SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submitted by: redacted - NDIS Participant date: May 28th, 2026

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

Submission 2243

are made solely for the purpose of policy analysis, administrative law analysis, and public interest discussion. The should be interpreted as allegations against anyone or statements regarding identifiable individuals’ conduct.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This submission examines the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 through the lenses of administrative law, statutory interpretation, human rights law, international obligations, actuarial integrity, and lived experience. It concludes that if enacted in its current form, it would fundamentally alter the nature, purpose, and operation of the NDIS to inconsistent with parliamentary intent; inconsistent with objects and principles of the NDIS Act; inconsistent Australia’s obligations under Convention on Rights Persons Disabilities CRPD;and inconsistent foundational principles administrativelaw.The Bill introduces new definitions eligibility criteria evidentiary burdens discretionary powers collectively narrow access reduce supports increase risks unlawful unreasonable procedurally unfair decision making These changes being proposed context where NDIA’s practices already found numerous Tribunal decisions Royal Commission findings fall short legal requirements relating evidence reasoning procedural fairness statute purpose.Bill embeds sustainability cost-control mechanisms legislative framework shifting scheme away original insurance-based design toward rationed welfare model increases reliance NDIA-authored rules operational guidance further entrenching unlawful fettering discretion elevating internal policy above statutory criteria.Introduces barriers severe profound disabilities including de facto requirement demonstrate all available treatments pursued considered before qualifying.Bill impacts must understood not only terms but also humans lived experience people disability abstract consideration reality against which legality fairness humanity measured consequences administrative failure theoretical bodies homes nights without assistance days therapy erosion independence quiet fear system designed protect may instead harm.ND was created uphold dignity autonomy human rights ensure people severely profoundly disabled left behind forced crisis abandoned systems never designed support them. Proposed amendments risk entrenched harms Scheme created prevent.

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

Submission 2243 This Executive Summary outlines the key findings of this submission:

1. The Bill contradicts the original intent of Parliament

Hansard from 2012-2013 demonstrates that Parliament intended the NDIS to be:

• a lifetime support scheme
• based on individualised planning
• guided by clinical evidence
• grounded in insurance principles
• designed to prevent crisis
• centred on dignity and human rights The Bill contradicts each of these intentions.

2. The Bill increases the risk of unlawful administrative decision making

The Bill expands NDIA discretion while reducing safeguards. This is dangerous in a context where Tribunal decisions have repeatedly found:• failures to consider relevant evidence• failures to provide intelligible reasons• unlawful reliance on internal guidelines• fettering of discretion• misinterpretation of statutory purpose• breaches of procedural fairnessExpanding discretion without fixing systemic failures increases legal risk.

3. The Bill is inconsistent with the CRPD and human rights law

The Bill undermines:nondiscriminationindependent livingaccess to therapyhabilitation and rehabilitationequal recognition before the lawprotection of physical and mental integrityThese are core CRPD obligations.

Submission 2243

Section headings not present in text, but inferred from structure.

Subsection A (Page Text)

The Bill undermines the insurance-based design of the Scheme: The Bill embeds cost-containment mechanisms that shift the Scheme toward a rationed model. This contradicts the Productivity Commission’s design and Parliament’s intent.

Subsection B (Page Text)

The Bill increases the risk of harm to participants through reduced supports, increased evidentiary burdens, and increased administrative barriers which will increase deterioration rates systems long-term costs These outcomes are foreseeable and preventable.

Subsection C (Page Text)

The Bill disproportionately harms people with severe and profound disabilities The NDIS was created for those most likely excluded under its criteria.

Subsection D (Page Text)

The Bill is being introduced into an already failing system meeting legal standards:

• Administrative law principles
• Statutory interpretation practices
• PCIP procedures durability fairness
• Regulations actual transparency Introducing new restrictions before fixing systemic failures irresponsible.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 2243

Section headings:

Introduction

Paragraphs:

The lived experience evidence demonstrates the human cost of administrative failure.

• loss of independence,
• increased physical risk,
• emotional distress,
• psychological harm,
• erosion of dignity,
• fear and uncertainty,
• preventable deterioration These are not abstract harms; they represent real-life experiences for individuals affected.

Submission 2243

Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities The NDIS was never intended to be a discretionary welfare program. it was conceived as a statutory entitlement scheme where eligibility and supports are determined by law, not fluctuating budget priorities or administrative preferences.

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

Submission 2243 person can access therapy, maintain function, remain safely housed, participate in the community, or live with dignity. The consequences of administrative failure are lived: in bodies, in homes, in daily routines, as well as moments of vulnerability; it includes uncertainty about funding essential supports due to clinical evidence often being unengaged effectively. The emotional weight lies within navigating a system perceived opaquely inconsistent without responding clinically. In my experience: The gap between legislated NDIs and administered ones is real; it involves repeatedly providing clinical evidence ignored meaningfully. It reflects uncertainties regarding accessing necessary support needed living securely emotionally tolling knowing wellbeing depends unpredictable disconnected from disability realities across Tribunal Royal Commission stakeholder submissions. This submission evaluates through comprehensive analytical framework including admin law statutory interpretation human rights CRPD obligations parliamentary intent actuarial integrity policy analysis & lived experience evidence each section expands frameworks demonstrating that current form bill inconsistent purpose NDIS Act Australia’s human rights inconsistencies foundational principles administrativelaw. NDIS was created uphold dignity autonomy human rights proposed amendments undermine these foundations narrow eligibility increase burdens expand discretion without safeguards risk entrench harms scheme prevented following sections provide detailed issues.

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

Submission 2243 My disability is permanent. It is not episodic, it is not intermittent; is something that improves due to rest or determination; it’s a constant presence affecting my mobility, functioning and energy as well as capacity performing essential tasks.It requires ongoing support to prevent deterioration maintain safety preserve limited independence I have.The NDLS was designed people like me.it ensured lifelong disabilities are left behind forced into crisis abandoned systems never intended supporting them yet gap between legislated administered wide in this gap live daily realities dependence supports For many Australians preparing meal showering getting dressed moving around home routine these require assistance without they become difficult exhausting unsafe mornings wake knowing cannot begin day safely evenings rely on support complete others do thought moments absence support merely inconvenient destabilising These dramatic quiet ordinary accumulate reality shaped reliable consisten adequate When those reduced delayed denied consequences immediate tangible Tasks harder Risks increase Fatigue accumulates Function declines Independence erodes Consequences theoretical lived emotional weight uncertainty One most difficult aspects navigating ndis Uncertainty whether suppois will funded Uncertainty evidence accepted Uncertainty decisions consistent clinical

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

Submission 2243

recommendations. The uncertainty whether next plan will provide what needed to live safely. The uncertainly this administrative decision creates emotional precarity permeates daily life means living with knowledge that supports may be removed or reduced because needs haven’t changed but unpredictable adminstrative decisions do so.

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

Submission 2243

When internal guidelines override clinical evidence, people are placed at risk. When administrative burdens increase, people are overwhelmed. The consequences lived include bodies, homes, daily routines; fear arises from systems designed as protectors but potentially harmful instead.

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

Submission 2243 The following sections provide a detailed legal, administrative, and human rights analysis of these issues.

Overview Of The Bill

Overview Of The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing The NDIS For Future Generations)

Bill 2026 The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 represents one of the most consequential legislative interventions into the NDIS framework since the Scheme’s inception. Its provisions alter the definitional structure, eligibility framework, evidentiary requirements, administrative discretion, and operational architecture of the NDIS Act 2013. These changes must be understood not only in terms of their textual content but also in terms of their legal effect, administrative implications, and human impact. This section provides a detailed academically structured analysis of the Bill’s key components, their interaction with existing statutory provisions, and their likely consequences for participants, decision makers, and the broader disability ecosystem.

Structural Overview Of The Bill

The Bill introduces amendments across several core areas:

• Eligibility and access criteria
• Definitions of permanence and functional impairment
• Evidentiary requirements for access and review
• NDIA discretionary powers
• Rules-making powers and subordinate legislation
• Cost-containment and sustainability mechanisms
• Interaction with mainstream services
• Plan management and support categories each_of_these_areas_represents_a_significant_shift_in_the_legislative_architecture_of_the_NDIS.

CHANGES TO ELIGIBILITY AND ACCESS CRITERIA

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 introduces new statutory language relating to:

• permanence,
• functional impairment,
• treatment considerations,
• evidence thresholds,
• access pathways. Theses changes collectively narrow eligibility.

Redefinition of Permanence

The Bill introduces a more restrictive interpretation of “permanent impairment,” requiring: • Evidence showing consideration of “reasonable treatments.” • Evidence indicating an impairment unlikely to improve with treatment. • Evidence demonstrating engagement in available interventions.“This shifts the scheme toward a quasi-medical-gatekeeping model explicitly rejected by Parliament in 2013.

Functional Impairment Thresholds

The Bill introduces language raising the threshold for demonstrating functional impairment, requiring: • More detailed assessments and evaluations across multiple domains; • Evidence that meets severity descriptors as per newly defined standards;“These risks exclude people who have fluctuating or complex disabilities involving multi-system issues.

INTRODUCTION OF TREATMENT CONSIDERATION REQUIREMENTS

One significant change is introducing de facto requirements where participants must demonstrate they pursued all possible treatments before qualifying. This raises several legal concerns:…“

Submission 2243

• It risks imposing a “treatment exhaustion” requirement not found in the original. • It contradicts the insurance-based design of the Scheme. • It is discriminating against people with conditions for which treatment options are limited, inaccessible or inappropriate. • It risks placing participants in the position of having to justify why they did not pursue treatments that may be medically unsuitable. This requirement also risks creating inequity as access to treatment varies by geography, socioeconomic status and availability of specialists.

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

Submission 2243

• democratic accountability
• transparency
• elevation policy above statute
• risk substantive rights altered through subordinate legislation The NDIS Act was designed to place core entitlements in primary legislation. Bill shifts significant power to Rules, which can be amended without parliamentary debate.

Cost Containment and Sustainability Mechanisms The Bill embeds sustainability considerations into legislative framework ways:

* shift scheme toward rationed welfare model

* prioritise cost containment over individual need
* risk undermining insurance-based design
* incentivising restrictive decision making

Productivity Commission explicitly warned against embedding mechanisms undermine long-term investment logic.

Interaction with Mainstream Services

The Bill increases emphasis on mainstream services requiring participants demonstrate:* • mainstreain supports have been accessed • that mainstreaan support is insufficient • provider of last resort This risks:*cost-shifting statesfragmentation of supporincreased administrative burdendelays accessing essential servicesthe NDIS should not replicate failures pre-NDIS system.

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

Submission 2243

Changes To Support Categories And Plan Management

The Bill introduces changes that may:

• reduce access to capacity building supports
• limit access to community participation supports
• restrict plan management options
• increase NDIA control over support categories These changes risk reducing participant autonomy and flexibility.

Likely Impacts on Participants

The combined effect of the Bill’s provisions is likely to: • narrow eligibility • increase administrative burdens • increase evidentiary requirements • increase delays • increase appeals • increase the risk of unlawful decisions • reduce supports • increase deterioration • increase crisis-driven service use • increase long-term costsThese impacts are foreseeable and preventable.

