The Government is not considering both sides of the ledger when it comes to funding the NDIS. It’s not just about cutting costs but also raising revenue.
The NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 is currently before the Parliament and is subject to a Senate Inquiry.
The original NDIS Act 2013 was based on the concept of reasonable and necessary supports for people with severe disability. In the Amendment Act 2026, Part 6/60, the government is proposing to qualify this with some additional words: provide NDIS supports that are reasonable and necessary, “so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability of the scheme”.
This should not be left unchallenged. What if, in regard to education, we wrote the Commonwealth will provide funding for schools “so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability of schooling” or in regard to defence, the Commonwealth will provide funding for military services “so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability of military expenditure”?
The fact is every Commonwealth outlay could be subject to the same qualification. To apply this only to the NDIS is discriminatory. The clause should be abolished.
When it comes to NDIS expenses, it is widely agreed that, to the extent there may be fraud, or wasteful practices, these should be identified and eliminated. Beyond that, the growth in NDIS expenditure may reflect the fact that the underlying need for services is higher than originally forecast by the Productivity Commission.
When expenses are growing, there are two ways to deal with this: cut costs and reduce services, or raise additional revenue to meet legitimate costs as they stand. The government is embarking on the first of these, without any discussion of, or draft legislation for, the second. This is “government half-think”.
How might additional revenues be raised? Consider two current possibilities:
1. Terminate the diesel fuel subsidy to mining companies in Australia
The Australia Institute reports that, in aggregate, mining companies in Australia are 86 per cent foreign owned. In April 2026, the Climate Energy Finance thinktank reported that for the 2025 financial year, diesel subsidies to mining companies were $3.4 billion. Since the major mining companies are all profitable, this means that approximately $3 billion of taxpayer funds are being transferred directly to, or applied for the benefit of, overseas shareholders.
Not only does this give zero benefit to Australian tax payers. Through climate damage, the diesel subsidy is contributing to the trashing of the environment for future generations – the exact opposite of what the government is promulgating in its budget papers about ‘intergenerational equity’.
2. Introduce a 25 per cent levy on Australian gas exports
Australian minerals and underground gas reserves are owned by the Australian people. Yet Australian gas is exported by foreign multinationals with very little return to the nation. Norway charges a tax of up to 78 per cent on oil and gas industry profits. The Australia Institute estimates that a 25 per cent levy on gas exports would raise $17 billion per year.
The above examples, together, would contribute $20 billion per year to the public purse, which could be used not only to fund the NDIS but also other worthwhile projects.
This is exactly what any competent government would do. And if the government is being lobbied by vested interests, it must harden itself; that is, develop strategies to block and counter such lobbying. It is not the role of multinational corporations to determine policy for Australia.
When such steps are not taken, the problem changes from one of funding the NDIS to one of dealing with a government that, by failing to raise additional revenues, is failing to act in the best interest of those who elected them – the people of Australia.
Peter Kent has a PhD in Chemistry from the University of Melbourne. After an early career in industrial research, he spent 30 years as a management consultant and corporate executive, providing services to a wide range of clients in both the public and private sectors. He is a supporter of, and advocate for, those with disability.