National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026 - Supplementary Submission

Critical Analysis of Embedded Disability Assumptions in the Explanatory Memorandum & Bill

Prepared: 30 May 2026 Status: Bill before Senate – Senate Committee Inquiry Open Perspectives covered:

• People with Disability |
• Informal Carers|
• Providers|Economic & Rights Arguments

Introduction On 14 May 2026, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 was introduced to Parliament.

The 109-page Bill makes sweeping changes to the NDIS Act 2013, affecting access criteria, planning,funding,governance,and compliance.The Senate referred the Bill to the Community Affairs Legislation Committeefor inquiry.As an UnregisteredNDIS Occupational Therapist and parentof threeNIDSParticipants,I am addressing assumptions about disability embeddedintheBill’sExplanatoryMemorandum ,second reading speechand substantive provisionsfrom a personal perspective.For each assumption identified it provides: adirect quote fromtheformal documentsan analysis why thatassumption is erroneousableistdivisive or rights-violating arguments from perspectives peoplewithdisabilityinformalcarsprovidersandeconometricanalysis available data references.I have used Artificial Intelligenceto assist me documenting myperspective as Iam absolutely exhausted bymy roleas acarerandaneed extensively address issuesI can see this Bill. And Ihave endeavoured best ability knowledge ensure information contained inthis submission accurate The analysissdraws on Explanatory Memorandum,Bill(firstreading),MinisterButler second readingspeech(14 May The document does not constitute legal advice professional opinion.It intended support informed public participationSenate Inquiry process Summary of Identified Assumptions Following elevenembedded assumptioanalysiseddocument:

• Assumption Disability Primarily Problem Financial Sustainability - Assumption 2: Existence Independent Environment Supports ( ’ Naked Assessment’ Fallacy) Confidential Analysis Document –May 2026 | Page 1 Of 20

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

• Assumption 3: Disability Follows Neat Causal Chains—‘Direct’ causation is ascertainable and meaningful.
• Assumption 4: Ministerial Discretion is an Appropriate Substitute for Individualised Assessment.
• Assumption 5: Auto-Renewal Is Equivalent To Adequate Planning—Participants’ Needs Are Static.
• Assumption 6: Families And Carers are An Unlimited Costless Resource—Formal Supports Should Replace Rather Than Supplement Family Care.
• Assumption 7: Disability Can Be ’Permanentised By Treatment—Untreated Conditions Are Not Permanent.
• Assumption 8: People With Disability Are Primarily Suspected Fraudsters Who Must be Monitored.
• Assumption 9: Algorithmic Decision-Making Is Neutral Superior to Human Judgement For Disability Assessment.
• Assumption 10: People Injured in Accidents or At Work Receive Adequate Compensation Elsewhere, Need No Further Support.
• Assumption 11: The NDIS Scope Has Expanded Beyond Its Intended Beneficiaries Many Current Participants Do not Have ‘Real’ Disability.

Assumption 1: Disability is primarily a problem of financial sustainability

Schedule / Source: Overall framing & Explanatory Memorandum — Statement Of Compatibility Objects Clause (amended s.3(1)(d))

Quote from the explanatory memorandum/bill

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

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

This directly contravenes the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), to which Australia is a signatory, particularly Article 19 (right to live independently in the community) and Article 26 (habilitation and rehabilitation). The UNCRPD Committee has consistently found that resource constraints cannot justify the non-fulfilment of disability rights. Perspective: Informal Carers For informal carers, this framing is a warning. The original Productivity Commission (2011) casefor the NDIS was explicitly economic: investment in formal supports reduces the catastrophic downstream costof carer breakdown.In 2022 it was found three million peopleinAustralia were unpaidcarers ( percent ofthe population) which was estimatedto be valued at $77 .9 billion annually(Carers Australia, 2024). When formalsupports are restricted int he name oftiscal sustainability,the cost does not disappear–it shifts tounpaid carers Centrelink carerpayments , carermental health services,and hospital emergency departments.These costs donot appearint h eNDIS budget.The government’s claimed saving o f$378billion over four yearsis apartial-ledger illusion.Perspective : Providersand SectorFor providers fiscal sustainabilit y as al egal test creates profound uncertainty.Providerinvestment decisions workforce planning