Conclusion to the Overview Of The Bill

The Bill represents a significant departure from the original design and purpose of the NDIS. It narrows eligibility, increases administrative burdens, expands discretion without safeguards, and embeds cost-containment mechanisms that undermine the insurance-based model. It risks entrenching the very harms the NDIS was created to prevent.The following sections provide a detailed legal, administrative, and human rights analysis of these issues.

Submission PARLIAMENTARY INTENT AND HANSARD ANALYSIS PARLIAMENTARY INTENT AND HANSARD: THE FOUNDATIONAL PURPOSE OF THE NDIS Understanding the purpose of the NDIS requires returning to the legislative record. The NDIS Act was drafted after extensive parliamentary debate, bipartisan negotiation, Productivity Commission recommendations and explicit commitments from disability community members.The Hansard record provides an authoritative account Parliament’s intentions when drafting this act. The proposed amendments under National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill need assessment against these records.Under section 15AB Acts Interpretation Act extrinsic materials such as second reading speeches explanatory memoranda may used to conform or resolve ambiguity statutory interpretation Courts tribunals routinely rely on Hansard determine legislative purposes particularly where amendments alter structure meaning existing statute schemes This section provides comprehensive analysis demonstrating that proposals contradict Parliamentary intent multiple fundamental ways.

Submission 2243

WHAT PARLIAMENT SAID WHEN CREATING THE NDIS

The Hansard record reveals several consistent themes across both Houses of Parliament.

Section headings:

• Section heading: The Bill departs from this purpose.

Subsection (a): What parliament said when creating the NDIS

Paragraphs and subheadings within subsection a):

Subheading A: The NDIS Was Designed as a Lifetime Support Scheme Parliament repeatedly emphasised that the NDIS was intended to provide lifetime support for people with permanent and significant disabilities. This was not a rhetorical flourish; it was a foundational design principle.Speakers across the political spectrum described the NDIS as:

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

Submission 2243 The Bill’s increased reliance on Rules and internal guidelines contradicts this intent.

Section 19 — The NDIS Was Designed to Prevent Crisis

Parliament emphasised that the NDIS must: • prevent deterioration • reduce crisis-driven service use • provide early intervention • support long-term outcomes The Bill’s cost-containment mechanisms and reduced access to capacity-building supports undermine this purpose.

Subsection A – Clinical Evidence Must Guide Decisions

Paragraph B – Treating Practitioners’ Opinions Must Be Respected

Clause C – Assessments Must Be Holistic

Article D – Decisions Must Be Transparent And Justified

The Bill’s expanded NDIA discretion and increased evidentiary burdens risk diminishing the role of clinical evidence.

Section 57 - The NDIS Was Designed To Uphold Human Rights

Parliament explicitly referenced:

• dignity autonomy equalityparticipationindependent livingThese principles were drawn directly from the CRPD.The Bill’s narrowing of eligibility and increased administrative barriers undermine these rights.

Section 8.6— The NDIS Was Designed To Avoid The Failures Of The Past

Parliament described the pre-NDIS system as:

Submission • fragmented • crisis-driven • inequitable • underfunded • inconsistent across states The .Bill risks recreating these failures by shifting responsibility back to mainstream services and narrowing access. HOW THE BILL CONTRADICTS PARLIAMENTARY: A detailed comparison reveals that the Bill contradicts: Lifetime Support By introducing treatment-consideration requirements and narrower definitions of permanence, Individualisation By increasing reliance on Rules and internal guidelines, prevention-of-Crisis By reducing access to therapy and capacity-building supports., evidence-Based Decision Making By expanding NDIA discretion without safeguards,, human Rights Principles By increasing administrative burdens and narrowing eligibility,,,the Insurance Based Design By embedding cost-containment mechanisms that undermine long-term investment logic.

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

Submission 2243

• administrative efficiency
• mainstream service responsibility These priorities differ markedly from the priorities expressed in 2013, which emphasised: • rights • dignity • autonomy • independence • participation • long-term outcomes This shift in legislative intent is significant. It represents a reorientation of the Scheme away from its original purpose.

THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF CONTRADICTING PARLIAMENTARY INTENT

If enacted, the Bill will:

• alter the interpretive framework of the NDIS Act
• increase the risk of legal challenges
• create inconsistency between primary and subordinate legislation
• undermine the coherence of the statutory scheme
• increase the risk of decisions being found legally unreasonable courts and tribunals will be required to reconcile the amended Act with the original purpose. This will create interpretative complexity and legal uncertainty.

Conclusion TO THE PARLIAMENTARY INTENT ANALYSIS

The Hansard record is clear. Parliament intended the NDIS to be:\n\t •a lifetime support scheme \n\t - individualized \n\t evidence-based \nrights-based preventative insurance-driven The Bill contradicts these intentions in multiple fundamental ways.It narrows eligibility increases administrative burdens expands discretion without safeguardsand embeds cost-containment mechanisms that undermines the Schemes purpose.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 2243

The following sections provide a detailed administrative law and human rights analysis of these issues.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ANALYSIS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OBLIGATIONS AND SYSTEMIC RISKS

Administrative law is the backbone of lawful government decision making. It ensures that statutory powers are exercised:

• lawfully,
• rationally,
• fairly,
• consistently,
• transparently,
• in accordance with statutory purpose.The NDIA, as a statutory authority exercising determinate power over people’s lives who have disabilities, must adhere to strict legal obligations which cannot be optional or aspirational; they represent mandatory requirements for its operations. The proposed amendments within The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill [Securing NDIS Future Generations] (Bill No: 26) need evaluation against this framework. Expanding discretion without addressing eligibility criteria or increasing evidentiary burdens while already struggling administratively increases risks associated with unlawful decisions made. This section provides an extensive review on how administrative laws governs Decision Making at NDIA level including systemic problems identified from Tribunal Decisions & Royal Commission Evidence alongwith potential Legal Risks posed by said bill. 1 - THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING NDIA DECISION MAKING NDIA decision makers abide under following Acts: •the NDIS Act ηј\x9c\Σt (2013) •The NDIS Rules •Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act of ’77 (ADJR Act) Acts Interpretation Act (κo t\x9c\ϡrpt\x9crtion Act) ‘η’(η’ξ)’\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9cј\Σt (2003) Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act ηѯ\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9c\x9cј\Ρct (2013)

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

Submission 2243

• the common law of administrative law

• Australia’s international human rights obligations, including the CRPD These obligations require decision-makers to:
  • consider all relevant evidence
  • avoid irrelevant considerations
  • provide intelligible rational reasons
  • avoid fettering discretion
  • act consistently with statutory purpose
  • provide procedural fairness
  • interpret legislation consistently with human rights
  • avoid legal unreasonableness The Bill increases the risk of breaches in each area.

Core Administrative Law PrinciplesThe following principles are central to lawful NDIA decision making.

Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations (Peko-Wallsend)

In Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd., the High Court held that decision makers must:* consider mandatory relevant considerations * disregard irrelevant considerations NDIA failures include:not considering treating practitioners’ evidencerelying on internal guidelines instead of statutory criteriadisregarding functional assessmentselevating administrative preferences above evidenceThe Bill increases these risks by expanding discretion and evidentiary burdens.### Fettering of Discretion (Drake; Ansett Transport)Decision makers should notrigidly apply policy*treat guidelines as bindingsubstitute internal rules for statutory criteria

Submission 2243

Tribunal decisions have repeatedly found that NDIA decision makers:

• rely on internal operational guidelines treat internal policy as determinative fail to exercise genuine discretion. The Bill increases reliance on Rules and internal guidance, heightening this risk.

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

Submission 2243 The purpose of the NDIS Act includes:

• supporting people with disability to live ordinary lives
• promoting independence
• preventing deterioration
• respecting human rights The Bill’s cost-containment mechanisms and narrower eligibility criteria risk decisions inconsistent with statutory purpose.

Human Rights Consistency (CRPD; Acts Interpretation Act)

Legislation must be interpreted consistently with human rights wherever possible.The CRPD requires:• non-discrimination• independent living• access to supports• protection of physical and mental integrity The Bill risks decisions inconsistent with these obligations.

Systemic Administrative Law Issues Identified in Tribunal DecisionsTribunal decisions have repeatedly identified systemic issues in NDIA decision making, including:

1. Failure to consider clinical evidenceDecision-makers often disregard treating practitioners’ reports.
2. Overreliance on internal guidelinesInternal documents are treated as binding contrary to law.
3. Inadequate reasonsReasons often lack intelligible justification.
4. Misinterpretation of statutory criteriaDecision makers apply incorrect legal tests.

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

Submission 2243

Procedural Unfairness

Participants are not given adequate opportunity to respond.

Inconsistent Decision Making

Similar cases receive different outcomes.

Excessive Evidentiary Burdens

Participants are required to provide unnecessary or unreasonable evidence.The Bill exacerbates these issues.

Systemic Issues Identified By The Royal Commission

The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People With Disability identified:

• administrative complexity
• inconsistent decision making
• lack of transparency
• inadequate engagement w/ evidence
• burdensome processes
• delays
• lack of accountability The Bill increases administrative complexity & burdens.

How The Bill Increases Administrative Law Risks

The Bill increases the risk of unlawful decisions by: Expanding NDIA discretion: Without strengthening safeguards, Increasing evidentiary burdens: Raising procedural unfairness risks; Narrowing eligibility: Increasing inconsistency with statutory purpose; increasing reliance on Rules.*

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 2243

Raising the risk of fettering discretion.

5. Introducing treatment-consideration requirements Raising the risk of irrelevant considerations.

Increasing administrative complexity

Raising the risk of errors.

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE BILL

If enacted, the Bill will:

• increase appeals
• increase judicial review applications
• increase Tribunal workload
• increase administrative churn
• increase legal uncertainty
• increase the risk of inconsistent decisions
• increase the risk of unlawful decisions These consequences are foreseeable and preventable.

CONCLUSION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ANALYSIS The Bill expands discretion, increases burdens, narrows eligibility in a system already struggling to meet administrative law standards. It increases the risk of unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair decisions. It undermines statutory purpose and human rights obligations.The following section provides a detailed CRPD (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) analysis under international human rights framework.

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS ANALYSIS # INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS AND THE CRPD FRAMEWORK

Submission 2243

Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) are not symbolic. They are binding international legal obligations that inform: The interpretation, administration, implementation together with other aspects related to Australia’s human rights framework.

Submission

Administrative decision makers must consider human rights embedded in the Act.

s&

The NDIA, as a public authority, must act consistently with human rights obligations .s&

Tribunals have repeatedly referenced CRDP principles when interpreting the Act.The Bill risks creating inconsistencies between the Act and the CRPD.

#2- CRPD PRINCIPLES MOST RELEVANT TO THE NDIS The following CRPD articles are directly relevant to the NDIS: •Article 1-Purpose •Article 3-General Principles •Article 4-General Obligations •Article 5-Equality and Non-Discrimination •Article 9-Accessibility •Article 12(Equal Recognition Before the Law) •Article 14-Liberty and Security •Article 17-Protection of Integrity of Person •Article 19(Living Independently and Being Included In The Community) •Article 20(Personal Mobility) •Article 28(Adequate Standard Of Living And Social Protection)

Analysis: The bill undermines multiple articles simultaneously.

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

Submission 2243 The Bill underlines these principles:

• narrowing eligibility
• increasing administrative burdens
• reducing access to support services
• expanding discretion without safeguards. The changes reduce autonomy and restrict participation.

