As reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) raise concerns about the rights of people with disability, an academic who relies on the Scheme makes the case for Australia to implement a federal Human Rights Act.
“The outcome of Robodebt demonstrated the human costs that arise when efficiency is prioritised without adequate safeguards,” writes RMIT lecturer Jess Findling.
“The question now is whether Australia has learned that lesson, or whether the NDIS reforms will become another case study of why stronger human rights protections are needed.”
Jess Findling writes:
I work at a university as an academic, with a focus on social justice. I also live with a degenerative neurological condition and rely on NDIS funding to manage pain and fatigue, assist me to get to and from work and maintain fulltime employment.
Many people do not expect a fulltime academic to depend on the NDIS because many of us do not fit how society frames someone living with a disability. Yet, the NDIS is one of the key reasons I am able to continue to participate in the workforce.
I do not know how long this will be the case considering the recent changes. Therefore, my future in the workforce and my contribution to society more generally remain uncertain.
On the one hand, the recently passed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026 has been presented as necessary to control rising costs and improve sustainability.
On the other, when the Robodebt Royal Commission handed down its findings, one finding was clear: governments should be cautious when introducing reforms that affect people’s rights and access to essential support.
These new changes raise important questions about accountability, oversight, and NDIS participants’ ability to challenge decisions that directly affect their lives.
What has changed?
The amendment introduces a range of substantial changes. These include automated decision-making, limits on plan flexibility, processes that restrict funding carryover and plan reassessment, greater compliance and investigative powers, and reduced funding for social, civil and community participation support.
For children and families, the reforms also shift greater responsibilities onto informal carers, particularly women.
Most significantly, government documentation predicts more than 240,000 people may no longer qualify for support by mid-2031, with those affected expected to rely instead on state-based services that are yet to be created.
Governments have a legitimate responsibility to ensure public resources are used appropriately, to prevent fraud and the misuse of taxpayers’ money. However, there is a question as to whether these reforms strike an appropriate balance between financial sustainability and the rights of people with disability.
The changes represent a growing disparity between the power held by government and the right for participants to challenge decisions that directly affect their lives. At its core, this is a question of fairness, rights and whether Australia has fully learned the lessons of Robodebt.
The principles and processes employed during Robodebt demonstrated what can happen when administrative systems operate with inadequate safeguards, limited transparency and insufficient avenues for review. It also revealed how difficult it can be for individuals to challenge decisions made by large government agencies and the effects this has on an already marginalised population.
Concerns about these new changes to the NDIS raise similar questions about whether people with disability will be able to meaningfully challenge decisions that affect access to essential supports, and whether existing safeguards are sufficient enough to protect their rights.
There are significant concerns about the consequences. Some warn that reduced access to support will increase hardship. Others argue the changes undermine participants’ ability to live safely and independently.
These are ultimately questions of human rights.
Human rights protections
Australia remains the only liberal democracy without a federal Human Rights Act.
Without federally enforceable human rights protections, there are limited avenues to challenge government decisions that affect access to healthcare, disability supports and other essential services. This becomes particularly significant when considering major reforms such as the NDIS, Robodebt and aged care.
A federal Human Rights Act would require governments to explicitly consider human rights when designing legislation and making administrative decisions. It would also provide stronger accountability mechanisms when those rights are overlooked.
A federal Human Rights Act is especially important for people with disability because access to support often depends on decisions made by government agencies. While it would not prevent governments from reforming the NDIS, it would require consideration of whether reforms disproportionately affect people’s rights and wellbeing.
The legacy of Robodebt is a reminder that efficiency cannot come at the expense of fairness. Successful NDIS reforms should be judged not only on financial outcomes, but also on whether they preserve the dignity, autonomy and rights of people with disability.
Ultimately, reforms should be judged by whether participants are meaningfully involved in the decision-making process and the access to the supports they receive to participate in work, education, social and community life.
The outcome of Robodebt demonstrated the human costs that arise when efficiency is prioritised without adequate safeguards. The question now is whether Australia has learned that lesson, or whether the NDIS reforms will become another case study of why stronger human rights protections are needed.
If Australia is to learn anything from Robodebt, it is that rights should be protected before harms occur, not recognised afterwards.
The Australian Government should revisit a federal Human Rights Act as a practical safeguard that requires lawmakers and public agencies to consider human rights when designing legislation and implementing reforms.
This is why Australia should place the development and implementation of a federal Human Rights Act back on the national agenda.
Author details
Jess Findling is a Lecturer in Criminology and Justice Studies in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies at RMIT University. She is a family violence accredited social worker and a criminologist. She is a NDIS participant due to a degenerative neurological condition, which is disclosed in the article. I have no financial interests in organisations, businesses or political groups connected to the NDIS.
See Croakey’s archive of articles on human rights
Add Comment