service models depend on confidencethat assessed needs willbe funded.If ministerial determinations(see Assumption no business model istable.DSP economists have warnedthiswillaccelerate market exitparticularlythin and remote markets compounding access inequality. Economic Arguments anda nd DataThe 2011ProductivityCommission Report ‘Disability Careandsuppor’(PCReportNo.54)modelledthenDISon the premise that investment in individualised supports generates whole-of-government savings throughworkforce participation reduced carer welfare dependency, avoided crisiscosts.Nowholeofgovernment cost accounting accompanies this Bill The $37.billion sav ing projection is NDISline only Independent economi st s(e.g Bonyhady,€;Brotherhood of St Laurence submission toN DIS Review 2023) have consistently foundth at cutting disability support shifts rather than eliminates expenditure.KPMG modelling (2023)foun d th a t every dollar invested insupported employment for people withdis abilitygenerates $ .in economic activity.Rights Breached / Legal ConcernsUNCRPD Arts ,9,6 ;NDIS Act original ssand DDA systematic denial o fsupports ontal fiscal grounds may constitute indirect discrimination undertheDDA.The Human Rights Law Centre has notedthat inserting financial sustainability into then objects clause could be used as al egal justificationto overrideindividual rights assessments Assumption: Disability ExistsIndependent Environment Supports(Naked Assessment Fallacy) Schedule/Source : Schedule Part Functional Capacity Assesment ProvisionsConfidential Analysis Document – May 2026 | Page of

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill (Securing NDIS Future Generations) - Submission 187

Context & Background

The bill creates a new legal definition ‘functional capacity’ excluding assistive technology.

Perspective: People With Disabilities

Disability arises from interaction between impairment + environment not alone impairments; social model frames regression towards medical model which is contrary to NDIS goals. The assessment excludes carers leading funding decisions defaulting on family members, person assessed as unsupported but funded with informal supports creating traps for people w/disabilities.

Perspective: Informal Carers

Assessment removes carer visibility while reinserted into funding process without legal standing; labor often at significant cost impacting health/care/relationships invisibly central justification.

Providers Sector

Allied healthcare providers face methodological problems when assessing functional capacities, ICF requires environmental factors inclusion contradicting professional standards and training.

Economic Arguments Data

Research shows underfunding leads systematic understatement need penalizing those who have invested in support adaptations.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

The planning system currently underestimates needs at scale.

Rights Breached / Legal Concerns

UNCRPD Article 2 explicitly references interaction barriers; Article 26 requires considering actual environments in habilitation plans per WHO ICF framework [Disability Royal Commission, Final Report].

Schedule Source:

schedule 3, Part ‘Directly arising from impairment’

Supports will be funded where need arises directly due to impairments meeting criteria accessing —NDIS”.

Context and Background

Existing Act mandates supports arise from impaired conditions while this bill adds a single word: “direct.” No definition or guidance on causal steps separating direct/indirect is provided nor regulatory mechanisms exist resolving disputes about it.

Why This Assumption Is Erroneous Or Harmful

• People with disability: Cascading causation recognized across science, neuroscience & psychiatry. Intellectual disabilities create communication difficulties which lead into social isolation then anxiety/depression worsening cognitive function further amplifying poor sleep common neurodevelopmental issues all clinically documented real-world effects. Under new test only intellectual disability possibly fundable but not necessarily the case for other linked symptoms like anxiety three levels removed. Autistic people’s intrinsic features of autism may be mischaracterized as indirect by cost-cutting planners leading removal funding needed most commonly autistic people require such as early intervention tailored approaches found different outcomes even when applied similarly demonstrating individualised approach necessity in cases similar behavioral presentations yield distinct results [Masi et al., BMJ Open].
• Informal carers face exhausting re-traumatizing process justifying every element under undefined standard reflecting NDIA systematic underfunding evident AAT/ART caseloads already reflect.

