Submission TO THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submitted by: [Name], [Title/Credentials], Date: May 2026
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission
disabled lives require justification; that disabled people must prove their need is great enough, their impairment visible enough, and their cost manageable enough to deserve support. The Bill embodies this logic in multiple provisions. Part 1 redefines access to the NDIS around ‘substantially reduced functional capacity,’ a framing that reduces disability to productivity deficit and excludes the social, environmental and relational dimensions of disability that are fundamental to contemporary disability theory and to the CRPD’s social model framework. Part 4 grants the Commonwealth Minister the unilateral, unreviewed power to reduce funding across entire categories of support for all participants simultaneously —with no individual assessment, no parliamentary vote, and no accountability mechanism. As one detailed legal analysis of the Bill observed, this power allows the Minister to cut what any participant can spend within a support category by any percentage, applying to every participant in that category simultaneously with auto-renewing plans embedding the reduction indefinitely unless the Minister chooses otherwise. This is not reform.It is the outsourcing of rationing decisions to ministerial discretion and algorithmic automation It removes the human encounter at the centre of the NDIS—the planning meeting in which a person with disability and a planner work together to identify whatthatperson needs toliveagoodlife—and replaces it wit ha systeminwhichnooneneeds tobeintheroom.The requirement,introduced underPartI ,thatapplicantsdemonstratetheyhave’undertakene all appropriate treatment before accessingtheNDISisparticularly alarming Defined int he broadest termsthis provision could be used todeny accesstoanyonewho hasnot exhaustedevery possible medical intervention—a standard thatisdisproportionately disadvantages peoplewit h complex fluctuating or poorly-understood conditionsand that reimports am edical-model framingof disabilit y that rights frameworks have explicitly rejectedIt also risks penalisingpeople who hav enot been ablet oaccess treat ment due t osystem ic barriers financial constraintsor geographic disadvantage.Theseprovisions do n ot secure then DIS They redefine whod eservesit.## Australia’s Human Rights Obligations and the Social Model of DisabilityAustralia ratified the Convention on the Rights of Personswith Disabilities (CRPD) i 2008 The CR PD obliges Australiato recognizethatdisablety resultsfromthead interaction between persons wi th impairments attitudinal an d environmentalbarrierstha hinder their fullan deffective participation in society onequal basis with others This social model understandingo f disability is not optional flavouring—it isthe foundation oft he legal frameworkunder whichAustraliahass comm itted to operate.The Bill systematically violates thisframeworkThe proposed assessment instruments including modified versions off asse ssmentssuchasithe CAN a nd CIQ-R functional capacity toolshavebeen altered fromtheirstandardised evidence-based formsIhavereceiveddirect feedbackf romana llied Health Professionalwhoalso hasa disabledwhohaveparticipatedinthe trialoffthesupport Needs Assessmentindicates serious concerns:
- Th e modif ed instrument s are no longer standardise dinvalid at forth epopulationsbeing assessed; The question design failsto identify support needsfor people wit hinvisible disabilities,including autism acquired brain injury complex trauma chronic illness intellectualdisability autoimmune derived disabilit yand psychosocial disability;Th ei nstrumentsare structurally biased towards physical disability and impairment thatis observable anda quantifiable;
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission
- Environmental and Social factors —the barriers,supports,and contextsthat shape howdisabilityisexperienced—are explicitly excluded from consideration,in direct contradictionofthecrpd’ssocialmodelmandate;
- Contrary to exclusionsEnvironmentalandSocialFactors,the presenceinformalsupportsin person’slifeusedasanexcusetoreduce fundingandsupporthfromParticipant ,even if those informal supportshave nocapacityto provide thosesupport ;
- Thedataproducedbytheseinstrumentswillbefedin analgorithmicfunding allocationsystem,meaningbiasedinputs will produce systematically discriminatoryoutputsatscalewithno individualreview priortocompletion ofthen DISPlanbayanhumancanmakeessential changes tot hefund ingoutcomefor reasonsofsafety,humananddisabletyrightsor personalgoalsOfThe Participant; anda nd
- The resultingNDIS Planand fundings isnotabletobemeaningfully challenged b yTh ePartici pant throughInternalandexternal Reviews,as them undingitselfcannotbe changedthroughReviewmechanisms,a n dtheadministrative Review Tribunal(ART )ishavingitspowersreducedtomerebeing abletot compel NDIS toreassess’usingthesame assessmentanda llocation algorithm. The CRPD Committee has repeatedly affirmed that assessmentsodisabilitymust take accounto ftheenvironmentaland socialdimensions o aperson’sexperience. An instrumentthatrefusesto considertheses dimensionsisanotdisabilityassessment— itisa physical impairmentchecklist.Its usetodetermineaccess to andquantumof ND ISsupportwillproduce outcomesthata rebothscientificallyinvalidandlegally incompatible withAustralia’s human rights obligations.The introductionlikely ’block funding for specific undefined cohorts behind thealgorithmmblack box’andalgorithmicplanning — displacingindividual ,humancentredreasonable-and-necessaryframework furtherunderminestherights-basedarchitectureoforiginalN D I S . Thescheme wasdesignedto treatparticipants as individualswith uniquelivesa nd unique supportneedsandan dpersonalgol s.Blockfundingonalgorit hmicallocation treats participantsastatisticalcategories,movethatis structurallyincompatiblewithecrpd’s requirementsfor reasonableaccommodationand individualisedsuppor t The extraordinarybrevity ofconsultationperiod initiallyjusttendays fors ubmissions, onlyextendedbythree days1June20 6afterhardlobbying bythed is abilitycommunity wit he Senate reporting deadline set fo r June203 also raises seriousprocedural concerns.Meaningful consultationwithe dibility communityas required underArticle4.of th eCRPD cannotoccur inthis timeframe particularlygiventhebreadh o fchanges proposedinth Billthat evenlawyersexperiencedinas sess ingpropo sedlegislationare havingdifficulty understanding—whichisdisability exclusion b ystructuralbarriersalso. Ther truncationpublicscrutinyforegulationsofmagnitude andconsequence itselfarightsvi ol ation.
