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

Submission 1727

Antipoverty Centre Inc.

Social policy on our terms.`

Suite 26, Level 1, 285A Crown St Surry Hills  NSW  2010 team@antipovertycentre.org ABN: [98],[37],-[008]-,[622]

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee PO Box 6₁⁰ Parliament House Canberra ACT [2]_[6]*⁰ </sup community._afairs.sen@[aph.gov.au

June, 2026

To The Committee Secretary, Re: Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the National Disability Insuranc_eScheme Ammendment (Scecurin<sub>g t</sub>he NDIS fo<sub>r F</su>buree Genereation<s>) Bili 2026 We are writing to express our deep concern about the lack of meaningful consultation o_{n this bill that enables drastic change to social supports and th}e largest cut to a social program in this country’s history. The government is not rushing this biill because there iis any urgency aside from its own desire to avoid political blowback fro<em>m disabled people as we scramble te defend ourselves annd ouucommunities frrom $36 billion ncuts to our support.</em> This move to slash NDIS suport will kill disabiled peopple both through neglect nd suicide. Future generations wll suffer It contradicts evidence ad findings at the Disabilty Royal Commission.The federal budget should <b>not be balanced offthe backsofdisabledpeople.`We arre disturbed byth significant changesthis bii makes to then NDISand teh anticipated impact on thee lives ot he pople who rely on it The extremely short consultion period itself causing distress,anw wil actively exclude the voices od diabledpeole whho wantt speak on legislatioin that affects many aspects oft heir lives.

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

Submission 1727

We condemn the government’s actions in portraying disabled people as a burden, especially autistic persons, and implying there is significant fraud being perpetrated by us to build support for cuts. They caused enormous harm, sending community attitudes against disabled persons. It was stain Labor’s legacy destroying landmark generational achievement establishing NDIS. The NDIS imperfect disabled know what needs change. Have been telling governments years ways it fails truly supporting choice control over own lives price gouging careless registered NDIS providers Yet with each change scheme see policy moving wrong direction further restricting access supports reducing while embedding rent-seeking protecting provider profits perpetuating bad conditions workers insecure jobs One biggest problems always high barriers accessing marginalised particularly First Nations experience far higher rates disability rest of but under-represented on this scheme People poverty also disproportionately excluded less able use funding have if we are schemes cost medical reports prove eligibility requirement outlay funds reimbursed when money first place Changes current form will exclude marginalise disabled who live amplify barrier need support They see oriented bare minimum that leave survive not thrive continuation profiteering from disabilty fuelled reliance private market operators lack public options improved healthcare through Medicare Great achievements universal program seeking uphold Convention Rights Persons Disabilities social model intended provide same level regardless income though due current settings gaps Medicare remains inequitable Fear precedent stripping back grounds addressing confected financial sustainability problem lays foundation restrictions opens potential future means testing If government wanted make changes genuinely help would consult in good faith listen concerns raised long rather than opportunistically using us for budget savings

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

Submission 1727

The NDIS should be returned to its original purpose envisioned by disabled people: to enable to us to participate fully in society on an equal basis with others, and to give us choice and control over the supports we need to achieve independence and live a fulfilling life.

The Antipoverty Centre has had the benefit of reviewing Women with Disability Australia’s and Inclusion Australia’s submissions and we endorse their recommendations. Please find our specific comments on this bill enclosed below. For enquiries contact team@antypovertycentre.org.

