislation appears to move away from this framework by narrowing eligibility and support access to highly impairment-specific criteria, while reducing recognition of the broader functional and environmental realities of disability.
Submission 854 This is particularly concerning for people with:
- fluctuating conditions,
- invisible disabilities,
- multiple disabilities,
- psychosocial disabilities,
- chronic illnesses,
- or complex support needs that do not fit neatly into narrow assessment categories. The practical effect may be that participants are required to become significantly more unwell before qualifying for assistance or before receiving adequate support.
Treatment Requirements Prior to Access
The proposed requirement for participants to undertake “appropriate treatment” before qualifying for support is deeply concerning.
Many treatments are:
- financially inaccessible,
- subject to lengthy waiting lists,
- only partially effective,
- physically or psychologically risky,
- or inappropriate for the individual circumstances of the participant. Disability support eligibility should not depend upon a person exhausting every possible treatment pathway, particularly where treatment may not substantially improve functioning or quality of life.
There is a real risk that disabled people will be forced to repeatedly prove deterioration or pursue burdensome medical interventions simply to access supports required for basic daily living.
Social and Community Participation Supports
The proposed reduction and restriction of social and community participation supports is particularly alarming.
These supports are not optional “lifestyle” services. They are often the very supports that enable participants to:
-
work,
-
study,
-
volunteer,
-
attend appointments,
-
maintain friendships,
-
participate in community life,
-
and avoid dangerous social isolation. Reducing these supports risks significantly increasing:
-
mental health deterioration,
-
carer burnout,
-
family stress,
-
hospital presentations,
-
crisis service use,
-
and long-term dependence on more costly emergency systems.
Submission 854 For many disabled people, social and community participation supports are essential preventative supports that maintain both safety and independence.
Block Funding and Loss of Choice and Control
The proposed movement toward block funding and provider-controlled service models risks undermining one of the foundational principles of the NDIS: participant choice and control.
Individualised funding allows participants to choose support workers and providers who understand their needs and whom they trust. This flexibility is particularly important for participants who have experienced abuse, neglect, trauma, discrimination, or institutionalisation.
Block-funded systems risk concentrating decision-making power within large organisations rather than with disabled people themselves. This reduces participant autonomy and may increase vulnerability to unsafe or unsuitable service arrangements.
The disability community fought for decades to move away from institutional and provider-controlled models. These reforms risk reversing that progress.
Appeal Rights and Accountability
The proposed changes also raise concerns regarding reduced appeal rights and weaker independent oversight.
The current Administrative Review Tribunal process, while imperfect, provides an important mechanism for participants to challenge incorrect NDIA decisions.
Any reduction in participants’ ability to meaningfully appeal funding or eligibility decisions risks creating a substantial imbalance of power between disabled people and the NDIA.
Strong independent review mechanisms are essential in any scheme that has such direct impacts on safety, health, housing, employment, and human rights.
Human Rights Implications
The repeated emphasis within the reforms on “financial sustainability” risks reframing disabled people primarily as economic liabilities rather than as citizens entitled to dignity, inclusion, safety, and equal participation.
Disabled Australians understand the need for effective administration and responsible spending. However, sustainability cannot be pursued at the expense of fundamental human rights.
Reform must not come at the expense of safety, dignity, and inclusion.
The NDIS is not merely a funding mechanism. In practical terms, it functions as one of Australia’s primary disability human rights frameworks. Weakening access to individualized supports risks severe long-term consequences for disabled people, families, carers, and the broader community.
Personal Impact
I also wish to outline the likely personal impact these reforms may have on my own circumstances.
I am both an NDIS participant and a recently employed support coordinator with lived experience of disability and a background in allied health-related work.
Submission 854 After actively seeking suitable employment for approximately five years, I was recently offered a part time, work-from-home role of approximately 10 hours per week with a small service provider. This opportunity was created specifically in recognition of both my professional background and lived experience navigating disability systems.
The proposed reforms place many small independent support coordination businesses at significant risk of closure due to the apparent movement toward larger government-aligned or provider controlled organisational models becoming participants’ primary or only options for support.
As a result, I now face the possibility of once again losing employment, independence, and financial security. The likely consequence for me personally is returning to a situation where basic living costs become impossible to manage and choices may need to be made between essentials such as food and medication.
This demonstrates that the impacts of these reforms are not abstract. They will directly affect disabled people’s employment, autonomy, mental health, economic participation, and quality of life.
Conclusion
The disability community is not opposing reform itself. Many disabled Australians support efforts to improve consistency, reduce inefficiency, and ensure the long-term sustainability of the NDIS.
However, reforms of this magnitude must be:
-
properly consulted on,
-
evidence-based,
-
transparent,
-
subject to full parliamentary scrutiny,
-
and genuinely co-designed with disabled people. I respectfully urge the Committee to carefully reconsider provisions of the bill that:
-
weaken individualized supports,
-
expand ministerial powers,
-
reduce participant choice and control,
-
restrict access to essential supports,
-
limit review rights,
-
or prioritise cost containment over participant wellbeing and human rights. Disabled Australians deserve reforms that strengthen inclusion, independence, dignity, and safety — not reforms that risk increasing isolation, institutionalisation, poverty, and crisis. Thank you for considering this submission.