A Coordinated International Pattern: Australia,the United Kingdom,and theUnited StatesThe timingands tructuralsimilarityodisabilitysuppo retractionacrossmultiplecomparable democraciescannotbe coincidental.Inthesame period thatAustraliahasintroducedth SecuringthenDIS forFutureGenerationsBill , analogousattacks on disability support systems havebeenenactedor prop osedboththeUnite dKingdoma ndtheadunitedStates .
UK
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission
In March 2025, the UK Labour Government published its Pathways to Work Green Paper, proposing cuts of over £5 billion to disability and health benefits by 2029-30. The measures include severe tightening of eligibility for Personal Independence Payment ( PPI), halving of incapacity benefit rates under Universal Credit for new claimants,andthe replacementof work capability assessmentswiththetighter PIP assessment.One disability commentator quoted in coverage these proposals described changes as ’impossible see anything other than eugenics economics.’TheUKUniversalCreditandPersonalIndependencePaymentBill,introducedin2025was projectedto push nearly half a million more disabled people intosevere hardship.As with Australian Billcuts were framed sustainabilitymeasures.
United States InUnitedStates Trump administration pursued what Center American Progressdescribed potentially largest Social Securitydisability cut historychanges SSDIeligibility criteria could have reducednewclaimant’s access up overallupolder adults.Theadministration also terminated federal support SOAR outreach program helping vulnerable navigate complexbenefits application processclosed multipleSocialSecurity Administration offices.These moves occurred concurrently steep cuts Medicaidunder Big Beautiful Bill compounding impact ondisabled Americans rely intersectingsupport systems.Aswith UKAustralian proposalsthese changeswere framed terms financialsustainability addressing perverse incentives.### The Pattern Nearsimultaneous pursuit structurally identical policies across three countries each
framed language sustainability fraud involving tighter eligibility criteria shifting decisionmaking power away individuals towards administrative instruments and algorithmic tools disproportionately impacting invisible psychosocial orcomplex disability suggests policy convergence warrants serious scrutiny Whether driven shared economic ideology crossjurisdictionalpolicy transfer coordinated influence internationalfinancial institutions pattern clear:peoplewithdisablewealthy liberal democracies being targeted cost to be reduced This is context Securing the NDIS Future Generations Bill must understood not isolated domestic response local pressures part global retrenchment of disable rights ### Summary Specific Concerns summary submission identifies following concerns as drafted:
- Part 1 (functional capacityaccesscriteria) Redefines around deficit model excludes social environmental dimensions with CRPDsocialmodel framework; treatment requirements):The requirement undertake all appropriate treatment vague medically reductive will disproportionate exclude people culturalreligious preferences socioeconomic regionalremoteandtreatment access disadvantages; Assessmentinstruments:The modified iCAN CIQ-R are no longer validated evidencebased standardised,arestructurally biased againstinvisible
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission
- and pschosocial disability, exclude environmental contextual factors fundamental to accurate disability assessment; • Algorithmic funding allocation: The use biased data drive automated decisions removes consideration will produce discriminatory outcomes at scale; • Part3 supports tied access impairment only): Excludes funding arising from secondary consequential needs creating unjustifiably narrow definition reasonable necessary ; • Part4 ministerial determination powers Grants Minister unilateral unreviewable power cut categories across all participants no individual assessment parliamentary vote indefinite auto-renewal provision constitutionally ethically unacceptable. • Plan end dates removal rollovers unspent funds penalises delays inefficiencies frequently NDIA own not participant reduces ability people fluctuating disabilities rapidly changing circumstances respond support need changes while waiting increased period days NDIS urgent Internal Review requests . • Block and reduced planning incompatibility rights-based architecture of NDIS Australia CRPD obligations; Consultation timeline ten public submissions legislation scope impact genuine consultation does meet Australia’s Article obligation under CRPD Art 4,3.
Recommendations This submission recommends Committee:
• Recommend that bill passed current form; • Recommendation timeframe Disability Community Senate Committee consultation scrutiny significantly extended least August ,2026; • Substantive amendments required completely remove unilateral ministerial funding determination powers ensure future Parliamentary scrutiny legislative changes; • Revised eligibility framework comply social model disability required by CRPD Rights incorporating environmental contextual factors assessments; • No instrument used for NDIS access or decisions unless independently validated full range disability types present population including psychosocial cognitive invisible disability • Algorithmic automated allocation introduced without human rights impact assessment safeguards review; • Genuine co-design with community -including invisiblespsychosocial carers allied health professionals be required before revised legislation is introduced ; • Broad independent Risk Assessment undertaken on Bill inclusion Disability Community voluntary basis cherry-picked Organisations Government;
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission
- Recommend that any individual NDIS Participant Plan changes must include a Risk Assessment to ensure the current NDIS Plan and any future changes to their NDIS Plan is safe and enshrines their human rights,
- Recommend that all aspects of the NDIS Participant Plans are Reviewable; and
- Recommend that the Committee consider the international context of concurrent attacks on disability support systems in the UK and USA, and that it seek advice on whether this Bill reflects or is influenced by internationally coordinated policy agendas.