Regards,

redacted Kristin O’ConnellCo-coordinatorAntipovery CentreWe thank Liam Thatcher for assistance in the preparation of this submission.Acknowledgement of Country The Antipoverty Centre acknowledges the original peoples of this unceded continent, who have been custodians ofCountry for thousands of generations. First Peoples have connections to place, land, water and community that havebeen unbroken for 120,000 years. We recognise Indigenous sovereignty and the cultural significance inherent intthesesconnections, historical and contemporary. We pay respect to Elders past and present and stand with all First Peoplessinthefquestforself-determinationjusticeandtruth-tellinginfacethongoingcolonialviolenceincludingthatinflictedthrough racism insocialsecuritysystem.StatementonartificialintelligenceNo artificial intelligence tools were used to generate or analyse information inthe processof creatingthissubmission.The Antipoverty Centresupportsthe useothesetoolsonthegroundsof concernsrelatedtoethicalimplicationscoststo communities environmental impacts anda ccuracy.AbouttheadntipovertyCentreThe Antipoverty Centerwas establishedtocounter problemswith academics think tanksandothersintopoliticalclassmaking harmful decisions on behalf o people they purport represent.We are activists advocates andresearcherswith direct experience op poverty.Wedefend fightforthrightsofpplikeourselveswhoxperience violenceathandsan economic systemdesignedtopressureus Ourgoalis help ensure voices rightspeoplelivinginpoveryareatcentrofsocpoldevpmentdiscourseWebelieve there should be no decision made about us without us.

Antipoverty Centre NDIS bill submission | June 2026 iii

Comments on bill provisions

• Lead recommendation…………………………………………………………………………………………………….[Page number]
• Ministerial powers …………………………………………………………………………………. [Page number]
  • Recommendation ……………………………………….. [Page number]
• Access ……………………………………………………………………. …[Page number]
  • Recommendations …………… […][Page number]
• Additional supports tests…………………………………… ………[Page number]
  • Recommendation ……………………. [Page number] Given the short period for consultation and the scale of changes proposed this submission doesnot cover eachofthe proposed amendments.We have focusedon three particularly worryingelements ofthisbill:     • BroadMinisterialempowersregulatingthelivesdisabledpeople        • Significantlytightenedaccesscriteria         -SignificantlymoredifficulttestsforswhatthenNDISwillfundInsteadoffixingthesignificantissuesof then DIS – like private provider profiteeringandmisconduct, huge appeals waiting times anda costs,and extensiveadministrativehurdles thatgetbetween peopleandsupportthat theydeservebyright– thistillattacks corebenefitsitprovides tothose who should beonthescheme bycutting $36billiondollarsbrutallyandiniscriminately. Alternative systems do not and will no exist in timefor 00.000 peoplenot ableto access scheme before29.They also will n therefore still onscheme that will see cuts caps placed their support.The$ million allocated inclusiveCommunities Fund response harm this cause is an insult.`Antipoverty Centre NDIS billsubmission | June [Year]

Lead recommendation

The committee should recommend this bill not pass, that more time be given for consultation with the disability community, an dthatthe government start over wit ha reform approachtha t actually addresses th e huge difficultiesin accessing supportforthosewho usetheNDISandth emany thousandsof disabledpeoplewhocannotaccesssupportatall.The scheme mustbe made easierto accessanda more equitablef or thereopleit services.

Ministerial powers

Thisbillletsthe ministerunilaterallycutancapthesupportspeople receive,evenwhentheyestablish thosesupportsare necessary.Thiscanapplytoparticularsuppor tc ategoriesaswellastarget people with specific disabilities under these sch eme (see sections34A , ( ) andsections73EB).Thesepowersgivetheministerhuge controloverpeop le’slivesewithverylittletostopthem . Theonlybarrierform them insterminimplementingthese determinationsis arequirement to “have regard”tosafetyimpacts of anyorder.Thismerelyrequirestheminstertoreview anda cknowledge risksbutwillnotultimatelystopthemfromissuingdeterminati onsif theybelieve thenudget savingsar eworthwhile –there isnomi nimumthresholdproportionalityorconsultation required.Therealsoabroader provisionwhich gives the ministe rability top roducen rules that can changethe waytheseschemeisan dmin istered for12 monthsafterthis billisp ass ed(sees ections ( )andSchedule5 ).Therec anbe nosafetyfor disabled peopl eswithth ese pow ers. Thegovernmenthassaid thispower will be usedto cutCommunityandsocial Participation budgetsin peoplesNDISplans.Theyproposetocutthesebudgets t o 2023levels(modelledat%50 percent) ^{1</ sup> orbyabout$3.4billionacross thesech eme eachyearatanaverage reductionof $8,750perparticipant.< sup >^{ )Thesechangesdisproportional lyimpactpeople withintellectual disability ,down syndrome,p sychosocia ldisable ty andvisual impairments.Thecuts w illbean evenlarg erthantheadveragef or people inthesecohorts . Any honest assessment about whattheseservicesmean to thereoplewho use themwould showhowimportanttheyare toe nsuringpeop lehave therighttoparticipateinthecommunityone qualtermswit hthosewhodonot havea disabilit y.Takingaway thesesupportswill meanp eo ple}