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

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

Adding an undefined ‘directly’ threshold to the funding test creates a new basis for denial that will not be resolved by regulation for years, during which carers must either absorb the gap or pay for legal advice they cannot afford.

Perspective: Providers and Sector

Support providers, behaviour support practitioners, and allied health professionals whose services address secondary and tertiary effects of disability—anxiety management, social skills, sleep therapy, communication support—face immediate funding uncertainty. This is precisely the cohort of providers working with the highest-complexity participants. Market exit by these providers, particularly in regional areas, would be catastrophic for the people they support and would drive crisis presentations in emergency departments, mental health inpatient wards, an dthe justice system.

Economic Arguments and Data

The AIHW Report ‘People with Disability in Australia 2023’ found that people with disability are 3 times more likely to experience high psychological distress,**whichis directly associatedwithsecondarymentalhealthconditionsarisingfromprimarydisabilities.Defunding supportsforsecondary conditions shifts costs to Medicare(psycho logy sessions), state mental healthservices,and acute hospital admissions—all at higher per-episode cost than NDIS community-basedsupport.The Mental Health CouncilofAustralia has estimatedthat each preventableacute mental health admissioncosts approximately $15–$22k versus $4-$8 k for sustainedcommunity support.`

Rights Breached / Legal Concerns`

UNCRPD Article (Health);Article(Rehabilitation explicitly requires attentionto ‘Secondary Conditions’);DDA s.(Direct discrimination ifsupportsare denied based on a characteristic intrinsic todisability). The statement compatibility human rights Explanatory Memorandum does not address how test interacts secondary conditions—a conspicuous omission`.

Assumption: Ministerial Discretion is an Appropriate Substitute For Individualised Assessment

Schedule/Source:SCHEDULE 1 PART 4 – MINISTERIAL DETERMINATION POWER; SCHEDULE 3 PRICING POWERS

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis: Why This Assumption Is Erroneous Or Harmful Perspective People With Disability:

• The foundational principle of the NDIS Act—enshrined in s4—and confirmed by the Full Federal Court—is that supports are reasonable and necessary.
• A ministerial determination cutting funding from every participant category regardless of individual circumstances needs goals clinical evidence is legislative abolition rather than administrative adjustment to people whose form meaningful connection escape isolation their community participation funded through these categories a cut means removal right exist alongside others Social isolation primary driver depression physical deterioration premature death AIHW(2023). The Minister’s pen public health intervention applied scale no impact assessment on health perspective Informal Carers When cuts made participants stay home carer cannot go work when they do not household incomes fall deteriorate mental risk breakdown associated costs system increases government own program established because recognized crisis will face increased demand precisely this bill removes respite value social support providers sector Day programs, access group activities built around community participation support category facing existential funding cuts single ministerial signature Providers invested infrastructure leased premises employed workers based plans have legal recourse absence sunsetting parliamentary disallowance mechanism engagement consultation requirement accountability organizations employ thousands disability support workers including many themselves with disabilities face closure transition support National Disability Services estimated 2014 employs approximately workforce stability moment Quality Safeguards Commission demands improved quality continuity Economic Arguments And Data Social participation for people generates documented economic benefits beyond direct Per Capita NDS found dollar investment returns $2.25 in social economy similarly Hutchinson et al (2024) up to per spent over years rising every $1$263 for every $1spent over long-term cost-benefits realized Government reacting too soon ‘cost’ parameters only given existed since fully rolled out eligible until recently well before cutting by via decree ignores all modeling predominantly impacts women disabled and women employment sector government’s saving claim does account hospitalization emergency mental collapse enterprise employment

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

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

Rights Breached / Legal Concerns

UNCRPD Article 26 (that assessments of support needs be based on multidisciplinary assessment); Article 19 (right to live independently and to be included in the community explicitly includes access to community services and facilities on an equal basis with others); Article 30 (participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport). Constitutionally, s.51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution limits Commonwealth social service powers to the individual: The High Court in Pape v Commissioner of Taxation [2009] confirmed that Commonwealth spending powers must relate to identifiable purposes. A ministerial instrument that reduces all plans in a category by a percentage without individual support needs or risk assessments may exceed the constitutional basis for the scheme There is no human rights impact statement accompanying this Part determination power.