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

Submission 2243

Section 3.4 — Article 17: Protecting the Integrity of the Person

This article protects:

• physical integrity
• mental integrity
• emotional integrity The Bill undermines this by:
• reducing access to essential supports
• increasing the risk of deterioration
• increasing the risk of crisis
• increasing emotional distress through administrative uncertainty These impacts are foreseeable and preventable.

Subsection 3.5 – Article 19: Living Independently and Being Included in the Community

This is one of the most important CRPD articles for the NDIS.It requires:

• access to support necessary for independent living
• access to personal assistance
• access to community participation
• freedom to choose where and how to live The Bill undermines this by:
• narrowing access to personal supports
• reducing capacity-building supports
• increasing reliance on mainstream systems that cannot meet needs
• increasing administrative barriers to accessing essential supports These changes risk institutionalisation by neglect.

Subsubsection 3.6 - Article 20: Personal Mobility This article requires:- mobility aidsaccess to assistive technologysupport services

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

Submission 2243 The Bill underlines this:

• Increasing evidentiary burden on equipment.
• Narrowing eligibility criteria for assistive technology.
• Delays in accessing mobility supports are increased. Mobility is not considered as an optional benefit but rather, it’s essential human rights.

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

Submission 2243

• access to necessary support services that ensure an adequate standard of living.
• access to social protection programs,
• protection from poverty, exclusion.

Conclusion to CRPD Human Rights Analysis

The Bill contradicts these principles:

• section 3 objects general principles section 4 reasonable necessary supports This creates inconsistency within itself.

Systemic Failure Analysis

Systemic Failure Analysis ROYAL COMMISSION TRIBUNAL OIA Evidence The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 is being introduced under significant administrative procedural structural failures These are not speculative but well-documented in evidence from the Royal Commission on violence abuse neglect exploitation people disability

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

Submission 2243

• Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and NDIS Review Panel decisions
• Office of Impact Analysis (OIA) assessments
• Ombudsman reports
• Stakeholder submissions
• Academic research
• Lived-experience evidence The Bill does not address these failures instead it overlays new burdens, new restrictions ,and new discretionary powers onto a system already struggling to meet basic legal administrative standards This increases risk harm, increases legal vulnerability undermines purpose NDIS Act. The section provides comprehensive analysis systemic failure how bill exacerbates them .

ROYAL COMMISSION FINDINGS A SYSTEM UNDER STRAIN

• Royal Commission identified multiple issues within ndis ndia including:

1. Administrative complexity Participants face overwhelming admin burden,including:
   • Repeated evidencerequests
   • Inconsistent documentation requirements
   • Unclear communication
   • Complex review processes The Bill adds new evidentiaryburdens treatmentconsiderationrequirements increasingcomplexity.

Inconsistently decision making

RoyalCommission found similar cases receive different outcomes due to:

• inconsistent application statutory criteria variable interpretationofevidence reliance on internal guidelines theBill expands discretionincreasing inconsistency.

Lack transparency participants often do no understand: redacted

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

Submission 2243

• why decisions were made
• what evidence was considered
• how criteria were applied The Bill does not improve transparency and may worsen it by increasing reliance on Rules.

Delays

The Royal Commission documented: • long delays in access decisions • long delays in plan approvals • long delays in reviews The Bill increases administrative burden, likely worsening delays.

Insufficient engagement with evidence

The Royal Commission found that NDIA decision-makers often: • disregard treating practitioners’ reports • rely on internal guidelines • fail to consider functional assessments The Bill increases evidentiary burdens without improving decision-maker capability.

Emotional and psychological impact

The Royal Commission recognised that administrative failures cause:distressuncertaintyfearexhaustion.The Bill increases administrative burdens, increasing emotional strain.

TRIBUNAL DECISIONS: A PATTERN OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FAILURESTribunal decisions reveal systemic administrative law failures including:

1.Failure to consider relevant evidenceDecision makers often:redacted ignore treating practitioners’ repo1tsredacted disregai·d functional assessmenstredacketed rely on outdated or inelevant infonnation

Submission 2243 ~ ~ ~ 2. Overreliance on internal guidelines ~ ~ Tribunals have repeatedly found that NDIA decision makers: ~ ~ ~~ • ti·eat internal guidelines as binding ~ ~ • fail to exercise genuine discretion ~ ~ • apply policy instead of law ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 3. Inadequate reasons ~ ~ Tribunal decisions frequently identify: ~ ~ • lack of intelligible justification ~ ~ • failure to explain reasoning ~ • failure to address key evidence ~ ~~ 4. Misinterpretation of statutory criteria ~ ~ Decision makers often: ~ ~ • apply inco1Tect legal tests ~ ~ • misunderstand “reasonable and necessruy” ~ ~ • misinterpret pe1manence ~

~ 5. Procedural unfairness ~ ~ Tribunals have found: ~ ~ • failure to disclose adverse material ~ ~ -~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ • failure to consider submissions ~

~ 6. Inconsistent decision making ~ ~ Similru· cases receive different outcomes due to: ~ ~ • vru·iable interpretation ~ ~ • inconsistent application of criteria ~ ~ • differing reliance on internal guidelines ~ ~ The Bill exacerbates these issues by increasing discretion and evidentiruy burdens. ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 - OFFICE OF IMPACT ANALYSIS (OIA) FINDINGS ~ ~ ~~ The OIA has raised concerns about: ~ ~ 1. Insufficient evidence base ~ ~ The Bill’s impact analysis lacks: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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

Submission 2243 • robust modelling • clear evidence of necessity • adequate assessment of risks

Insufficient consultation

Stakeholder engagement was:

• limited
• rushed
• incomplete

Insufficient assessment of human rights impacts

The OIA identified: inadequate analysis of CRPD impacts, sufficient assessment of equality impacts, sufficient assessment of administrative burden.

Insufficient assessment of administrative capacity

The OIA noted that:
NDIA systems are already strained\decision-maker capability is limitedadministrative processes are inconsistent.The Bill increases administrative burden without increasing capacity.

HOW THE BILL EXACERBATES SYSTEMIC FAILURES The Bill worsens systemic failures by:\

Increasing administrative complexity: New definitions, new criteria, and evidentiary burdens increase complexity. **Increasing discretion without safeguards**: Expanded discretion increases inconsistency and legal risk. Increasing evidentiary burdens: Participants must provide more evidence frequently at higher cost. More complex decisions take longer. Increasing appeals: Narrower eligibility reduced supports increase disputes.`,

Submission 2243

Increasing emotional strain

Uncertainty and administrative burden increase distress.

Increasing risk of deterioration

Reduced supports increase risk of decline.

Increasing reliance on mainstream systems

Shifting responsibility to mainstream services recreates pre-NDIS failures.

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

Submission 2243

Recommendation 1

Withdraw or Substantially Redraft the Bill in Order to Comply with Human Rights Obligations, Administrative Law Standards, and the Purpose of the NDIS Act

1. Recommendation

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 should be withdrawn in its current form or substantially redrafted to ensure full compliance with:

• Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
• the human rights principles embedded in the NDIS Act
• administrative law requirements
• parliamentary intent
• the insurance-based design of the Scheme
• the lived experience and rights of people with disability. The Bill, as drafted, represents a retrogressive measure that risks undermining the rights, dignity, autonomy, and equality of people with disability.

2. Human Rights Analysis

2.1 CRPD Obligations

Australia is a State Party to the CRPD and therefore bound by obligations to: - respect protect fulfilthe rights of persons with disabilities.The Bill conflicts with multiple CRPD articles including: Article 3 — General Principles The Bill undermines dignity, autonomy, and full participation by narrowing eligibility and increasing administrative burdens.Article 5 – Equality and Non-Discrimination The Bill disproportionately impacts people with severe and profound disabilities creating indirect discrimination.

Submission 2243

Article 12 - Equal Recognition Before the Law

Increased evidentiary burdens and administrative complexity impede equal access to supports.

Article 17 Protecting the Integrity of the Person

Reduced supports increase the risk of deterioration and harm.

Article 19 Living Independently and Being Included in the Community

NaiTower eligibility and reduced supports undermine independent living.

Article 26 Habilitation and Rehabilitation

The Bill restricts access to therapy and capacity-building supports.

Article 28 Adequate Standard of Living and Social Protection

The Bill risks pushing people into poverty, crisis, and institutionalisation through neglect.

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

Submission 2243 The Bill therefore increases the risk of:

• invalid decisions
• increased appeals
• increased judicial review
• systemic administrative failure

Parliamentary Intent Analysis

Hansard from 2012–2013 demonstrates that Parliament intended the NDIS to be: • individualised • evidence-based • rights-based • preventative • insurance-driven • non-adversarial • supportive of autonomy and participation The Bill contradicts this intent by: • narrowing eligibility • increasing administrative burdens • reducing supports • expanding discretion • embedding cost-containment mechanisms • shifting responsibility to mainstream systems This represents a departure from the foundational purpose of the Scheme.

Royal Commission Evidence

The Royal Commission identified systematic failures in: • decision-making quality • evidence handling • procedural fairness • transparency • administrative burden • delays • adversarial conduct The Bill does not address these failures.Instead, it exacerbates them by:

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

Submission 2243

• increasing complexity
• increasing discretion
• increasing evidential burden
• increasing risk of harm This is inconsistent with Royal Commission’s findings.

Systemic Risk Analysis The bill creates systemic risks including:

Increased Exclusion Narrower eligibility disproportionately excludes people with severe or profound disabilities.

Increased Deterioration Reduced supports increase the risk of preventable decline.

Increased Crisis Administrative barriers increase crisis-driven service use.

Increased Inequality People with fewer resources face greater barriers.

Increased Emotional Distress Uncertainty and administrative burden undermine mental wellbeing.

Increased Institutionalisation through Neglect Reduced supports increase reliance on hospitals and state systems.

Detailed Reform Requirements To comply with human rights obligations, the bill should include:

Remove treatment-consideration requirements These are discriminatory and inconsistent with CRPD.

Maintain eligibility consistent with original Act Eligibility must remain grounded in permanence and functional impairment.

Reduce evidentiary burdens Participants do not need to repeatedly prove permanent impairments.

Constrain NDIA Discretion

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Securing the NDIS for Future Generations)

Submission 2243

Discretion must be guided by statutory safeguards. 7.5 Limit Rules-making powers. Core entitlements must remain in primary legislation. 7.6 Strengthen human rights protections. All amendments must undergo CRPD and equality impact assessments. 7.7 Strengthen administrative capacity. Decision-maker capability must be improved before reform. 8. Conclusion: The Bill, in its current form, is inconsistent with:
*the CRPDD
the NDIS Act\administrative lawparliamentary intenthuman rights principlesIt represents a retrogressive measure that risks significant harm to people with disability.It should be withdrawn or substantially redrafted.RECOMMENDATION 2Maintain Eligibility Criteria Consistent with the Original NDIS Act to Ensure Compliance with Human Rights Obligations, Prevent Retrogression, and Protect the Rights of People with Disability1. RecommendationEligibility for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) must remain groundedin the original legislative framework established by the NDIS Act 2013 which defines access based on:permanent impairmentandsignificant functional impairmentThe proposed amendments in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations)Bill introduce new restrictive eligibility concepts - including treatment-consideration requirements,narrower

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

Submission 2243 definitions of permanence, and heightened functional impairment thresholds — that are inconsistent with:

• The purpose of the NDIS Act
• Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
• Administrative law principles
• Parliamentary intent
• Human rights norms
• The insurance-based design of the Scheme. The changes constitute a retrogressive measure that risks excluding people with severe and profound disabilities from essential supports.The eligibility framework must therefore remain consistent with the original Act.