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

Submission 1727

lead lives of seclusion and isolation, not only immiserating tens of thousands, but also actively contributing to the abuse, neglect and exploitation that disabled people experience at vastly higher rates than the general population. These same tools can easily be turned on other categories of support. It is uncomfortable but easy to imagine circumstances in which disabled people will have their plan cut to balance other areas of the federal budget – the government has also modelled a 10 per cent reduction in the therapy people can access in addition to community participation cuts.Similar efforts could seek to clamp down on the amount and quality of assistive technology available to people or place limits on the daily living support someone can receive, for example, a blanket restriction of 4 hours a week regardless of need.These policies will compound the marginalisation of those who rely on the NDIS.It drastically narrows the initial ambition of the scheme –that disabled people have every right to live on equal terms across all aspects of our society–to something that only aims for the bare minimum level of “safety” that the government thinks it can get away with.Instead of designing a system that upholds everyone’s rights,the bill effectively gives the government a blank cheque to draw from whenever they want more money for war, submarines,subsidising landlords,or paying for privatised (un)employment services to unlawfully penalise welfare recipients.Instead of implementing policies that would make for a more equal society,the government can simply cut from the NDIS without restriction or meaningful parliamentary oversight.This follows a worrying trend of overreach under the Albanese government such as the rushed introduction of rules enabling a minister to cancel someone’s welfare payment before conviction ifthey are suspected of committing a violent offence.

Recommendation

Remove ministerial powers that give politicians extraordinary control over the lives and livelihoods of NDIS participants.3 Dan Jervis-Bardy, 23 May 2026,‘Labor’s nNDIS onhaul will leave participants more“isolated“and “segregated”, former royal commissioner warns’, Guardian Australia:theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/may/23/albanese-government-ndis-legislation-cuts-changes-reform-australians-more-isolated4 DHDA,National Disability Insurance Scheme Impact Analysis,pag…5 Antipoverty Centre , 26 November 2025 ,‘Shame Labor shame : New powers to cancel Centrelink paymentsbeforeconviction passthe senate’[media release]: apcentre.substack.com/p/shame-labor-shame-new-powers-to-cancelAntipoveryCentre NDISHill submission | June 2026 #

Access

This bill makes changes to several parts of the access test that make it significantly harder to qualify for the NDIS. Accessing the NDIS requires a person to establish eligibility under multiple tests, but the most difficult to establish usually are:

• That a disability is permanent;
• And that it causes substantial reduction in functional capacity. A concerning new requirement in this bill is that someone must attempt “all appropriate” treatment could materially improve or reverse their disability and alleviate its permanence (see sections 24(5)(a), (`` ```), ``````(1B)), (a) and t( 25A). This change overturns case decided at Federal Court which established people do not need endlessly explore treatments just get assistance via NDIS. . Once again, builds on trend Albanese government legislating away inconvenient outcomes courts such as move quickly retroactively validate unlawfully calculated Centrelink debts following decision Chaplin v Department Social Services case.