Assumption 5 Auto-Renewal Is Equivalent To Adequate Planning — Participants’ Needs Are Static

Schedule/Source Schedule I part Automatic Plan Renewal And End Dates

Quote From Explanatory Memorandum/Bill

When participant reaches their plan reassessment date it will become end date renewed plan created immediately after Unspent funds at new plan. Context Background: The Bill introduces automatic renewal replacing existing administrative practice continuation Plans renew as identical copies at their end date unspent funds not carry over No re-assessment required at renewal Conditions requesting unscheduled are tightened significantly requiring proof significant ongoing change functional capacity substantially reducing ability perform daily activities Analysis Why This Assumption Erroneous Or Harmful Perspective People With Disability Disability rarely static For people degenerative conditions multiple sclerosis motor neurone disease early-onset dementia Huntington’s disease entire value Early intervention (explicitly endorsed NDIS Act s.25) lies increasing support before function lost A auto-renews identically year cannot reflect progressive deterioration until person condition worsens sufficiently meet substantial reduction threshold By point crisis already occurred Not hypothetical: The Royal Commission documented extensive evidence participants in crisis because plans had kept pace deteriorating conditions This would legislate delay Children with disability particularly damaging a developed eight-year-old school environment structurally inappropriate ten twelve entering different educational phase Childhood development does respect schedule perspective Informal Carers Carers provide informal gap-filling between what fund needs when fails keep pace changing carers bear difference extra hours foregone employment physical psychological toll Auto-renwal

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

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

no built-in reassessment formalises this pattern. The new ‘substantial reduction’ threshold for unscheduled reassessment means carers must wait until their family member is significantly worse before the system will respond. The emotional and practical burden of managing that deterioration falls on informal supports. The government is not saving money; it is transferring costs to the most financially and emotionally vulnerable people in the system.

Perspective: Providers and Sector

Support coordinators and behaviour support practitioners play a critical role in identifying when a participant’s plan no longer meets their needs. This Bill removes the systemic mechanism that would ordinarily trigger plan review. Providers who flag changing needs will have no pathway to resolution other than the tightened unscheduled reassessment process, which requires documentary evidence of ‘substantial’ deterioration — documentation that itself costs money (assessments, reports) that may only be fundable from the plan that is already inadequate. The circular logic traps participants and providers alike.

Economic Arguments and Data

The NDIA’s own Annual Report data shows that plans reviewed following a participant-requested reassessment increase in value by an average of 20% (cited by Minister Butler in his second reading speech). This means the current planning system systematically under-funds participants by approximately 20%, and that participants are correcting this through reassessments. Auto-renewal locks the under-funded plan in place. The downstream cost of under-funding ––in crisis presentations, emergency hospitalisations, police call-outs, and child protection involvement—far exceeds the cost of adequate plan funding. AIHW data (2023) shows that people with disability have hospital admission rates 2.5 times higher than the general population, with preventable admissions disproportionately linked to inadequate community support.

Rights Breached / Legal Concerns

UNCRPD Article 26(individualised habilitation plans must be reviewed and adapted to changing needs and life stages and must be determined by multidisciplinary assessment); DDA s.6( indirect discrimination where a facially neutral provision — identical auto-renewal — imposes disproportionate disadvantage on people with degenerative or episodic conditions). Administrative law principles of procedural fairness(affecting individual rights without individual assessment)are also engaged.

Assumption 6: Families and Carers are an Unlimited and Costless Resource - Formal Supports Should Replace Rather Than Supplement Family Care

Schedule/Source:Schedule1 , Part 6- ReasonableandNecessaryTest;ParentalResponsibility Codification

Quote fromthe Explanatory Memorandum/Bill

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Context and Background

The NDIS codifies “parental responsibility” before approving supports.

Perspective: People With Disability

For adult participants, codifying informal supports re-entrenches dependency; many disabled adults use paid workers instead; families may abuse them.

Perspective: Informal Carers

Informal care limits carer wellbeing & employment prospects without recognition or rights support.