Human Rights Analysis### CRPD ObligationsEligibility restrictions must be assessed against Australia’s obligations under the CRPD. The proposed amendments conflict with multiple articles.Article 3 – General PrinciplesThe CRPD requires respect for:dignityautonomyindependenceparticipationincluNarrowing eligibility undermines these principles by restricting access to supportsnecessaryfor independent living.Article 5 - Equalityand Non-DiscriminationEligibilityrestrictionsdisproportionatelyimpact:peoplewithcomplexdiseasespeoplewithefluctuatingconditionspeoplenewithrareconditionspoplewthlimitedaccesstospecialistsppleniruralandrernoteareasThis constitutes indirect discriminationArticle 19 Living Independently and Being Included inthe Community

Submission 2243

Eligibility restrictions risk:

• institutionalisation by neglect
• increased reliance on hospitals
• reduced community participation
• reduced autonomy

Article 26 - Habilitation and Rehabilitation

The CRPD requires access to supports that maintain or nnprove function. The eligibility restrictions undermine this obligation.

Article 28 - Adequate Standard of Living and Social Protection

Restricting eligibility undermines the right to social protection and increases the risk of poverty and exclusion.

Non-Retrogression Principle

Human rights law prohibits retrogressive measures unless:
• strictly necessary\n• proportionate\n• justified\n• evidence-based\n• non-discriminatory
The Bill’s eligibility changes fail all five tests.

Administrative Law Analysis

Eligibility criteria must be:
• clear\n• consistent\n• lawful\n• rational\n• evidence-based\ The Bill introduces ambiguous and subjective concepts such as:
• “reasonable treatments”\n• “likely to improve with treatment”\n• “engagement with interventions”\n• “sufficient evidence” These concepts increase the risk of:
inconsistent decision making\nunlawful fettering of discretion

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

Submission 2243

• irrelevant considerations
• legal unreasonableness
• procedural unfairness The Bill therefore increases the risk of invalid decisions.

Parliamentary Intent Analysis

Hansard from 2012–2013 demonstrates that Parliament intended the NDIS to: • provide lifetime support • avoid medical gatekeeping • avoid treatment-exhaustion requirements • avoid rigid eligibility categories • support people with permanent and significant disabilities • prevent deterioration • promote independence The Bill contradicts this intent by: • introducing treatment consideration requirements • narrowing definitions of permanence • raising functional impairment thresholds • increasing administrative burdens This represents a departure from the foundational purpose of the Scheme.

Royal Commission Evidence The Royal Commission identified systemic failures in:

eligibility decision making evidence handlingprocedural fairnesstransparencyadministrative burden.The Bill does not address these failures.Instead, it exacerbates them by:increasing evidentiary burdensincreasing complexity.

Submission 2243

• increasing discretion • increasing the risk of exclusion This is consistent with Royal Commission’s findings.

Systemic Risk Analysis Eligibility restrictions create systemic risks including:

6.1 Increased Exclusion People with severe or profound disabilities may be excluded due to lack access specialists fluctuating conditions complex multi-system impairments rare conditions without support people deteriorate which increases long-term costs harms ### 6.5 Increased Emotional Distress Uncertainty administrative burden undermine wellbeing ### 6.6 Increased Institutionalisation Neglect Reduced supports increase reliance on hospitals state systems ## Detailed Reform Requirements To comply human rights obligations eligibility preserved as follows: • Remove treatment consideration requirements these are discriminatory inconsistencies with CRPD • Maintain Original Definition Permanence: Permanent remains Clinical Concept Bureaucratic One

Submission 2243

The original thresholds are evidence-based and rights-consistent. 7. Prohibit medical gatekeeping.Eligibility must not depend on treatment compliance or availability. 5. Reduce evidentiary burdens.Participants must not be required to repeatedly prove permanent impairments. 6. Ensure eligibility decisions are evidence-based.Treating practitioners’ reports must be central. Ensure eligibility decisions are rights-based.Eligibility must be interpreted consistently with the CRPD. Conclusion Eligibility is the gateway to the NDIS.Restricting eligibility restricts rights.The Bill’s eligibility changes ai·e: discriminatory inconsistent with the CRPD consistent with the NDIS Act inconsistent with parliamentary intent inconsistent with administrative law harmful to people with disability Elgibility must remain consistent with the original Act.

Submission • reduces evidentiaiy burdens • eliminates unnecessaiy or repetitive documentation requirements • prohibits invasive or dispropo1i ionate evidence requests • centres clinical e_vdence from treatin pdractitioners • ensures that participants ai·e not reqmre to repeatedly prove pe1manent rmpauments • aligns with the CRPD, the NDIS Act, and administrative law principles. The cunent and proposed evidentiary requirements - including repeated requests for diagnostic confirmation functional assessments historical medical records proof of permanent impairments constitute a systemic barrier to accessing supports violate multiple human rights obligations The Bill exacerbates these burdens introducing new treatment-consideration requirements heightened functional impairment thresholds expanded NDIA discretion demand additional evidence These measures must be removed substantially amended Human Rights Analysis 2 HRD Obligations Excessive evidential burden conflict articles General Principles requires respect autonomy independence participation Article equality non-discrimination Evidentiary burdens disproportionately impact: cognitive disabilities people in rural remote areas limited access specialists low income

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

Submission 2243

Article 12 - Equal Recognition Before the Law

Complex evidentiary requirements impede equal access to decision-making processes.

Article 17 — Protecting the Integrity of the Person

Requests for invasive medical records violate bodily and psychological integrity.

Article 19 – Living Independently and Being Included in the Community evidential barriers restrict access to supports necessary for independent living.

Respect for Privacy: The CRPD prohibits unnecessary intrusions into personal and medical information.The NDIA’s current practices violates this obligation.

Habilitation and Rehabilitation:

evidential burdens delay or prevent access to therapy and capacity-building support.

Adequate Standard of Living and Social Protection:

barrers undermine social protection rights.

Non-Retrogression Principle:

increasing eviendtial burden constitutes a retrogressive measure that reduces access to rights.Such measures are prohibited unless strictly necessary, proportionate, justified evidence-based non-discriminatory The bill fails all five tests. .Administrative Law Analysis:Eviendy requirments must be: reasonable proportional relevant lawful consistent with statutory purposeThe bill increases risk administrative law breaches by expanding NDIS discretion demand evidence.

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

Submission 2243 This increases the risk of irrelevant considerations and legal unreasonableness.

Introducing treatment consideration requirements These are not supported by the Act and risk unlawful fettering of discretion.

Increasing reliance on internal guidelines

These risks substituting policy for law.

Increasing procedural unfairness Participants are often not told:

• what evidence is required • why it is required • how it will be used

Increasing the risk of inconsistent decision making Different decision makers apply different evidentiary standards.

Parliamentary Intent Analysis Hansard from 2012-2013 shows Parliament intended the NDIS to:\

• avoid excessive evidence requirements
  avoid medical gatekeeping\avoid repeated proof of permanence respect treating practitioners’ evidence reduce administrative burden support autonomy and dignity The Bill contradicts this intent by: increasing evidentiary burdens introducing treatment-consideration requirements requiring repeated proof of permanence increasing administrative complexity This represents a departure from the original purpose of the Scheme. 5 Royal Commission Evidence \The Royal Commission identified systemic failures in:
  evidence handling transparency proceduralfairness

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

Submission 2243

• administrative burden
• delays
• adversarial conduct Participants reported: • repeated requests for the same evidence • requests for irrelevant medical records • requests for historical documents • requests that violated privacy • emotional distress • traumatisation The Bill exacerbates these failures by increasing evidentiary burdens.

Systemic Risk Analysis

Excessive evidentiary burdens create systemic risks including:

Section 6 - Increased Exclusion

People unable to obtain specialist reports are excluded.

Section 6a - Increased Deterioration

Delays in evidence provision delay supports.

Section 6b - Increased Crisis

People deteriorate while waiting for evidence to be accepted.

Section 6c - Increased Inequality

People with fewer resources face greater barriers.

Section 6d - Increased Emotional Distress

Repeated evidence requests cause exhaustion and trauma.

Section 6e - Increased Privacy Violations

Requests for irrelevant medical records violate human rights.

Detailed Reform Requirements To comply with human rights obligations, the NDIS must:

Subsection a. Prohibit Repeated Proof of Permanence Permanent impairments must not require ongoing re-evidence.

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

Submission 2243

Prohibit treatment-consideration requirements.

These are discriminatory and inconsistent with the CRPD.

Limit evidence requests to what is strictly necessary.

Evidence must be: • relevant • proportionate • clinically justified

Prohibit requests for irrelevant medical records.

Privacy must be protected.

Require decision makers to accept treating practitioners’ evidence.

Clinical evidence must be central.

Require clear, written explanations for any additional evidence requests.

This ensures transparency and procedural fairness. ####### Reduce administrative burden. Evidence processes must be simplified. 8. Conclusion Excessive evidentiary burdens violate: •the CRPDb •the NDIS Act •administrative law •human rights principles •parliamentary intent They cause: •exclusion •deterioration •crisis •inequality •emotional distress •privacy violations The NDIS must adopt a rights-based evidentiary framework that reduces burdens, protects dignity, and ensures fair, lawful, and accessible decision making.

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

Submission 2243

Constrain NDIA Discretion with Statutory Safeguards to Ensure Lawful, Rights-Based, Evidence-Driven, and Non-Discriminatory Decision Making

Recommendation The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) must incorporate strong statutory safeguards to constrain the exercise of discretion by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). These safeguards must ensure that:

• discretion is exercised lawfully, fairly, and consistently.
• decisions are grounded in clinical evidence, not internal guidelines.
• decision makers cannot rely on assumptions, stereotypes, or preconceived ideas about disability.
• discretion is guided by clear statutory criteria, not opaque internal policy.
• participants are protected from arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory decisions.
• all decisions comply with the CRPD, the NDIS Act, and administrative law.

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

Submission 2243

• inconsistent outcomes
• indirect discrimination
• systemic exclusion

Article 12 — Equal Recognition Before the Law

People with disability must have equal access to fair, transparent, and lawful decision making.

Article 19 – Living Independently and Being Included in the Community

Arbitrary or inconsistent decisions undermine access to supports necessary for independent living. Article 22— Respect for Privacy Discretionary evidence demands often violate privacy. Article 26– Habilitation and Rehabilitation Discretionary denial of therapy supports undermines rehabilitation rights. Article 28—— Adequate Standard of Living and Social Protection Unconstrained discretion undermines access to social protection.

Non-Retrogression Principle

Expanding discretion without safeguards constitutes a retrogressive measure because it: • reduces transparency • reduces fairness • reduces accountability • increases risk of discrimination • increases risk of exclusion Such measures are prohibited unless strictly justified—and the Bill provides no such justification.