My condition cannot be fully “diagnosed treated stabilised” but still prevents me from being able work more than about hours week. They wanted me graded exercise therapy cognitive behavioural therapy known harmful ineffective ME/ CFS name withheld The require attempting all appropriate treament reminiscent of diagnosed reasonably treated stabilized criteria excludes many accessing Disability Support Pension These definitions little other exclude people experience variations intensity they disable low incomes access services would help them. This NDIS bill goes step further by specifically preventing assessment whether person can afford to treat see section 25A(2)). The NDIA Davis Federal Court ruling establishes reasonable approach; the NDIA obliged consider individual circumstances applying these could include where treatment was out reach because expensive contrast language in this is DSP test prior changes made 2023, even restrictive now. 6 National Disability Insurance Agency Davis [2022] FCA1002: judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/ single/2022/2022fca10027Department Parliamentary Services (Cth), Bills Digest, Digest No 16(```````). 2025–26 October 2025 aph gov au Parliament Business/Bills Legislation/bd bd2526 /bd0168 Chaplin v Secretary Department Social Services Anor `[2025] FCAFC9 Antipoverty Centre People with Disability Australia In our own words submission August page pwd org au/in-our-own-words-submission-to-senate-community-affairs-references-committee-inquiry NDIA Davis. Linda Forbes Oct 2023 One word difference Revised Disability Support Pension Assessment Tables Economic Justice Australia ejaustralia.org one-word-can-make-all-the-difference revised-disability-support-pension-assessment-tables Antipovery Centre NDIS bill submission June 2026 | 4

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1727

   I applied at 18/19, was rejected for not being “fully treated and stabilised” despite having been undergoing treatment since 16yo. Was on unemployment, first with Disability Employment Services (DES) and then sneakily transferred to jobactive until 26 yo when I applied again, was rejected again.” – name withheld^12

Applying for the NDIS already requires extensive documentation from doctors and often a functional capacity assessment. Being able to obtain sufficient documentation from doctors depends on whether you can access a GP and/or specialist who bulk bills. It is almost always the case that a functional capacity assessment is undertaken privately. This bill will only expand the scope of information and treatments one must undertake—and be able to pay for—to prove that they are deserving of assistance.Given the vastly higher levels of poverty and unemployment experienced by disabled people, this is a crude tool that will deny the most marginalised access to support.

This system is erratic and set up so that only those who have expensive help …can manage to jump the hoops.People who are in the most desperate need are the least able to get it.”– Jade^13 The bill also proposes to make further changes to the second major hurdle experienced by many: establishing a substantial reduction in functional capacity.These will be detailed in further rules obe developed by an external committee but appear likely to operate in standardised way.The importanceof this definition should besomethingthat istedetailedin primary legislationsoit canbe assessed andreviewed, instead being shipped off outside parliamentary community scrutiny.

Recommendations

Removechangespermanencytestlegislationcodifyconsiderationfinancialenvironmentalfactorswhen considering permanency legislative basis.

Removedefinitionfunctionalcapacityrulemakingpowerfurther define capacityoutside legislativewhich government put forward any amendments after thorough consultation withdisabledpeopleon appropriate methods assess criteria.

Additional supports tests

The bill places further restrictions on items and services funded under the scheme. People will now be asked to establish that supports they need are “value for money” (see section 34(1(A)-(C)), another move that will fuel inequality and put far greater strain on families living in poverty, which will introduce higher barriers to paid work for parents seeking a job,

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

Submission 1727

This will give NDIA staff greater power to implement cuts when designing each plan – not just through ministerial direction. Forcing each individual user of the scheme to carry the water for balancing the federal budget merely allows discriminatory and harmful policy to be cloaked in the language of financial responsibility and restraint. Again, this is in stark contrast to the government’s approach to spending on harmful activities such as war, prisons and “mutual” obligations, for which there seems to be limitless funding available for immiserating lives – activities that, perversely, create and exacerbate disabilities. The government is eager to stress that many supports that will no longer be available on the NDIS will be available through “foundational supports” provided by states and territories. The only such program currently announced is Thriving Kids – which is targeted at children under 8 with autism or developmental delay. Not only do the changes in this bill go far beyond that age group, Thriving Kids is not even up and running yet and has not secured agreement from all states.^[15] If and when an agreement is reached, whether those services will be fit-for-purpose will be an entirely separate matter. The quality of those services, whether they will be free at the point of service, and whether supports are available in rural and remote areas are all open questions and cannot form the basis for the mass removal and cuts this bill proposes.

Recommendation

Remove the amendments from the Reasonable and Necessary test and new framework. _{[^] Nathan Schmidt, <span class=}