Perspective: Providers And Sector

Providers face new legal bases for refusal due to CEO’s interpretation not parent’s needs.

Economic Arguments:

The Productivity Commission models each $ spent reduces costs.

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

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

carers who remain in the workforce contribute income tax, superannuation and productivity. Carers leaving the workforce cost government carer payment ($\approx$ $28{,}000/year at ( { }^{[24]} rates), health costs, lifetime superannuation deficits averaging $ per person (WGEA, ^). The downstream cost from carers exiting due to cuts was estimated as exceeding $ billion over ten years. Rights Breached / Legal Concerns: UNCRPD Article 19: right to live independently; Article 23 respect home family; CEDAW unpaid women’s discrimination policies increase care burden without recognition or compensation are gender discriminatory. This bill codifies opposite policy.

Assumption 7: Disability Can Be ‘Permanentised’ By Treatment — Untreated Conditions Are Not Permanent

Schedule/Source Schedule Part 8 — Treatment Requirement For Permanence

Quote From The Explanatory Memorandum/Bill

“Your impairment is not considered permanent unless you have tried every appropriate treatment available. Treatments may be considered regardless of whether your individual circumstances restrict access it.” financial geographical location.)“} Context And Background: an NDIS access) if they undergo all treatments Australia provides. circumstances including their financial situation and geographic location excluded consideration appropriateness treatment exists in Australia irrespective affordability. Analysis Why This Assumption Is Erroneous Or Harmful Perspective People With Disability: disability conditions autism, Down syndrome, genetic disorders amenable to eliminating substantially reducing underlying impairments there no cure for being autistic converting into a non-disability neurodevelopmental therapy supporting function intervention curing condition Bill conflates treatment

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

with cure. More dangerously, as explicitly excluding financial circumstances and geography from ‘appropriate treatment,’ the Bill creates two-tiered access system based socioeconomic status location that was specifically designed eliminate. a wealthy urban family whose child can afford private paediatric therapy has path demonstrating treatment; rural or low-income cannot access that therapy but says legally irrelevant whether is appropriate.’ Perspective: Informal Carers For carers this provision imposes new potentially endless evidentiary burden To access maintain NDIS they must now prove not disability have exhausted every appropriate in Australia Allied health assessments demonstrating completion are free typically funded plan person does yet The catch-22 structural need to access treatment qualify NDIS often requires income transport services design provide’ Perspective: Providers Sector Public paediaic services already operating with month waitlists metropolitan areas multi-year regional Australia Raising Children Network, about receive flood families demonstrate treatment quality NDIS Bill fund expanded infrastructure redirects demand onto a government acknowledged inadequate Minister Butler Press Club April paradox their assessing may challenged basis more should tried capacity meet demand exist Economic Arguments Data cost approach borne state territory systems public clinic Medicare increased GP specialist referrals through costs Explanatory Memorandum provides costing of the increase on healthcare system generate 83% children disabilities unmet needs support Life Course Centre Working Paper Series No particularly where scarce lack funding will compounded if gatekept criterion Rights Breached Legal Concerns UNCRPD Article right without discrimination – accessible which includes geographically financially Disability Discrimination Act s indirect discriminatio facially neutral disadvantages people rural remote lower socioeconomic status. Provision also engage equality before law under International Covenant Civil and Political Rights, Article ratified by Assumption People Suspected Fraudsters Must Monitored Schedule / Source Schedule Part Contactability Plan Suspension Revocation; Schedule — Fraud Compliance Confidential Analysis Document May Page ©of

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

Quote from the Explanatory Memorandum / Bill

“The CEO can suspend your plan if you are not contactable after reasonable attempts. If you remain suspended for 90 days, your participant status can be revoked entirely.No hearing,No formal decision against you.”

