Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, Regarding the
| am writing to express my absolute and unequivocal opposition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. This legislation represents a catastrophic retreat from the original intent of the NDIS—a scheme designed to provide Australians with disability “choice and control” and the supports they need to live a life of dignity. Instead, this Bill seeks to transform the NDIS into a system of rationed, automated support driven by a narrow focus on “budgetary sustainability” rather than human rights. | urge the Committee to recommend that this Bill not pass in any form.
Personal Impact:
lam a disabled person who is a perfect candidate for the scheme, however, | haven’t been able to even gather the necessary evidence and complete the required mountains of paperwork, thanks to the limitations of my disability, ironically enough. This is due to many barriers, such as extremely limited capacity to engage in cognitive tasks for longer than about 15 minutes at a time, with significant breaks, sometimes several hours, and sometimes days between cognitive tasks. | also have profound communication difficulties, and require flexible and asynchronous communication, many weeks of lead time to adequately respond to requests, and these are just the cognitive impacts of my disabilities. My conditions (ME/CFS, Long Covid, POTS, MCAS, EDS) fluctuate wildly and simply cannot be assessed at a single point in time. These conditions impact almost every system in my body, and this means my capacity levels are almost completely unpredictable. The changes would make it even more impossible for me to access the support that | desperately need to continue living, rather than just barely surviving.
- A Failure of Consultation and Scrutiny
The two-week consultation period for a Bill of this magnitude is a gross violation of democratic principles and the government’s own best-practice guidelines, which recommend at least 30 days. This timeline is particularly discriminatory toward people with energy-limiting disabilities, such as complex overlapping chronic illnesses including conditions like Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) and Long Covid. People with these conditions often struggle with Post-Exertional Malaise (PEM)—a hallmark symptom where minor physical or mental exertion leads to a multi-week “crash” or significant decline in functioning.
Forcing disabled individuals to perform to non-disabled timelines to defend their basic rights is state-sanctioned exclusion.
- Excessive Ministerial Power: Paternalism over Law The Bill grants the Minister unprecedented power to change eligibility criteria and funding levels via legislative instruments rather than primary legislation. Critical decisions—such as what
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2849
it constitutes a “permanent” impairment or which supports are deemed “NDIS supports”—can now be altered with a single signature, bypassing full parliamentary debate and public scrutiny.
It ignores the mantra of “Nothing About Us Without Us”. Participants may find their eligibility stripped or their funding cut without warning or the opportunity for democratic challenge.. All decisions affecting NDIS eligibility and funding must remain subject to primary legislation and full parliamentary oversight.
The Narrowing of Access: “Functional Capacity” and “Single Impairments”
The Bill introduces a stricter definition of “functional capacity” (Section 9B), requiring assessments to be conducted in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances“. This ignores the reality of disability, which is inherently shaped by how an impairment interacts with a person’s environment.
Furthermore, the shift toward a
The rhetoric surrounding this Bill focuses on stripping $36 billion from the scheme by 2030, often implying that participants are the source of “financial unsustainability”. | strongly reject this framing and suggest the following alternative avenues for savings and revenue:
Crack Down on Predatory Registered Providers: Fraud and overcharging are overwhelmingly driven by providers, not participants. Many registered providers charge exorbitant administrative overheads and “NDIS-inflated” prices that drain participant plans without improving the quality of care.
End the Legal War on the Disabled: The NDIA wastes millions of taxpayer dollars in legal fees fighting vulnerable people for supports already deemed “reasonable and necessary” by medical professionals.. If the Agency simply funded these supports, the savings in legal and administrative waste would be immense.
To truly secure the future of the NDIS, the government should consider scrapping the AUKUS submarine deal and Pine Gap funding, and implement higher taxes on mining and oil companies, and billionaires.
Disability support is a human right, not a budget line item to be cut while military and corporate interests remain untouched.
- Choice, Control, and the Registration Requirement The Bill’s push toward increased registration and standardization threatens participant agency
and consent (Schedule 2).
Intimate Care and Privacy: Private support workers are essential for many participants, providing them with agency and control over who touches their bodies and performs intimate tasks. Disabled people deserve to have their consent considered and respected.
The Registered Provider Problem: Forced registration often pushes participants toward large, impersonal agencies where they are treated as budget items rather than human beings. Registered entities are frequently the ones committing fraud and charging prices that no individual participant should be forced to absorb.
- The Scourge of Automated Decision-Making
Schedule 3, Part 2, paves the way for the automation of administrative actions, including those involving “evaluative judgements”.
Automating funding and eligibility decisions replaces professional judgement and empathy with rigid algorithms. This risks amplifying systemic harms, particularly for those with fluctuating conditions that do not fit into “predetermined boxes”.
Removal of Review Rights: The Bill clarifies that automatic plan renewals (Schedule 1, Part 5) do not involve a “reviewable decision”. Removing the ethical right to challenge a decision is
undemocratic and removes a critical safeguard against automated errors. This will be “Robodebt 2.0”, and people will die.
- The “Foundational Supports” Mirage
The Bill allows the Minister to cut funding for groups of supports—including major cuts to community participation planned for October 2026—even if the result is less than the cost of “reasonable and necessary” supports. The government claims “Foundational Supports” will fill this gap, but this system has no confirmed implementation date and no guaranteed funding.
Kicking people off the NDIS when state healthcare systems are already stretched and often refuse to treat specific conditions will leave thousands of Australians with zero support. People cannot “teleport” to medical appointments or “capacity build” their way out of a multi-systemic illness.
Closing statement
This Bill seeks to “secure” the NDIS by destroying the very independence and dignity it was created to protect. Disabled people are not budget line items to be “shuffled” between departments to make a federal budget look better. We are human beings with lives and rights.
| urge the Committee to recommend that this Bill be withdrawn. The government must return to the drawing board and engage in genuine, accessible co-design that respects the lived experience of all Australians with disability.