When Disability Funding Reform Becomes a Human Rights Concern - NDIS 2026 Bill

The NDIS was not created simply as a funding program. It was created as a national human rights reform. At its core, the Scheme was intended to recognise that people with disability have the right to live ordinary, connected, self-directed lives, with access to the supports required to participate in family, school, work, community and daily life.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 has been presented as a reform designed to improve sustainability, integrity and consistency. These are important goals. No one disputes that the NDIS should be fair, accountable, transparent and sustainable. A review into the 308 plus submissions on the Inquiry Website however, send a clear message to the government, that this is NOT the way forward. Armed with a rare 'spare' hour at school pickup today (which actually just means the business billing gets delayed until tonight), I managed to read several major submissions to the Senate inquiry — including those from the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee — who all raise serious concerns that the Bill may go much further than administrative improvement, and cite that the two-week turnaround is wholly inadequate. We agree!

Taken together, these submissions echo and amplify the concerns outlined in the other 300 submissions - that the Bill shifts the NDIS further away from its original rights-based, individualised model and toward a more centralised, standardised, medicalised and fiscally driven system. For people with disability and their families, this is not a technical concern. It is a matter of safety, dignity, access, participation and human rights.

The NDIS as a human rights reform

The Australian Human Rights Commission makes a clear rights-based argument. It notes that the NDIS Act is intended to give effect to Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The NDIS was built on the understanding that disability is not simply located within an individual person’s impairment, but arises through the interaction between impairment and the social, physical, environmental and attitudinal barriers that shape everyday life.

This matters because a rights-based disability scheme should not only ask: “What is the person’s diagnosis?” or “What is the cheapest support?” It should ask: “What does this person need to live with dignity, autonomy, safety, inclusion and genuine participation?”

The AHRC warns that the Bill may be regressive in the protection and realisation of the rights of people with disability. In human rights terms, regression means moving backwards: reducing rights, narrowing access, or making it harder for people to realise rights they previously had. This is a serious concern in the context of a Scheme designed to support independent living, choice and control, community participation and inclusion.

A stronger focus on cost than rights

A repeated concern across the submissions is that the Bill appears to place financial sustainability at the centre of decision-making in a way that may override individual need. We all agree that sustainability is important. A sustainable NDIS matters to participants, families, providers and governments. But the concern raised by the Reform Advisory Committe (RAC) is that the Bill changes where sustainability sits in the system.

Rather than sustainability being managed at the level of Scheme design, governance, pricing, fraud prevention, provider integrity and whole-of-government responsibility, the Bill risks pushing sustainability (AKA, cost savings) down into individual participant plans in a way that will have a profound impact. It moves the central question from “What reasonable and necessary supports does this person need?” to “What level of support is considered affordable or consistent for a class of participants?”

For families and participants, that difference is not theoretical. It could mean fewer hours of support to access the community, reduced therapy or capacity building, less flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, and greater reliance on unpaid family care.

Broad Ministerial power and reduced individualisation

One of the strongest concerns is the proposed power for the Minister to reduce funding across groups or categories of supports through legislative instrument. The RAC argues that this kind of population-level reduction is inconsistent with the individualised, needs-based foundation of the NDIS.

The issue is not simply that funding may reduce. The issue is that reductions could occur across categories of support without the same individualised assessment of a person’s actual circumstances, functional needs, goals, risks, family context or support environment.

For children, this could mean support reductions that do not reflect developmental need, family capacity, school participation, communication needs, sensory regulation, behaviour support needs or safety risks.

For adults, this could mean reduced access to social and community participation, daily living support, skill-building, or supports that prevent isolation, hospitalisation, carer breakdown or crisis.

For people with complex, overlapping or fluctuating disabilities, standardised funding approaches can be particularly harmful. Disability is not neat. Functional needs do not fit into one impairment, one category, one plan line, or one predictable pathway. This is a hugely contentious issue that the Occupational Therapists in the room are screaming at their computer monitors about each time they hear the Government talk about their grand plan of non-allied health trained staff, employed by the agency, who are trying to save money, doing Functional Assessments, or Support Needs Assessments. What could go wrong, right?!?

Moving away from the social model of disability

Both the Australian Human Rights Commission and the RAC raise serious concerns about proposed changes to how functional capacity and eligibility may be considered. The concern is that the Bill may remove or reduce consideration of environmental and personal circumstances, focusing instead on what a person can do “without assistance”. This risks moving the Scheme away from a social and human rights model of disability and back toward a narrower medical or impairment-based model.

From an occupational therapy perspective, this is deeply concerning. Function is never assessed meaningfully in isolation from context. Consider:

• A child’s capacity to participate at school is shaped by classroom sensory demands, curriculum access, teacher understanding, peer relationships, transitions, fatigue, communication demands and emotional safety.

• An adult’s capacity to live independently is shaped by housing, transport, support relationships, health systems, community accessibility, financial resources, trauma, discrimination and the reliability of informal supports.

• A person may appear more capable in one environment and significantly disabled in another.