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

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

standard contact protocol. The 0.22 prosecution rate for NDIS fraud cited Minister Butler confirms compliance problem isn’t primarily a participant issue; most NDIS fraud perpetrators are providers.Participant-targeted powers disproportionate actual fraud risk.### Rights Breached / Legal ConcernsCommon law procedural fairness: A revocation of an individual’s entitlement to government support without hearing reviewed independent body or appeal rights proportionate gravity decision is fundamental breach natural justice procedure fairess.Administrative law Explanatory Memorandum does not adequately justify absence merits review pathway prior revocation Article access equal basis others appropriate procedures Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 right welfare removal due process implied in administrative law Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003)

Assumption 9 Algorithmic Decision-Making Neutral Superior Human Judgement Disability AssessmentSchedule Source Schedule & Automated Decision Making New Planning FrameworkQuote from The Explanatory Memorandum/BillWhen used properly, technology can help deliver decisions more quickly consistently and fairly It also free up skills judgements public servants focus interactions human involvement mattersmostContext BackgroundThe authorises automated programs form ‘state mind’ CEO planning assessment decisions Methodology data inputs training weighting algorithms mechanisms these automated will determined later legislative instruments Parliament cannot disallowAnalysis Why This Assumption Erroneous HarmfulPerspective People with DisabilityRobodebt Royal Commission (2023) commissioned same government found that automated income averaging assessments fundamentally flawed produced mass incorrect debt notices caused profound psychological harm contributed deaths suicide Minister Butler acknowledged explicitly second reading speech then introduced Bill authorised automated disability needs under undefined methodology. Disabilty quantifiable way income documented clinical language itself contested resistant algorithmic reduction An trained historical NDIA decision encode biases errors history systematic underfunding document by pre-hearing settlement rate ART proceedings produce wrong at scale without accountability no requirement for review individual cases

— Confidential Analysis Document – May 2026 | Page of

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

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

Perspective: Informal Carers

Carers who understand their family member’s disability in its full human complexity—the good days and the bad days, functional fluctuations—will have no ability to communicate this complexity to an algorithm. The NDIA’s current planning process nominally involves a human addressable, appealable, accountable but removes these possibilities with algorithms that are inaccessible without legal representation as per the Bill tightening reassessment provisions which is non-legal correction mechanism.

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

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

Quote from the Explanatory Memorandum / Bill

“If your impairment was caused by a motor vehicle accident or a work related injury, and a compensation scheme exists for it, that impairment is excluded from your NDIS eligibility assessment. The Minister can declare any support as ‘alternative’ under legislative instrument.”

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

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

Economic Arguments and Data

Australia’s National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS), announced alongside the NDIS in 2013 as the alternative for catastrophic injury, has never been fully implemented across all states and territories. The assumption that compensation schemes provide an adequate alternative is faktically incorrectfor large proportionsofpeoplewithaccident-acquireddisability.The gapsinthe NIIS are documentedbyth eAustralianInjuryCompensationCouncil(2023).Directing peopletonon-existentor inadequatealternativesdoesnot reduseth economiccostofoftheir disabilit y— it shiftsit to state-funded hospitaland community health services ,ort leavesith with families .

Rights Breached / Legal Concerns

UNCRPD Article 2(non-discrimination—the nature o f disability ’ s causeisirrelevanttotheright osupport—whichimpliesthatthesystemsandschemesaccessedbypeoplew ithd is abilitydonot structurallycreategapsinsupports);Article 28(a dquatestandard oflivingwhichmust notbe contingent on thefortunesa separatecompens ationsystem );DDA S.5 — distinguishingbetween’deserving’ und eserv ing’disabilitybasedonecauseoi njuryhas beentoundconstitu tedirectdiscrimination incomparable contexts.T he unchecked ministerial determination power in Part9i arguably beyond the legislative mandate granted byt h Constitution’sS.S1(xxiii A) welfare spendingpower, which has historically beeninterpreted as requiring individual assessment rather than categorical exclusion.

