NDIA Accountability Project

This project is in DRAFT

Concerns regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill

‹ PrevPage 1 of 9 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs

Legislation Committee

Enquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Prepared by Brian Cooper May 2026 Submission Focus This submission examines the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 through:

  • human rights frameworks - disability policy analysis • institutional ethnocentrism• intersectionality• actuarial governance• administrative exclusion• gendered care impacts• accessibility and procedural justice The submission evaluates the proposed legislation against:the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities(CRPD)•ConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsOfDiscriminationAgainstWomen(CEDAW)•InternationalCovenantoneconomic, Socialand CulturalRights(ICESCR)•ConventionsontherightsChildCRC International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights ICCPR United Nations DeclarationOnTheRightsofIndigenousPeoples UNDRIP Sustainable Development Goals SDGs SubmittedtoSenateCommunityAffairs LegislationCommittee Parliament Of Australia Canberra ACT DateSubmittedMay 2026

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Enquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Introduction

The submission raises serious concerns about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. While safeguarding the long-term viability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is critical, the proposed law goes much beyond administrative reform. The Bill profoundly changes the conceptual, legal, an practical basis of disability support in Australia.The proposed reforms recast disability in terms of actuarial containment, expense suppression\administrative uniformity and executive discretion rather than participation accessibility inclusion equity human rights . The NDIS was founded as one of Australia’s most important social reforms It acknowledged that disability supportis not discretionary welfare Disablilitysupportisthe infrastructurethat allowsforparticipation dignity autonomy safetyand equal citizenship(Georganas (Georganas [year] ).ThisBill hasthe potentialto transformthescheme awayfrom its participatoryrights-based core towards a tightly managed administrativ frameworkin whichsupporthbecomes more conditional procedural anda fiscally governed.functional Capacity And ThE Reconstruction Of disabilitYTheproposed definitionof functional ability may beth eBillsmost impactful provision.The legislation definesfunctional capacityasa person ’sability to perform th following activities:Without assistance from other people assistive technology or modifications

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill

Submission 1406

  • cultural and linguistic barriers Instead, the suggested approach seeks to isolate an abstract “intrinsinc” handicap from real-world conditions. The Explanatory Memorandum specifically indicates that the assessment aims to avoid relying on these following: • financial means living arrangements environmental variation Commonwealth of Australia yet these realities often determine whether person can function safely sustainably community The proposed approach risks: underestimating psychosocial exclusion excluding fluctuations disadvantage culturally linguistically diverse communities intensifying rural remote inequity privileging visible impairments over complex lived disabilities rewarding administrative presentation actual need Expansion Ministerial Powers Section allows cut assistance payment categories for “financial sustainability” (Commonwealth pp. 2026). legislation also indicates financing may cover cost supports Commonwealth pp. This provision has enormous breadth It converts disability support fixed legislative entitlement administratively flexible allocation based discretion Concentration power within ministerial instruments dwindles parliamentary scrutiny transparency participant certainty procedural fairness democratic accountability Disability rights should not depend fluctuating fiscal conditions administered through executive instruments.

Restricting Reassessment Pathways

The Bill significantly narrows participant access to reassessment.

Proposed Reforms:*

  • extend CEO response periods from 21 days to 90 days
  • increase evidentiary thresholds
  • narrow qualifying circumstances
  • restrict who may initiate reassessments (Commonwealth of Australia, pp.7–10

The Explanatory Memorandum frames unscheduled re-assessments as a driver of Scheme inflation (Commonwealth of Australia). This framing is deeply concerning because re-assessments often reflect deteriorating health, aquired impairments,carer exhaustion,family violence,housing instability,fluctuating disability,and loss of informal supports.The reforms risk trapping participants inside administratively convenient plans that no longer meet actual needs.

Treatment Exhaustion Permanence The Bill strengthens relationships between permanence in impairment treatment(All appropriate treatment) which creates significant risks for people unable tolerate treatment,rural participants with limited service access culturally diverse communities facing barriers care individuals chronic or resistant conditions and experiencing poverty long waiting lists Frameworks construct support around continual attempts fix impairment rather than enabling participation inclusion.

Structural Eugenics and Administrative Exclusion

The term “eugenics” carries enormous historical weight and should not be used lightly.