• A person may complete a task once under ideal conditions but be unable to do it safely, consistently or sustainably in everyday life.

• A person may technically perform a task but at a cost that causes exhaustion, dysregulation, pain, shutdown, mental health decline or reduced participation later in the day.

Removing context from functional assessment does not make the process more objective- it simply makes it less real.

“Appropriate treatment” and the risk of medicalising disability

Another major concern is the proposed requirement that a person must have undertaken “all appropriate treatment” before an impairment is considered permanent for NDIS access purposes.

At first glance, this may sound reasonable. In practice, it raises significant human rights and equity concerns. The Commonwealth Ombudsman warns that this could lead to discriminatory outcomes for people who cannot afford treatment or who live in areas where treatment is not reasonably available, a point we hashed out in our submission also. The Australian Human Rights Commission also warns that this requirement may limit autonomy by effectively requiring people to pursue treatment as a condition of support, regardless of their personal preferences, circumstances or access to services. This is especially concerning for people in rural and regional areas, people facing long public waitlists, people with trauma histories, First Nations people, people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, people with psychosocial disability, and families who simply cannot afford repeated private assessment or intervention.

A support system should not assume that a treatment exists in reality simply because it exists in theory.

Nor should disability support be conditional on people continuing to prove that they have tried hard enough to become less disabled. Moving the bar does not create a fair or equitable system for those who rely on such support. It is essential to recognise that disability is not merely a personal challenge to be overcome through sheer willpower or effort. When support systems require individuals to constantly demonstrate their efforts to improve their condition, it places an undue burden on them and their carers. This approach not only undermines the dignity of those living with disabilities but also perpetuates a societal stigma that equates worth with productivity and ability. Furthermore, the expectation that individuals must continually strive to lessen their disabilities can lead to the marginalisation of those who may not have access to adequate resources, support networks, or medical interventions necessary for improvement. It can also create a false narrative that individuals with disabilities are somehow at fault for their condition, fostering a culture of blame rather than understanding and support. In a truly inclusive society, disability support should be viewed as a fundamental right, a necessary provision that enables individuals to live fulfilling lives regardless of their physical or mental challenges. Such support should be unconditional, focusing on the individual's needs and circumstances rather than their perceived efforts to conform to societal standards of ability. By ensuring that disability support is not contingent upon continuous proof of effort, we can foster an environment that values all individuals for who they are, rather than what they can achieve in terms of traditional productivity.

Narrowing support to needs arising “directly” from impairment

The Bill also raises concern by narrowing supports to those that arise “directly” from an impairment for which a person meets access requirements. This sounds technical, but it could have significant consequences. Many people with disability have multiple interacting conditions. Autism, ADHD, intellectual disability, developmental delay, anxiety, trauma, sensory processing differences, physical disability, fatigue, pain, communication needs and executive functioning challenges do not sit in separate boxes in real life.

A child may need support at school because sensory overwhelm, motor planning difficulties, communication demands and anxiety all interact. An adult may require support with community access because pain, fatigue, psychosocial disability and executive functioning combine to affect planning, transport, regulation and safety.

Trying to isolate which support need comes “directly” from which impairment may be clinically unrealistic and administratively unfair. It risks excluding supports that are essential for participation simply because the person’s needs are complex, overlapping or difficult to attribute to a single diagnosis. This is a move away from the “whole person” approach that disability practice, occupational therapy and contemporary functional assessment rely upon. It reminds me a lot of the time I was talking to a student's Gifted and Talented Coordinator about the impacts of the child's ADHD and Autistic traits such as rigidity and perfectionism on their abiltiy to perform in timed testing and she said to me "We're not here to talk about their diagnoses" as if the brain could be neatly segmented into "Gifted" and "Autistic" and "ADHD" parts... Hrmmm.

Reduced review rights and access to justice

Human rights are not only about what supports people receive. They are also about whether people can challenge decisions that affect their lives.

The Australian Human Rights Commission raises concern that parts of the Bill may reduce reviewable administrative decisions, diminishing the role of the Administrative Review Tribunal and the judiciary. This matters because review rights are a key safeguard against poor, unfair, inconsistent or unlawful decision-making.

When people with disability lose practical access to review, they lose more than a legal process. They lose a pathway to be heard.

For NDIS participants and families, review processes are already exhausting, slow and difficult. But they remain an essential safeguard. If broad funding decisions, automatic renewals or Ministerial instruments reduce the ability to challenge decisions, then participants may be left with fewer options when supports are reduced or access is denied.

Rights without review mechanisms are fragile rights.

Automated decision-making and the shadow of Robodebt

The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s submission is particularly important in relation to automated decision-making. It acknowledges that automation can improve efficiency when properly designed, but warns that automated systems must comply with legality, fairness, rationality, transparency, privacy requirements and human rights obligations.

This is not a minor administrative issue. The NDIS supports people who may have complex communication needs, cognitive disability, psychosocial disability, fluctuating capacity, limited digital access, trauma histories, or difficulty navigating bureaucratic systems. These are precisely the kinds of contexts where automation can entrench disadvantage if it is not carefully limited, transparent, reviewable and subject to meaningful human oversight.