Assumption 11: The NDIS Scope Has Expanded Beyond Its Intended Beneficiaries – Many Current Participants Do Not Have’Real’Disability

Schedule/Source : Explanatory Memorandum Objects and Background; Schedule IPartI Access Criteria

Quote fromtheExplanatoryMemorandum/Bill

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

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

that ‘real’ disability is physical, visible, and severe—a profoundly ableist assumption—that contradicts the biopsychosocial model on which the NDIS is legally founded. The Disability Royal Commission explicitly found that psychosocial disability, autism, and intellectual disability are routinely undervalued and under-supported in Australian service systems. This legislation does not address that finding—it amplifies the undervaluation. Perspective: Informal Carers Carers of people with psychosocial disability or neurodevelopmental conditions have fought decades to recognize their family members’ support needs—legally recognized as ‘less significant’. Families who navigated complex access processes provided extensive clinical documentation—and advocated tirelessly—for appropriate support—but legislatively told they may need less support experience this as a profound betrayal.Perspective: Providers Sector The scope creep narrative has been used to justify cuts without identifying specific evidence-based criteria. Providers working early intervention cohorts where long-term benefit strongest face greatest uncertainty because participants by definition current needs—with explicit goal preventing development more significant needs—if less significant = inappropriate NDIS access entire logic undermined.Economic Arguments Data Early Intervention Autism Developmental Disability base cost reduction any investment Paynter et al (2015) intensive autistic children reduces lifetime costs reducing reliance specialist accommodation increasing future workforce participation Returning scheme intended population removing early intervention creates high-needs adults significantly expensive support economic opposite claimed saving.Rights Breached Legal Concerns UNCRPD Article 1 persons disabilities broad inclusive explicitly covering those physical mental, intellectual sensory impairments – ‘significant’ CRPD qualifier); Article obligation take measures modify abolish laws constitute discrimination—the framing stigmatizes disability risks discriminatory application access criteria.

Conclusion: What the Bill Reveals About Its Foundational Assumptions

Taken eleven assumptions identified in analysis reveal consistent troubling orientation bill explanatory memorandum Disablity framed primarily fiscal problem rather rights issue People with disability constructed passive recipients state largesse rather active rights-holders informal care network—principally women—is treated elastic and costless resource Algorithmic decision-making offered improvement human judgement safeguards would make plausible And schemes costs attributed overwhelmingly participant demand administrative legal fraud costs government’s own data reveals. Confidential Analysis Document — May 2026 | Page of

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

The NDIS was created on a clear principle that people with permanent and significant disability have the same right to fulfilling life as all Australians. Individualised rights-based adequately funded support over lifetime is needed but not mentioned title or framing language instead sustainability appears legal test override individual participant budget calculation says so. The economic cost borne carers state health systems mental services housing justice system government’s $37 billion saving projection human costs borned Australian families countable record before this becomes law. Occupational Therapist/Carer, May 30, 2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 187 - Supplementary Submission

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 – Disability Assumptions Analysis

Masi A., Dissanayake C., Alach T., Cameron K., Fordyce K., Frost G., Grove R., Heussler H., Silove N., Sulek R., Tucker M., Williams K., Eapen V. Clinical outcomes and associated predictors of early intervention in autism spectrum disorder: a study protocol BMJ Open;9(4):e0354249 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-0354249 PMID; PMID: [34373300]; PMCID; PMC8354249
Paynter, J.; Riley E.; Beamish W.; Scott, JandHeussler,H.BriefReportAn evaluationofanAustralianAutism-SpecificEarly InterventionProgram InternationalJournalOfSpecialEducationVol30No2Per Capita /NDS.November2021False EconomyThe economic benefits ofthe NationalDisability Insurance Scheme andreconsequencesoffovernmentcost-cutting Hutchinson,C.Lester,L.Coram,V.Flatau,PGoodwin-Smith,I.( 2024)Beyond the bottomlineassessingthesocialreturnoninvestmentofa disability-inclusive social enterprise Emerald Publishing Brotherhood Of St Laurence (2024).Submission tothenDISReview BSL Butler,M.May14Second Reading SpeechNDIS Amendment Securing then DIS for Future Generations Bill HouseRepresentatives Hansard Australian Parliament MayNational DisabilityInsuranceSchemeAmendmentSecuringthendisforFutureGenerationsBillExplanatory MemorandumCommonwealthAustralia This document may be used freely forthepurposeo Senate Committee submissionscommunity advocacyormedia commentary.It is not legal advice. Confidential Analysis Document –MayPage of