Administrative Law Analysis

Administrative law requires that discretion be exercised: • rationally • consistently • transparently • fairly • in accordance with statutory purpose

Submission 2243

The Bill increases the risk of administrative law breaches by:

• Expanding discretion without statutory criteria. This increases the risk of irrelevant considerations and legal unreasonableness.
• Increasing reliance on internal guidelines This risks unlawful fettering of discretion (Drake).
• Increasing procedural unfairness. participants are often not told why evidence was disregarded or how decisions were reached.

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

Submission 2243

• expanding discretion
• narrowing eligibility
• increasing reliance on Rules
• increasing administrative burdens
• reducing transparency This represents a departure from the foundational purpose of the Scheme.

Royal Commission Evidence

The Royal Commission identified systemic failures in NDIA decision making, including: • inconsistent application of criteria • overreliance on internal guidelines • inadequate engagement with clinical evidence • procedural unfairness • lack of transparency • arbitrary decision-making • excessive discretion The Bill exacerbates these failures by expanding discretion without safeguards.

Systemic Risk Analysis

Unconstrained discretion creates systemic risks, including:

6.1 Increased Exclusion

People with similar disabilities receive different outcomes.

6.2 Increased Discrimination

Discretion allows stereotypes and assumptions to influence decisions.

6.3 Increased Deterioration

Arbitrary denial of supports leads to preventable decline.

6.4 Increased Crisis

Inconsistent decisions increase crisis-driven service use.

6.5 Increased Inequality

People with fewer resources cannot challenge unlawful decisions.

6.6 Increased Emotional Distress

Opaque and inconsistent decisions undermine trust and wellbeing.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 2243

Detailed Reform Requirements

To comply with human rights obligations, the NDIS must:

Embed statutory criteria that constrain discretion.

Criteria must be:

• clear
• rights-consistent
• evidence-based

Prohibit reliance on internal guidelines as determinative.

Guidelines must not override statutory criteria.

Require decision makers to consider clinical evidence.

The treating practitioners’ reports must be central.

Require written reasons that address all evidence.

This ensures transparency and procedural fairness.

Prohibit arbitrary or irrelevant considerations.

Decisions must be rational and lawful.

Require a human rights-consistent interpretation.

All decisions must be interpreted consistently with the CRPD.

Establish external oversight (linked to Recommendation 11).

Independent oversight is essential for constraining discretion.

Conclusion

Unconstrained discretion violates:

• The CRPD,
• The NDIS Act,
• Administrative law,
• Parliamentary intent,
• Human Rights principles.

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

Submission 2243

• exclusion discrimination\ntermination\ncrisis
  inequality\neotional distress The NDIS must embed strong statutory safeguards to ensure discretion is exercised legally fairly consistently fully compliant with human rights.

Recommendation 5 Limit Rule Making Powers Prevent Executive Overreach Protect Human Rights Ensure Parliamentary Control Core NDIS Entitlements### Section: Recommendation The National Disability Insurance Scheme legislative framework amended limit scope delegated legislation particularly power executive make or amend Rules redefine eligibility pennance functional impairment reasonable necessary supports alter participant entitlements impose new evidentiary burdens expand NDIA discretion restrict access support shifts responsibilities mainstream systems core entitlerments criteria remain primary not delegation significantly expands Minister’s power make Rules can change substance participants without parliamentary scrutiny represents profound shift in governance of NDIS raises serious human rights adminstrative law democratic accountability

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

Submission 2243

Human Rights Analysis

CRPD Obligations

The CRPD requires States ensure:

• transparency c• accountability non-discrimination equal access to rightsprotection from arbitrary interferencelegal certaintystability of entitlementsExpanding Rule-making powers without safeguards violates multiple CRPD articles. Article General PrinciplesRights must be stable, predictable, accessible.Delegated legislation changeable w/o parliamentary oversight undermines these principles.Article General ObligationsStates adopt legislative measures implement rightsDelegation core rights to Rules undercuts this obligation.Article Equality & Non-DiscriminationRules altering eligibility or support can disproportionately impact certain disability groups creating indirect discrimination.Article Equal Recognition Before LawPeople with disabilities have equal legal entitlements.Frequent changes in rules undermine legal stability.Article Living Independently and Being Included CommunityRestricting supports hinders independent living.Article Adequate Standard Living Social ProtectionReduced entitlements undermine social protection.#### Non-Retrogression PrincipleDelegated laws reducing rights constitute retrogressive measure.Such are prohibited unless:—

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

Submission 2243 • strictly necessary • proportionate • justified • evidence-based • non-discriminatory The Bill provides no justification for expanding Rules-making powers.

Administrative Law Analysis

Administrative law requires:

• Core rights must be defined within primary legislation;
• Delegated legislation should have limited scope;
• The executive power needs constraints,
• Statutory purpose is upheld ;
• Decision making has lawful rationality . The Bill increases risk of admin breaches via:

Allowing rules override statutory purposes.

Rules could redefine eligibility or supports in ways inconsistent with Act.

Allowing rules expand NDIA discretion.

This raises arbitrary decision risks.

Allowing rules impose new evidentiary burdens.

Undermines procedural fairness.

Allowing rules shift responsibilities mainstream systems.

Contradicts insurance design scheme’s basis.

Allowing rules made without adequate consultation.

Undermining transparency and accountability.

Parliamentary Intent Analysis

Hansard from 2012-2013 demonstrates Parliament intended to protect core entitlements, use rules only administratively detail , ensure participants’ stable predictable rights the NDIS insulated political cycles Scheme governed by parliament not Executive.

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

Submission 2243 The Bill contradicts this intent by:

• expanding Rules-making powers
• allowing the Executive to altering entitlements
• reducing parliamentary oversight
• increasing the risk of political interference This represents a fundamental shift away from the original design of the Scheme.

Royal Commission Evidence

The Royal Commission identified systemic failures in:• transparency• accountability• decision-making quality• evidence handling• procedural fairness The Commission emphasised the need for:• stronger oversight• clearer statutory protections• reduced administrative discretion The Bill moves in the opposite direction by expanding Rules-making powers.

Systemic Risk Analysis Expanding Rules-making powers creates systemic risks, including:\

1. Increased Executive Overreach\nThe Minister could alter entitlements without parliamentary scrutiny.`

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

Submission 2243

Increased Risk of Harm

Rules that reduce supports increase the risk of deterioration and crisis.

Detailed Reform Requirements

To comply with human rights obligations, the NDIS must:

Limit Rules-making Powers to Administrative Detail

ules must not alter core entitlements.

Prohibit Rules from Redefining Eligibility

eligibility must remain in primary legislation.

Prohibit Rules from Imposing New Evidentiary Burdens

evidence requirements must be statutory. ####### Prohibit Rules from Expanding NDIA Discretion discretion must be constrained by the Act. ######## Require Parliamentary Approval for Any Rule Affecting Rights )this ensures democratic accountability. ######### Require Human Rights Impact Assessments for All Rules .rules must comply with the CRPD. ############ Require Public Consultation Before Rules Are Made .this enforces transparency and participation.

Conclusion

(expanding rules-making powers violates:) •the crpd •the ndis act •administrative law •parliamentary intent •human rights principles (it creates:) •executive overreach •instability of rights •discrimination •legal uncertainty •systemic harm)

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

Submission 2243 Core entitlements must remain in primary legislation. Rules must be limited, transparent, and rights-consistent.

Recommendation 6

Mandate Human Rights Impact Assessments for All NDIS Legislative and Policy Changes to Ensure Compliance with the CRPD, Prevent Retrogression, and Protect the Rights and Dignity of People with Disability

Section A - Core Entitlements Must Remain In Primary Legislation

• Rules should not exceed necessary limits;

Section B - Mandated HRIA For All NDIS Amendments And Reforms

All legislative amendments, delegated legislation including NDIs rules policy changes operational guidelines administrative reforms impacting on the National Disability Insurance Scheme(NDIS) need a mandatory public independent human rights impact assessment(HRIA) evaluates compliance with Convention On The Right Of Persons With Disabilities(CRPD); identifies risks from discrimination exclusion or harm; essesses whether proposed measures constitute retrogressive action; examines impacts dignity autonomy independence participation; evulates admin law risk factors; includes lived experience evidence, is published fully before reform enacted. The bill introduces sweeping changes without adequate analysis. This violates Australia’s obligations under Crpd undermining people disability rights. HRIAs are essential ensuring that ndis reformed laws consistent participant wellbeing.

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

Submission 2243

• protect dignity and autonomy
• ensure participation in community life
• prevent arbitrary or regressive measures The Bill was introduced without a comprehensive HRIA, despite affecting: • eligibility • supports • evidence requirements • administrative processes • participant rights • privacy • independence • access to justice This omission is inconsistent with CRPD obligations.

Article 4 — General Obligations

States must adopt legislative and administrative measures consistent with the CRPD Without HRIsAs, compliance cannot be ensured.

Article 5 - Equality and Non-Discrimination

Reforms must not disproportionately impact certain disability groupsWithout HRISsA discriminatory impacts go undetected.

Article 19 – Living Independently and Being Included in the Community Reforms must not undermine access to support necessary for independent livingWithouTHRISA risks to independence are not assessed.

Article 28— Adequate Standard of Living and Social Protection Reformsmustnot reducessocial protection WithoutHRISA retrogressive impactsare noidentified.

Section:Non-Retrogression Principle Humanrights law prohibits retrogressivemeasures unless:

strictlynecessary proportionate justified evidenc-based non-discriminatory TheBillintroducesretrogressivemetereswithoutdemonstratingcompliancewith theserequirements.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 2243

Administrative Law Analysis

Administrative law requires:

• decision making must be lawful, rational, based on evidence,
• statutory purpose upheld. Reforms may breach this if they do any or all of following (Project Blue Sky):

Breaching Statutory Purpose

(PEKO-WALLSEND)

Ignoring Relevant Considerations

(e.g., cost containment without a right analysis)

Relying On Irrelevant Considerations

(LI; STRETTON)

Producing Legally Unreasonable Outcomes

(KIOA v WEST; SZBEL)

Violating Procedural Fairness

(Mandatory HRIAs reduce these risks.)

Increasing The Risk Of Invalid Decisions

Reforms made without rights analysis are vulnerable to challenge.

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

Submission 2243

• cost-containment override rights text cut off at ‘oveITide’ eligibility narrowed without scrutiny supports reduced without justification administrative burdens increased reforms made without human rights analysis The Bill contradicts this intent. The Royal Commission identified systematic failures in: rights protection, administrative fairness, cut-off text here, evidence handling, decision-making quality.The Commission emphasized needs including stronger oversight, rights-based governance, disability-inclusive policy development, transparent reform processes. The Bill was introduced lacking adequate human rights assessment contradicting findings of The Commission.Mandatory HRIAs are essential preventing further systemic harm.

