National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 929
25th May 2026
To the Labour Government,
I’m writing to vehemently oppose the proposed changes to the NDIS.
You propose cutting 160000 people from the NDIS and reducing their supports. The goal is to reduce the cost for the taxpayer.
You say that the states will pick up some of this responsibility. Yet, given the cost involved in shifting this to the States, why waste time and resources? If tax payers will still be funding these services, then don’t waste time and money shifting responsibility.
This focuses on completely the wrong thing.
If there are inefficiencies in the implementation of the NDIS, they are yours. Your focus should be on increasing the efficiency of the public servants employed to administer the NDIS. More focus should also be given to identifying and eliminating, poor service providers.
Cutting services, doesn’t improve the quality or efficiency of services. It just reduces support for already marginalised, and under represented citizens.
My son is 16 years old, and has an NDIS package. The additional supports he receives, as a result of access to this funding, has made a huge difference to his life and ours. Losing them would be devastating.
Cutting funding places a huge strain on families, and reduces their capacity to contribute to our society in other ways.
The other major issue with these proposed changes, is the notion of “permanence”. Does this mean, a disabled person, must constantly prove their disability? Who decides this?
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 929
That all avenues of treatment, must be explored before being eligible for the NDIS, is also concerning. To assume that legislation is required, before people do all they possibly can to improve their situation , is insulting. It’s frightening to think that public servants, without the necessary expertise and training, will be responsible for deciding who makes the cut?
Please, instead of setting goals to cut people and services, focus on improving outcomes for people accessing these services, by ensuring a rigorous review of providers and improving efficiency of the application process.
Yours sincerely,