GRANN's Initial Reflections from the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Hearings

GRANN's Initial Reflections from the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Hearings, 9, 10 and 11 June 2026: NDIS (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

Important note: This analysis reflects the themes and evidence presented during the three days of Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearings on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. It is not an exhaustive account of all submissions or viewpoints, nor does it represent the Committee's final recommendations. It is quick response and critical reflection on the dominant themes that emerged across witnesses, disability organisations, researchers, advocates, families, clinicians and participants.

The Headline

After three days of hearings, GRANN's overarching impression is this: Very few witnesses argued that the NDIS should remain unchanged. Very few witnesses argued that sustainability does not matter. The overwhelming disagreement was not about whether reform is needed.

It was about whether these reforms are being introduced too quickly, with too little evidence, too few safeguards, and too many assumptions about who will absorb the consequences.

Across the hearings, the debate increasingly felt less like a discussion about budget management and more like a discussion about where responsibility for disability support should sit in Australian society.

The Central Tension: Sustainability or Rights?

The Government's position throughout the reforms is relatively clear: NDIS expenditure growth must slow. Eligibility needs greater consistency. Boundaries between the NDIS and mainstream services need clarification. Funding should focus on disability-specific supports. Long-term sustainability must be protected.

Many witnesses accepted these objectives. However, many also argued that sustainability cannot be measured only by what leaves the NDIS budget.

A recurring concern was that the Bill appears heavily focused on reducing expenditure while providing insufficient evidence about impacts on: autonomy, participation, safety, employment, family wellbeing community inclusion human rights outcomes.

Several witnesses argued that Australia has obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and that sustainability should be assessed alongside progressive realisation of rights, not separately from it.

GRANN's reflection

The hearings repeatedly raised a question that remains largely unanswered: Sustainable for whom?

A budget can become more sustainable while people's lives become less sustainable.

The challenge is determining whether savings are genuine efficiencies or whether they are achieved through increased burden on others.

A Shift in the Philosophy of Disability

One of the most significant discussions centred on how disability itself is understood.

Multiple witnesses expressed concern that the reforms move away from the social and human rights models of disability toward a narrower impairment-based model (medical model). They warned that disability risks being understood primarily through functional limitation rather than through the interaction between people and social barriers.

The distinction is important; especially to the humans living and experiencing that distinction every day.

The original NDIS was built around the idea that disability is not simply a medical condition.

It exists at the intersection of: impairment, environments, systems, barriers, attitudes, access.

Many witnesses argued the Bill risks shifting focus back toward what a person cannot do rather than what support is required for equal participation.

GRANN's reflection

This may be the deepest issue in the entire debate.

The question is no longer simply: "What support does a person need?"

It increasingly becomes: "How impaired are they?"

Those are fundamentally different starting points.

Cost Saving or Cost Shifting?

This was arguably the most important policy issue raised across all three days.

Many witnesses questioned whether the reforms genuinely reduce costs or merely move them elsewhere.

Repeated concerns were raised that reducing NDIS expenditure could result in increased pressure on: health systems, emergency departments, mental health services, housing services, homelessness services, aged care, unpaid carers, families, community organisations.

Witnesses repeatedly noted that foundational supports are not yet fully designed, funded or operational, creating fears that supports may disappear before alternatives exist.

GRANN's reflection

The hearings repeatedly exposed an uncomfortable discussion: The Bill does not remove need. It simply removes funding.

Need does not disappear because a budget line disappears. Someone still carries it. The unanswered question is who.

The Return of Parental Responsibility

One of the strongest recurring themes concerned parental responsibility and informal supports.

Government representatives emphasised that parents should provide the support expected of any parent and that the NDIS should only fund disability-related needs beyond ordinary parenting.

Many witnesses agreed with the principle. However, they argued disability often transforms parenting into something fundamentally different.

Examples raised included: intensive supervision, behavioural support, communication support, advocacy, emotional co-regulation, personal care, transport, complex care coordination.

Families repeatedly argued that what appears "ordinary" on paper can become extraordinary in practice.

The Disability Discrimination Commissioner also highlighted that one of the original aims of the NDIS was to reduce reliance on unpaid care and enable women to participate in employment and community life. Concerns were raised that reforms may reverse this objective.

GRANN's reflection

The hearings often spoke about parental responsibility. Far less attention was given to parental capacity. These are not the same thing.

But What If There Is No One? -One issue that remained surprisingly underexplored was the assumption that support can shift to family or community.

The Bill frequently references: parents carers, natural supports, family capacity, foundational supports, community supports.