The proposed legislation does not replicate historical eugenics in a direct or classical sense. However, aspects of the Bill raise serious ethical concerns regarding what disability scholars increasingly describe as the following: • structural eugenics • administrative eugenics • actuarial exclusion (Goodley, Oliver & Barnes) These concepts describe systems where exclusion occurs not through overt elimination but through these:

  • narrowing eligibility
  • inaccessible systems
  • delayed supports
  • treatment conditionality
  • procedural exhaustion
  • reduced participation
  • family burnout
  • economic abandonment The Bill repeatedly frames disability using this language: - expenditure growth sustainability pressures participant containment actuarial thresholds fiscal management (Butler; McIntosh) At the same time, it permits reductions even when funding falls below actual support costs ( extit{Commonwealth}(), pp.). The danger is institutional abandonment disguised as neutral administration A society doesn’t need explicit laws to produce such outcomes—it just needs systems that make some populations less supported over time.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1406

Gendered Care Burden

The legislation demonstrates very limited engagement with Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (United Nations 1979). Disability support reductions do not occur within gender-neutral social systems. Historically and statistically, unpaid care labour overwhelmingly falls upon:

  • women
  • mothers
  • daughters
  • sisters
  • grandmothers Parliamentary debate repeatedly acknowledged the enormous role of unpaid carers within Australia(Aldred 2026).Yet the legislation itself contains minimal recognition of the following:- unpaid labour transfer-carer exhaustion-economic exclusion associated with care-cumulative impacts on women carers The result is hidden cost-shifting from the State to invisible household labour.

Institutional Ethnocentrism

The Bill demonstrates strong features of institutional ethnocentrism.The framework assumes participants possess:literacy-procedural confidence-digital competence-advocacy capacity-stable housing-familiarity with bureaucratic systemstheses assumptions disproportionately disadvantage:culturally and linguistically diverse communitiesAboriginal communitiesrural participantspersons with intellectual disabilityindividuals experiencing traumpersons without strong advocacy networksThe increasingly legalised and procedural nature of the NDIS risks rewarding bureaucratic navigationcapacity rather than genuine support needs(Le 2026)

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1406

Human Rights and International Obligations

The Bill demonstrates insufficient integration of Australia’s broader international human rights obligations, including:

  • Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
  • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  • United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The legislation also demonstrates weak alignment with several Sustainable Development Goals, particularly: SDG 1 — No Poverty SDG 3 — Good Health and Wellbeing SDG 5 — Gender Equality SDG 10 — Reduced Inequalities SDG 11 — Inclusive Communities SDG 16 — Strong Institutions

The Bill increasingly privileges the following: fiscal governance expenditure containment\nan administrative standardisation
executive discretion while broader human rights obligations remain fragmented or operationally invisible.

Recommendations

* Remove or substantially amend the proposed definition of functional capacity.     *	Ensure environmental, social, cultural, and geographic realities remain central to disability assessment.*      *	Remove ministerial powers to make funding reductions through legislative instruments.*       *	preserve accessible reassessment rights and independent review pathways*        *	error foundational supports are fully operational before reducing participant supports*		Undertake an independent human rights impact assessment prior to enactment.*         *	establish safeguards against indirect discrimination affecting culturally diverse communities,*          *	women*, rural participants`, `and people`with psychosocial disabilities.`           `	ensure sustainability measures remain subordinate to human rights obligations and participatory inclusion principles`	Embed stronger recognition of unpaid carers' gendered care burdens within legislation policy design`.            	 Ensure future reforms co-designed with people disabled representative organisations,

carers’, ‘diverse communities’.

Conclusion

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 - Submission 1406

The NDLS was established as one of Australia’s most important democratic and social reforms.

This Bill risks transforming the Scheme into a system increasingly governed through these methods:

  • Actuarial Containment
  • Administrative Gatekeeping
  • Executive Discretion
  • Procedural Endurance
  • Expenditure Suppression

  • A disability support scheme can’t just be deemed sustainable if its spending increases slow down.*

  • For something truly sustainable, it must continue upholding:*

    • Dignity, Participation, Accessibility, inclusion, equity, and Human Rights in future generations*

  • True Sustainability isn’t about the Budget surviving,*

  • True Success lies with Disabled Aussies being able to Participate.*

References

  • Aldred, M., (House of Representatives Hansard), Commonwealh Parliament of Australia; Canberra - 26th may.
  • Butler, M.(House of Representative Hansard)Commonwealth Parliment Of Austrailia Canberrra 14May,
  • Commonwealth of Australia(Explanatory Memorandum: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Securing NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026).Canberra
  • Goodley D.Disability Studies theorising Disablism and Ableism Routledge London .