Systemic Risk Analysis

Absence of HRIAs creates risks such as:### Increase DiscriminationReforms disproportionately impact certain disability groups..### Increase ExclusionEligibility changes may exclude people with severe and profound disabilities…### Increased DeteriorationReduced supports lead to preventable decline…

Increased Crisis

Submission 2243 ~ ~ ~ Administrative baITiers may mcrease crisis-driven service use. ~ ~ 6.5 Increased Inequality ~ ~ ~~ People with fewer resomces are dispropo1tionately haimed. ~

~ 6.6 Increased Legal Vulnerability ~ ~ Refo1ms made without rights analysis are vulnerable to challenge. ~ ~ 6. 7 Increased Emotional Distress ~ ~ Unce1tainty and instability undennine wellbeing. ~ ~~ Mandato1y HRIAs mitigate these risks. ~~ ~ 7. Detailed Reform Requirements ~ ~ To comply with human rights obligations, the NDIS must: ~ ~ 7.1 Mandate HRIAs for all legislative and policy changes ~ ~ This includes: ~ ~ • Bills ~ ~ • Rules ~ ~ • operational guidelines ~ ~ - ~~~ ~ • administrntive refo1ms ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7.2 Require HRIAs to be independent and public. ~ ~ Transparency is essential. ~ ~ 7 .3 Require HRIAs to include lived-experience evidence. ~ ~ ~~ People with disability must be central. ~

~ 7.4 Require HRIAs to assess CRPD compliance. ~ ~ This ensmes rights-consistent refo1ms. ~ ~ 7 .5 Require HRIAs to assess retrogression risks. ~ ~ Refo1ms must not reduce rights. ~ ~~ 7.6 Require HRIAs to assess discrimination risks. ~~ ~ Refo1ms must not dispropo1tionately impact ce1tain groups. ~ ~ 7.7 Require HRIAs to assess administrative law risks. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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

Submission 2243 Reforms must be lawful and rational.

Conclusion

The absence of mandatory Human Rights Impact Assessments violates:

• the CRPD
• the NDIS Act
• administrative law
• parliamentary intent human rights principles It creates:- discrimination-exclusion-deterioration-crisis-inequalitylegal vulnerabilityMandatory HRIAs are essential to ensuring that NDIS reforms are lawful, rights-consistent, and protective of the dignity and wellbeing of people with disability.

Recommendation 7Strengthen Administrative Capacity Before Implementing Any Legislative Reform to Prevent Systemic Harm, Ensure Human Rights Compliance, and Restore Lawful, Fair, and Evidence-Based Decision Making in the NDIS1. Recommendation The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) must significantly strengthen its administrative capacity, decision making capability, evidence handling systems, and human rights compliance mechanisms before any legislative reform - including those proposed in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 –are implemented.This includes:improving decision-maker trainingembedding hlllan rights and CRPD-consistent practicestrengthening clinical-evidence handling

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

Submission 2243 • reducing delays • improving transparency • ensuring procedural fairness • addressing systemic failures identified by the Royal Commission • establishing independent oversight mechanisms • ensuring adequate staffing and workload management • eliminating adversarial internal culture • ensuring trauma-informed, disability-competent practice Implementing legislative reform without strengthening administrative capacity will exacerbate existing systemic failures, increase harm, and undermine the rights of people with disability.

Human Rights Analysis

CRPD Obligations The CRPD requires States to ensure that administrative systems affecting people with disability are:

• accessible
• fair
• transparent
• rights-consistent
• non-discriminatory
• adequately resourced
• capable of delivering supports necessary for autonomy and participationThe NDIA’s current administrative capacity does not meet these obligations. Article 4 — General ObligationsStates must adopt administrative measures consistent with the CRPD.Under-resourced or poorly functioning administrative systems violate this obligation.Article 5 - Equality and Non-DiscriminationAdministrative failures disproportionately harm:people with complex disabilitiespeople with cognitive or psychosocial disabilitieypeople with limited literacypeople in rural and remote areaspeopelwithlimitedaccesstoadvocacyThis constitutes indirect discrimination.Article 12 – Equal Recognition Before the Law

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

Submission 2243 People with disability must have equal access to fair, lawful, and transparent decision-making. Current administrative failures undermine this right.

Article 19 — Living Independently and Being Included in the Community

Administrative delays and poor decisionmaking restrict access to supports necessary for independent living.

Article 22 - Respect for Privacy

Poor evidenceshandling practices violate privacy.

Article 26 – Habilitation and Rehabilitation

Delays and poor decisionmaking undermine access to therapy and capacity-building supports.

Article 28— Adequate Standard of Living and Social Protection

Administrative failures undermine access to social protection. Non-Retrogression Principle: implementing legislative reform without strengthening administrativecapacity constitutes a retrogressive measure because it:

• increasesadministrative burden
• increasesthe delay
• increasesexclusion
• increasesriskof harm
• reducesaccesstosupports Such measures are prohibited unless strictly justified—and no such justification exists.

Administrative Law Analysis

Administrativelaw requires that decisions be made as follows:

• lawfull
• rational
• fair
• transparant
• consistent
• evidence-based
• procedurallyfair The NDIA’s current administrativedecision making creates systemic risks.

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

Submission 2243

Inadequate training

Decision makers often misunderstand statutory criteria.

Overreliance on internal guidelines

This risks unlawful fettering of discretion Drake.

Failure to consider relevant evidence.(Peko-Wallsend)

Failure to provide adequate reasons.SZBEL

Legal unreasonableness*(Li; Stretton)*

####### Procedural unfairnessKioa v West ######## DelaysDelays can constitute constructive refusal or breach of statutory duty.Implementing legislative reform without addressing these failures increases legal vulnerability.

Parliamentary Intent AnalysisHansard from 2012-2013 demonstrates that Parliament intended the NDIS to be:

• Evidence-based • Participant-centred • Rights-based • Transparent • Consistent • Non adversarialParliament did not intend:administrative complexityexcessive delaysinconsistent decision makingadversarial cultureopaque evidence handlingsystemic procedural unfairnessThe Bill introduces new administrative burdens without strengthening capacity, contradicting parliamentary intent.

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

Submission 2243

Royal Commission Evidence

The Royal Commission identified systemic failures in:

• decision-making quality evidence handling procedural fairness transparency administrative burden delays adversarial conduct lack of disability competence lack of trauma-informed practice The Commission emphasised the need for: improved trainingimproved systemsimproved oversightimproved evidence handlingimproved transparencymproved fairness The Bill does not address these failures. Instead, it exacerbates them by increasing administrative burden.

Systemic Risk Analysis

Implementing legislative reform without strengthening administrative capacity creates systematic risks including:

6.1 Increased Exclusion

People unable to navigate complex processes are excluded.

6.2 Increased Deterioration

Delays and poor decisions lead to preventable decline.

6.3 Increased Crisis

Administrative failures increase crisis-driven service use.

6.4 Increased Inequality

People with fewer resources are disproportionately harmed.

6.5 Increased Emotional Distress

Administrative burden undermines wellbeing.

6.6 Increased Legal Vulnerability

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

Submission 2243

Poor decision-making increases appeals and judicial review.

Increased Systemic Harm

Administrative failures compound over time.

Detailed Reform Requirements

To comply with human rights obligations, the NDIA must:

Improving Decision Maker Training

Training must include administrative law, human rights, CRPD obligations disability competence trauma-informed practice clinical-evidence interpretation

Strengthening Evidence Handling Systems

Systems must ensure timely processing privacy protection transparency consistency ####### Reducing Delays Timeliness is a human rights obligation. ######## Increasing Transparency Participants must understand what evidence is required how decisions are made why decisions are made ############ Enhancing Procedural Fairness Participants must be given notice “reasons” opportunity to respond

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 2243

Strengthen oversight.

Independent oversight is essential (linked to Recommendation 11).

Conclusion

Implementing legislative reform without strengthening administrative capacity violates:

• The CRPD, The NDIS Act, Administrative law, Pariamentary intent, Human rights principles.It causes:
• Exclusion, deterioration, crisis, inequality, elective distress, elegal vulnerability.Administrative capacity must be strengthened before any legislative reform is implemented.

RECOMMENDATION 8 Centre Lived Experience in All NDIS Reform Processes to Ensure Human Rights Compliance Prevent Systemic Harm Restore Dignity Autonomy Authority of People With Disability # RecommendationAll legislative policy administrative operational reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme(NDIS)mustbe co-designedco-ledand cogovernedypeoplewithdisabilityincluding: -PeopleWithComplexDisabilities-PeopleWitthCognitivePsychosocialSensoryAndPhysicalDisabilitie

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

Submission 2243

• people with high support needs

persons having communication disabilities

have rare or poorly understood conditions

culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds persons from culturally diverse background persons First Nations peoples of disability person rural remote areas people living with disability. lived experience must not be treated as “consultation input” stakeholder feedback.“ It must be treated expert evidence policy authority human rights testimony.The bill was developed without meaningful co design This violates crpd contradicts parliamentary intent undermines legitimacy fairness compliance reform process lived experience must embedded every stage including: legislative drafting, policy development rules making operational guideline development administrative system oversight monitoring evaluation review

Human Rights Analysis### Crpd ObligationsThe crpd require states ensure that person have disability are central to decision involved in policy included legislative empowered shape systems affect them The bill was developed without meaning violating multiple articlesArticle General PrinciplesCrpd requires respect dignity autonomy

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

Submission 2243

• participation
• inclusion Excluding lived experience from reform processes violates these principles.

General Obligations Article 4(3)

States must closely consult with and actively involve people with disability in:

• law refo1m
• policy development administrative decision making This is a binding obligation.The Bill does not meet this standard. Article 19 — Living Independently and Being Included in the Community Reforms that affect independent living must be co-designed with those affected.

Participation in Public Life People with disability have the right to participate in public decision-making.

National Implementation and Monitoring People with disability must be involved in monitoring the implementation of the CRPD.

Non-Retrogression Principle Excluding lived experience from reform processes constitutes a retrogressive measure because it: - reduces participation •• reducess transpai·ency •• reduce accountability • increases riskof discrimination • increasesthe riskofharm Such measures are prohibited unless strictly justified-and no such justification exists. Administrative Law AnalysisAdministrativelaw requiresthat:-decisionmaking berationaland evidence-based-relevantconsiderationsbetakenintoaccount-nTelevant considerationsebe excluded

Submission • statutory purpose be upheld • procedural fairness be observed Lived experience is a relevant consideration. Excluding it increases the risk of unlawful decision making. 3. Failure to consider relevant considerations.(Peko-Wallsend) ~~ Failure in decisions inconsistent with statutory purpose (Project Blue Sky). ~~ Legal unreasonableness(Li; Stretton) ~~ Procedural unfairness(Stretton) v Increased risk of invalid decisions Reforms made without lived experience are vulnerable to challenge.Parliamentary Intent Analysis Hansard from demonstrates that Parliament intended the NDIS to be: codedesigner-centredrights-basedgroundedin lived experienceshapedby peoplewith disabilityParliament explicitly recognised:the authorityof lived experiencesshe need for participative leadershipte importance oisability-led governanceThe Bill contradicts this intent byexcludinglevedexperiencefrom reform processesproposing administrative convenience over rightsembedding cost-containment mechanismswithout participant inputThis representsa departure fromthefoundational purposescheme.Royal Commission Evidence

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

Submission 2243 The Royal Commission found that:

• Lived experience is essential to rights-based reform.
• Systems designed without lived experience cause harm.
• Administrative systems often ignore or devalue lived experience.
• People with disabilities face systemic exclusion from decision-making processes due to reforms not being co-designed with people with a disability. The Bill was developed without meaningful co-designing of these changes and contradicts findings made during this process.

Submission 2243

Policies must be co-led by people with disability. 7.3 Embed lived experience in Rules-making.Rules must not be made without disability-led oversight. 7.4 Embed lived experience in operational guidelines.Guidelines must reflect lived experience evidence. 7.5 Embed lived experience in administrative system design.Systems must be accessible, trauma-informed and disability-competent. ~~ 6 Embedded experienced in oversight and monitoring.Independent oversight bodies must include people with disability.