The Ombudsman’s warning is clear: efficiency gains are fundamentally flawed if they come at the cost of integrity. Australia has already seen, through Robodebt, what can happen when automated or semi-automated systems are applied to vulnerable communities without sufficient fairness, legality, transparency and human accountability. The NDIS must not repeat that mistake.

Plan suspensions, debt powers and administrative harm

The Ombudsman also raises concern about proposed powers to suspend plans where the NDIA has made “reasonable attempts” to contact a participant and the participant has not responded to requests for information. The concern is that “reasonable attempts” is not clearly defined. And our comment is that what is reasonable for one party might be very unreasonable for another, which is why this matters.

This is significant because many NDIS participants may not respond to contact for reasons directly related to disability, crisis, communication barriers, unstable housing, family stress, digital exclusion, trauma, mental health, hospitalisation, nominee issues, or administrative overwhelm. Suspending a plan can have immediate and serious consequences. It can interrupt therapy, personal care, behaviour support, transport, community access, assistive technology, support coordination and services that keep a person safe.

The Ombudsman also warns that expanded debt-raising powers may operate as a 'blunt instrument', particularly where record-keeping failures are inadvertent or where compliance burdens are shifted onto participants. For people with disability and families already navigating complex systems, this creates another layer of fear, risk and administrative load.

Shifting care back onto families

Another major human rights concern is the shifting of costs and care responsibilities away from the NDIS and onto other systems, families and unpaid carers. The Australian Human Rights Commission notes that hospitals, health, aged care and other mainstream systems are already under strain and often not equipped to provide ongoing disability supports. Where these systems cannot meet demand, the responsibility is likely to fall back onto families and informal carers. And this is not a neutral shift.

Unpaid care is disproportionately provided by women. When formal supports are reduced, the need does not disappear. It moves into homes, bedrooms, school mornings, car trips, sleepless nights, reduced work hours, unpaid labour, financial strain and carer burnout. For parents of children with disability, reduced funded support can mean reduced workforce participation, increased mental load, reduced capacity to care for siblings, and greater risk of family crisis. For adult participants, it can mean increased dependence on ageing parents, siblings, partners or informal networks — even when those supports are already stretched or unsafe. A truly rights-based system would never rely on invisible unpaid labour to absorb the impact of funding cuts.

The failure of meaningful co-design

Perhaps one of the most significant concerns is the process itself, of which every submission echoes - no consultation prior to deciding on these cut-throat measures, and it is only because the opposition asked for an Inquiry, that we even have just two weeks to provide evidence of our meaningful and significant concerns - are we still in Australia or have we been teleported to an alternative world?

The Australian Human Rights Commission and the Rform Advisory Comission both raise concerns about the lack of meaningful consultation and co-design with people with disability. The United Nation Convention on the Rights of People with a Disability, to which Australia is a signatory requires close consultation and active involvement of people with disability in decisions that affect them.

Do you think the Government forgot that consultation after policy settings are already decided is not co-design?

Rushed timelines, inaccessible consultation processes and limited engagement with Disability Representative Organisations undermine the principle of “Nothing About Us Without Us” - which is the tagline that many disabled people are now considering abandoning due to it being whipped out as a banner when the Government once again decide what is good for them, rather than consulting. This matters because people with disability are not simply service users. They are rights-holders. They must be active participants in the design of systems that shape their lives.

What should happen instead?

The submissions do not argue that the NDIS should never change. They do not deny the need for integrity, sustainability or reform. Rather, they argue that reform must occur in the correct order, with the correct safeguards, and with the disability community genuinely involved.

• The RAC argues that access changes and budget reductions should be tied to the prior availability of foundational supports. This is consistent with the logic of the NDIS Review: you cannot reduce access to individual supports before alternative supports actually exist.

• The Commission argues the Bill should not proceed before proper human rights scrutiny, a gender impact analysis, and closer consultation with the disability community.

• The Ombudsman’s submission points to the need for fairness, legality, transparency, clear communication, safeguards, review rights, and proper administrative processes.

Together, these submissions point to a better path:

• Reform the NDIS, but do not dismantle its rights base.

• Address fraud and poor provider behaviour, but do not punish participants.

• Improve consistency, but do not erase individual circumstances.

• Build foundational supports, but do not remove NDIS supports before those systems exist and are adequate to support the needs of those who will be banished to them

• Use technology carefully, but do not automate away human judgement.

• Consider sustainability, but do not make disabled people carry the burden of budget repair through reduced safety, reduced participation and reduced independence.

In summary, for many people with disability, NDIS supports are not optional extras. They are the difference between isolation and participation, crisis and stability, dependence and autonomy, exclusion and belonging. Make no mistake, a sustainable NDIS is important. But sustainability must not be achieved by making people with disability less supported, less heard, less safe or less able to live ordinary lives.

The real test of NDIS reform is not whether it saves money quickly.

The real test is whether it protects the dignity, autonomy, rights and participation of people with disability — now and into the future.