Yet relatively little discussion focused on people who: have no parents, are estranged from family, have ageing carers, live alone, have no partner, have no children, have no reliable informal supports.

GRANN's reflection

The reforms often appear to assume someone will step in. But for many disabled people: There is no one.

Policy built around invisible families risks making invisible people.

Community Participation: Optional Extra or Core Purpose?

Community participation emerged as one of the most contested areas.

Numerous organisations argued that social and community participation supports are being treated as discretionary rather than essential.

Witnesses emphasised that these supports often enable: employment, volunteering, relationships, confidence, safety, independence, mental wellbeing.

Queenslanders with Disability Network described community participation as critical for maintaining relationships, work and safety rather than simply recreation.

Other witnesses warned that reductions could increase isolation and vulnerability.

GRANN's reflection

The hearings highlighted a profound difference in perspective. One view sees community participation as a cost. The other sees it as infrastructure.

Many disabled people described it as the support that prevents crisis rather than the support that follows crisis.

"Have You Tried Everything?"

The proposed requirement to exhaust treatment options generated significant concern.

Witnesses repeatedly questioned: What counts as treatment? Who decides? What if treatments are unavailable? What if they are unaffordable? What if they conflict with a person's values?

Concerns were raised regarding: Deaf culture and cochlear implants, psychosocial disability, reproductive health, rural access, cultural safety, bodily autonomy.

Multiple witnesses warned that eligibility should not become dependent upon pursuing interventions a person does not want.

GRANN's reflection

The issue is not whether treatment should be available. The issue is whether support becomes conditional upon treatment.

We would like to scream that, again, this distinction matters.

Foundational Supports: Promise or Placeholder?

Perhaps no concept appeared more frequently than foundational supports.

Almost everyone agreed foundational supports could be valuable. The concern was timing.

Witnesses repeatedly stated that foundational supports: are not yet fully designed are not fully funded are not operational vary significantly across locations.

Many feared participants could lose established supports before replacement systems exist.

GRANN's reflection

Across the hearings, foundational supports often felt less like a system and more like a promise. The challenge is that people cannot rely on a promise the way they rely on an existing support worker.

Ministerial Powers and Accountability -Expanded ministerial powers emerged as another major concern.

Witnesses questioned whether broad powers allowing funding reductions through ministerial determinations could reduce: transparency, parliamentary scrutiny, review rights, accountability.

Several organisations warned against scheme-wide funding reductions applied without considering individual circumstances.

GRANN's reflection

A recurring theme was not merely who makes decisions. It was who gets to challenge them.

The larger the power, the stronger the accountability framework arguably needs to be.

Regional and Rural Australia -Regional and remote concerns appeared throughout all three days.

Witnesses highlighted that treatment requirements may disadvantage people who cannot realistically access services due to: distance workforce shortages cost availability.

Examples were given of families potentially being expected to pursue interventions located thousands of kilometres away.

GRANN's reflection

A support that exists on paper but not within reach is not truly available.

Whose Voices Were Heard?

The hearings included evidence from: disability organisations, human rights experts, commissioners, clinicians, researchers, advocates, families, people with disability.

Many perspectives were represented.

Whose Voices Were Missing?

Some groups appeared comparatively underrepresented: people without informal supports, ageing carers, disabled adults ageing alone, people experiencing Autistic burnout, people with fluctuating conditions, rural participants facing service deserts, people transitioning from family care into adulthood.

These groups may be disproportionately affected if support responsibilities shift elsewhere.

The Bigger Question

Across all three days, one theme sat beneath almost every discussion.

The reforms frequently assume responsibility can move: from NDIS to family, from NDIS to community, from NDIS to foundational supports, from NDIS to mainstream systems.

Yet many witnesses argued there is little evidence these systems currently have the capacity to absorb that responsibility.

GRANN's Preliminary Takeaway

The most important question emerging from the hearings may not be: "Can the NDIS afford to keep doing this?"

It may be: "Who pays when the NDIS stops doing it?"

If families, communities, health systems, carers and disabled people themselves are expected to carry more, policymakers must be able to demonstrate that those people and systems have the capacity to do so.

Otherwise, what appears as sustainability within the NDIS may simply become unsustainability somewhere else.

And perhaps the most important unanswered question remains: What happens when there is no family, no community, no foundational support, and no one left to step in?

How Australia answers that question may ultimately determine whether this Bill secures the NDIS for future generations or simply redistributes responsibility to people and systems already carrying more than they can bear.