Conclusion

Excluding lived experience from NDIS reform processes violate: crpd, nids Act, adjudicative law, political intent of parliamentarians, human rights principles, discrimination against persons living with disabilities (PLWD), exclusionary practices that result in PLWD being denied access to services or benefits provided under the NIDIS program, decline in quality service delivery for PLWD due to lack of input into policy development process, inability to provide adequate support systems necessary for individuals who have a disability, social isolation resulting directly out of discrimination based on their status as person having an intellectual/developmental disability, extreme emotional distress caused when policies are developed which do not take account of individual needs but rather focus only upon aggregate data about groups within society, lack of systemic harm suffered by those affected because they were excluded during decision making regarding reforms related specifically towards them.

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

Submission 2243

Preserve the Insurance Based Design of the NDIS to Ensure Long Term Sustainability, Human Rights Compliance, and Protection Against Retrogressive, Cost-Containment Driven Reforms

Recommendation

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) must retain its insurance based design as established in the original NDIS Act 2013 which is grounded in:

• long-term investment
• early intervention
• prevention of deterioration
• lifetime cost-benefit modelling
• actuarial sustainability
• rights-based access to supports
• maximising independence and participation

The proposed reforms in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment ( (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 shift he Scheme away from its insurance-based foundations toward:

• cost-containment ationing restrictive eligibilityreduced supporstshort-term budgetingadministrative gatekeepingThis shift inconsistent with:• CRPD• The NDIS Actparliamentary intentactuarial principleshuman rights normsthe lived experience people disabilityThe insurance-based design preserved ensure long term sustainabilit,fairness, ands consistent access support.

Human Rights Analysis

CRPD Obligations

CRPD requires States ensuring:

Submission • access to supports necessary for autonomy and participation • non-discriminatory access to social protection • prevention of deterioration • investment in habilitation and rehabilitation • long-term support systems that promote independence Shifting the NDIS away from an insurance-based model violates multiple CRPD articles. Article 3 – General Principles: The CRPD requires respect for: autonomy, • independence, participation; cost-containment driven reforms undermine these principles; Article 4 – General Obligations: States must adopt legislative and administrative measures consistent with the CRPD.; Short-tenn cost cutting is inconsistent with this obligation; Article 5 – Equality and Non-Discrimination: Restrictive eligibility and reduced supports disproportionately impact people with complex disabilities., people with high support needs,, people with limited resources,,, people in rural and remote areas;; This constitutes indirect discrimination; Article 19 - Living Independently and Being Included in the Community: Insurance-based investments are essential to independent living;, Cost-cutting undermines this right; Article 26 - Habilitation and Rehabilitation: Insurance-based models support long term functional improvement;. Cost-cutt ing under mines rehabilit ation rights; Article 28 - Adequate Standard of Living and Social Protection: Insurance-based models ensure stable access to suppor ts. Budget-driven models undermined social protection;

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 2243

Non-Retrogression Principle

Shifting from an insurance-based model to a cost containment model constitutes a retrogressive measure because it: • reduces access to supports • increases deterioration • increases crisis • increases inequality • increases harm Such measures are prohibited unless strictly justified — and no such justification exists.

Administrative Law Analysis

Administrative law requires that: • statutory purpose be upheld • relevant considerations be taken into account • irrelevant considerations be excluded • decision making be rational and evidence-based The insurance based design is a core statutory purpose of the NDIS. Shifting away from this design risks:

Decisions inconsistent with statutory purpose (Project Blue Sky)

Reliance on irrelevant considerations(e.g., short-term budget pressures)###### Legal unreasonableness(Li; Stretton)####### Procedural unfairness(Kioa v West)######## Increased risk of invalid decisionsReforms inconsistent with statutory purpose are vulnerable to challenge.

Parliamentary Intent AnalysisHansard from 2012-2013 demonstrates that Parliament intended the NDIS to be:

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

Submission 2243

• insurance-based
• long-term
• preventative
• investment-driven
• rights-based
• protective of autonomy and independence Parliament explicitly rejected: • rationing • cost-containment models • short-term budgeting • restrictive eligibility • welfare-style gatekeeping The Bill contradicts this intent by: • embedding cost-containment mechanisms • narrowing eligibility • reducing supports • increasing administrative burden • shifting responsibility to mainstream systems This represents a fundamental departure from the original design of the Scheme.

Royal Commission Evidence

The Royal Commission found that: • The insurance-based design is essential to long term sustainability — early intervention reduces long-term costs—preventative supports reduce crisisinvestment in independence improves outcomescost-containment harms people with disabilityrationing increases deterioration and crisis.The Bill contradicts these findings by prioritising cost-containment over rights.

Systemic Risk Analysis Abandoning the insurance-based design creates systemic risks, including:[]#### Increased Deterioration Reduced supports lead to preventable decline.##### Increased Crisis People deteriorate until they require emergency intervention.###### Increased Long-Term Costs

Submission 2243

Sho1t-tenn cuts increase long-te1m expenditure.

Section 6 - Increased Inequality

People with fewer resources are disprop01tionately haimed.

Subsection 6A (Not numbered)

Reduced supports increase reliance on hospitals and state systems.

Subsubsection A (Not numbered)

Unce1tainty unde1mines wellbeing.

Subsubsubsection B (Not numbered)

Cost-containment models fail over time.

Detailed Reform Requirements (

To comply with human rights obligations, The NDIS must:

• Preserve the insurance-based design; This is essential to sustainability and rights compliance;* Remove cost-containment mechanisms from the Bill.* Cost-cutting must not oveITide rights.; Strengthen early intervention.* Early supports reduce long-te1m costs and hann.* Strengthen preventative supports.* Prevention is a human rights obligation.* Strengthen investment in independence.* Supports that increase autonomy must be prioritised.* Strengthen actuarial modelling.* Modelling must reflect long-te1m outcomes,not short-te1m budgets.** Strengthen human rights oversight.* Refo1ms must be rights-consistent.“}

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 2243

• CRPD
• NDIS Act
• Administrative Law
• Parliamentary Intent
• Human Rights Principles It causes:

• Deterioration
• Crisis
• Inequality
• Emotional distress
• Long-term cost escalation
• Systemic harm The insurance-based design must be preserved to ensure long-term sustainability, fairness, and rights-consistent access to supports.

Recommendation 10: Commission an Independent Review of NDIA Decision-Making Quality

to Ensure Human Rights Compliance, Administrative Law Integrity, and Systemic Accountability

Section A - Recommendation The Australian Government must commission a fully independent expert-led public review of the National Disability Insurance Agency’s (NDIA) decision-making quality with a mandate to examine compliance with the following areas:- NDIS Act,- administrative law,- Convention on Persons With Disabilities (CRPD),- systemic patterns of error,- evidence-handling practices,- procedural fairness,- transparency,- internal culture,- training capability,- use guidelines,- adversarial conduct,- privacy proportionality

Submission 2243

• impacts on participant wellbeing • impacts on equality and non-discrimination This review must be:

• independent of the NDIA
• independent of government departments
• chaired by experts in administrative law, disability rights, and human rights
• informed by lived experience
• empowered to compel documents and testimony
• required to publish findings and recommendations An independent review is essential to ensure that the NDIS operates lawfully, fairly, in accordance with human rights.

Human Rights Analysis

Section 1 (CRPD) Obligations

The CRPD requires States to ensure that administrative systems affecting people with disability are: fair; transparent; rights-consistent; non-discriminatory; accountable; subject to independent oversight.The NDIA’s current decision-making practices violate multiple CRPD articles.

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

Submission 2243

Article 5 — Equality and Non-Discrimination

Inconsistent or arbitrary decisions disproportionately harm:

• people with complex disabilities
• people with cognitive or psychosocial disabilities
• people with limited literacy
• people in rural and remote areas
• people with limited access to advocacy This constitutes indirect discrimination.

Article 12 – Equal Recognition Before the Law

People with disability must have equal access to fair, lawful, and transparent decision making. Current NDIA practices undermine this right.

Article 19—Living Independently and Being Included in the Community

Poor decision-making restricts access to supports necessary for independent living.

Article 22–Respect for Privacy

Invasive evidence requests violate privacy.

Article 26-Habilitation and Rehabilitation

delays and poor decisions undermine access to therapy and capacity-building supportis. title{Article} {number}-Adequate Standard of Living and Social ProtectionSystemic decision-making failures undermme access to social protection. Non-Retrogression Principle: Implementing legislative reform without addressing systemic decision-making failuresconstitutes a retrogressive measure because it:• increases administrative burden• increases exclusion• increases risk of harm• reduces access to suppo1iS• reduc3 fairness and transparencySuch measures are prohibited unless strictly justified -and no such justification exists.## Administrative Law Analysis

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

Submission 2243

Administrative law requires that decision making be:

• lawful
• rational
• fair
• transparent
• consistent
• evidence-based
• procedurally fair The NDIA’s current decision-making practices create systemic risks of unlawful decision making.

Failure to consider relevant considerations.(Peko-Wallsend)

Reliance on irrelevant considerations(e.g., internal guidelines overriding clinical evidence)

Legal unreasonableness(Li; Stretton)

Procedural unfairness(Kioa v West; SZBEL)

Decisions inconsistent with statutory purpose(Project Blue Sky)

####### Unlawful fettering of discretion(Drake) ######## Inadequate reasonsParticipants often receive decisions that do not explain:• how evidence was assessed• why evidence was disregarded• how conclusions were reachedAn independent review is essential to identify and correct these failures.

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

Submission 2243

Parliamentary Intent Analysis

Hansard from 2012–2013 demonstrates that Parliament intended the NDIS to be:

• evidence-based
• participant-centred
• rights-based
• transparent
• consistent
• non-adversarial Parliament did not intend:
• administrative complexity
• inconsistent decision making
• adversarial culture
• opaque evidence handling
• systemic procedural unfairness The Bill introduces new administrative burdens without addressing existing failures, contradicting parliamentary intent. An independent review is necessary to restore alignment with the original purpose of the Scheme.

Royal Commission Evidence

The Royal Commission identified systemic failures in NDIA decision-making, including:

• inconsistent application of criteria
• overreliance on internal guidelines
• inadequate engagement with clinical evidence
• procedural unfairness
• lack of transparency
• adversarial conduct
• excessive delays
• privacy violations
• lack of disability competence
• lack of trauma-informed practice The Commission emphasised the need for:
• improved training
• improved systems
• improved oversight
• improved evidence handling

Submission 2243

• improved transparency • improved fairness The Bill does not address these failures. Instead it exacerbates them by increasing administrative burden.An independent review is essential to implement the Royal Commission’s findings. ~~

Section 6 - Systemic Risk Analysis

Without an independent review systemic risks include:

Subsection 6.1 Improved Exclusion

People unable to navigate complex processes are excluded.

Subsection 6.2 Deterioration

Poor decisions lead to preventable decline.

Subsection 6.3 Increased Crisis

Administrative failures increase crisis-driven service use.

Subsection 6.4 Inequality

People with fewer resources are disproportionately harmed.

Subsection 6.5 Emotional Distress

Poor decision making undermines wellbeing.

Subsection 6.6 Legal Vulnerability

Unlawful decisions increase appeals and judicial reviews.

Subsection 6.7 Systemic Harm

Failures compound over time. The document concludes that ‘An independent review is essential to prevent further harm.’

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

Submission 2243

• consistency • fairness

Examining compliance areas:

Administrative Law Compliance (“Statutory purpose, relevant considerations,procedural �airness”)

Human Rights Compliance (CRPD obligations, equality and non-discrimination️privacy  dignity`)#### Internal Culture Adversarial practices risk aversion reliance on internal guidelines##### Training & Capability administrative law human rights disability competence trauma-informed practice###### Systemic Patterns Of Error Repeated evidence requests disregarding or neglecting clinical evidence inconsistency in applying criteria##### Binding Recommendations Reform measures are necessary.

Conclusion

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 2243 The NDIA’s decision-making failures violate:

• CRPD, The NDIS Act, administrative law , parlamentary intent and human rights principles. They cause exclusion deterioration crisis inequality emotional distress systematic harm.A fully independent review is essential to restore legality fairess transparency and human rights compliance.

Recommendation 11 Establish an Independent External Review and Oversight Body Separate from the NDIA to Ensure Human Rights Compliance Administrative Law Integrity Systemic Accountability

Section: Recommendation The Australian Government must establish a fully independent statutory external review oversight body structurally operationally separate from the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) with authority conduct internal reviews of decisions oversee evidence handling practices monitor compliance ndis act Convention on Persons Disabilities ensure procedural fairness audit quality investigate systemic issues issue binding recommendations publish public reports compel documents testimony enforce standards.

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

Submission 2243 This body must be:

• independent of the NDIA disability-led ights-based-transparent-empowered- adequately resourced The Bill expands NDIA discretion and administrative power without establishing corresponding oversight mechanisms. The creates a significant risk of unlawful, discriminatory, harmful decision making. an independent oversight body is essential to ensuring t hat t he NDIS operates lawfully,fairly,and in accordance w ith human rights.

Human Rights Analysis

21 CRPD Obligations The CRPD requires States to ensure that sys tems affecting people wit h disability are: • accountable• transparent• right s-consistent• subjecttoindependentmonitoring• freefromdiscrimination• protectiveof dignityandautonomy TheNDIAscurrentinternalreviewsystemdoesnotmeettheseobligation.sArticle - General Principles TheCRPDr equiresrespectfor:dignity-autonom y-independence-participationA system wheretheN DIA reviews its own decisions undermines these principles.ArticleGeneralObligationStatesmustadoptadministrativemeasuresconsistentwiththecR PD. Internal review systemsthatlack independence violate this obligation.

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

Submission 2243

Article 5 — Equality and Non-Discrimination

Internal review systems disproportionately harm:

• people with complex disabilities
• people with cognitive or psychosocial disabilities
• people with limited literacy
• people in rural and remote areas
• people with limited access to advocacy This constitutes indirect discrimination.

Article 12 – Equal Recognition Before the Law

People with disability must have equal access to fair, lawful, and transparent review processes.NDIA-controlled internal reviews undermine this right.

Article 19—Living Independently and Being Included in the Community

Unfair or unlawful decisions restrict access to supports necessary for independent living.

Article 22–Respect for Privacy

Oversight is essential to preventing privacy violations.

Article 28-Adequate Standard of Living and Social Protection

Independent oversight is essential to ensuring access to social protection. Non-Retrogression Principle: Expanding NDIA power without establishing independent oversight constitutes a retrogressive measure because it:• reduces accountability• reduces transparency• increases risk of discrimination• increases risk of harmSuch measures are prohibited unless strictly justified—and no such justification exists.Administrative Law AnalysisAdminstrative law requires that: decision making be lawful, rational, and fairstatutory purpose be upheld

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 2243

• Relevant considerations be taken into account.
• Irrelevant considerations are excluded.
• Procedural fairness must be observed and reviewed mechanisms effective. The NDIA’s current internal review system creates systemic risks for unlawful decision making.

Lack of independence:

A body cannot legally review its own decisions without structural bias.

Procedure unfairness (

cioa v West; SZBEL): Participants usually do not receive adequate notice, reasons or opportunity to respond nor access evidence,

Legal unreasonableness (Li Stretton):

Internal reviews frequently replicate errors from original decisions;

Failure in considering relevant factors: (Peko-Wallsend)

Clinical evidence often goes disregarded.,

Decisions inconsistent with statutory purpose:(Project Blue Sky)\

Internal reviews typically prioritize administrative convenience over rights.; ####### Unlawful fettering discretion:(Drake) Internal reviews rely on guidelines rather than legal criteria. An independent oversight mechanism is essential for ensuring compliance.

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

Submission 2243

Hansard from 2012-2013 demonstrates that Parliament intended the NDIS to be: • transparent • accountable • rights-based • participant-centred • non-adversarial Parliament did not intend: • opaque internal review systems • NDIA self-oversight • administrative gatekeeping • systematic procedural unfairness • unchecked discretion The Bill expands NDIA power without establishing independent oversight, contradicting parliamentary intent. An independent oversight body is necessary to restore alignment with the original purpose of the Scheme.

Royal Commission Evidence

The Royal Commission identified systemic failures in: • decision-making quality • evidence handling • procedural fairness • transparency • administrative burden • delays • adversarial conduct • privacy violations • lack of disability competence • lack of trauma-informed practice The Commission emphasised the need for:
• independent oversight\n• rights-based governance
• transparent review processes\ • disability-led monitoring\ • systemic accountability\ The Bill does not address these failures. Instead, it exacerbates them by increasing NDIA power.

Submission 2243

An independent oversight body is essential for implementing Royal Commission’s recommendations.

• Without an independent oversight, systematic risks include:
  • Increase Exclusion (People unable to challenge unlawful decisions are excluded.) * Increase Deterioration ( Poor decisions lead to preventable decline) * Increased Crisis( Administrative failures increase crisis-driven service use). * Inequality(people fewer resources disproportionately harmed). * Emotional Distress(Lack of oversight undermines trust and wellbeing) . * Legal Vulnerability(Unlawful decisions increase appeals judicial review). * Systemic Harm(Failures compound over time, increasing harm.). To comply with human rights obligations, this independent oversight body should: - Be structurally independent not part NDIA. - Have statutory authority its power embedd Legislation. - Broad Investigative Powers.

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

Submission 2243

• compelling documents
• compelling testimony
• accessing internal guidelines
• auditing decision-making systems

Conduct internal reviews

NDIA must not review its own decisions.

Monitor evidence-handling practices

Including: • privacy • proportionality • relevance • transparency

Monitor human rights compliance

Including: • CRPD obligations • equality and non-discrimination • dignity and autonomy

Publish public reports.

Transparency is essential.

Include lived experience leadership.

People with disability must be central.

Conclusion

The absence of independent oversight violates: • the CRPD • the NDIS Act • administrative law • parliamentary intent • human rights principles It causes: • exclusion • deterioration • crisis • inequality

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

Submission 2243

• emotional distress
• systemic harm A fully independent external review and oversight body is essential to restoring legality, fairness, transparency, and human rights compliance.

Recommendation 12

Require the NDIA to Represent Itself at the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), Not Through External Law Firms, and Ensure Participants Can Access Paid NDIS-Funded Support to Navigate the Review Process

1. Recommendation The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) must be required to represent itself at the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) through:

• trained non-legal NDIA officers • staff with expertise in disability administrative law, and the NDIS Act • officers trained trauma-informed practiceThe NDIA must prohibited from engaging:external legal firmsprivate legal contractorsgovernment legal servicesbarristers or counselAdditionally participants must guaranteed access paid personnel including Coordinators Psychosocial Recovery Coaches assist them throughout ART process recognizing that most cannot understand navigate correspondence without professional supportThis reform necessary to restore adversarial nature of NDIS review system ensure equality arms prevent power imbalances reduce retraumatization CRPD consistent access justice reducing costs improving transparency ensuring lawful evidence-based decision making

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

Submission 2243

Human Rights Analysis

CRPD Obligations

The CRPD requires States to ensure that people with disability have:

• equal access to justice
• non-adversarial, accessible review systems
• protection from discrimination
• protection from retraumatisation
• access to fair and transparent processes The NDIA’s use of external law firms violates multiple CRPD articles. Article General Principles adversarial legal representation undermines dignity, autonomy, and participation. Article Equality & Non-Discrimination* The NDIA’s use of lawyers creates a profound power imbalance.* Participants — many who cannot afford legal representation – face systemic disadvantage. Article Equal Recognition Before the Law Facing government-funded legal team undercuts equal access to justice. Access To Justice States must provide procedural accommodations.Allowing paid personnel assist participants is mandatory accommodation. Living Independently & Being Included in Community Unfair reviews restricts necessary supports independent living. Respect For Privacy Lawyers often request excessive or irrelevant medical records. Adequate Standard Of Living And Social Protection Adversarial reviews undermine social protections. Administrative Law Analysis Administrative law mandates: - Fairness - Transparency

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

Submission 2243 • rational • lawful • non-adversarial • consistent with statutory purpose The NDIA’s use of external law firms creates systemic risks of unlawful review processes.

Procedural unfairness

Participants face unequal access to legal expertise and evidence.

Legal unreasonableness

Adversarial conduct undermines rational decision making.

Decisions inconsistent with statutory purpose

The NDIS Act requires a supportive, non-adversarial system.

Unlawful fettering of discretion

Lawyers often rely on internal guidelines rather than statutory criteria.

Failure to consider relevant considerations.

Clinical evidence is often disregarded. ####### Increased risk of invalid decisions Adversarial processes undermine lawful decision-making.

Parliamentary Intent Analysis

Hansard from 2012–2013 demonstrates that Parliament intended the NDIS to be:

• •non-adversarial
• participant-centred
• rights-based
• accessible
• supportive transparent Parliament explicitly rejected: adversarial review processes;legalistic systems; power imbalances;welfare-style gatekeeping.The NDIA’s use of external law firms contradicts this intent.

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

Submission 2243 Requiring the NDIA to represent itself restores alignment with parliamentary purpose.

Royal Commission Evidence

The Royal Commission identified systemic failures in: • adversarial conduct • retraumatisation • power imbalances • lack of transparency • poor evidence handling • procedural unfairness Participants reported: • being cross-examined • being intimidated • being retaumatized • feeling overwhelmed • not able to challenge legal arguments • having been forced to disclose irrelevant medical information The Commission emphasised the need for: • non-adversarial review processes • trauma-informed practice • disability-competent systems • rights-based governance The NDIA’s use of external law firms contradicts these findings.

Systemic Risk Analysis Allowing the NDIA to use external law firms creates systemic risks including:

• increased inequality • increased retraumatisation • increased exclusion • increased deterioration • increased crisis • increased emotional distress • increased systematic harm Requiring the NDIA to represent itself mitigates these risks. ### Detailed Reform Requirements To comply with human rights obligations, the NDIS must:

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

Submission 2243

Prohibit the NDIA from using external law firms.

Including private fnms, government legal services, and baITisters.

Require the NDIA to appear through trained non-legal officers.

Officers must be trained in administrative law, human rights, disability competence, an trauma-info1med practice.

Require the ART to adopt an inquisitorial model.

The Tribunal must investigate, inquire, and ensure fairness.

Require transparency in all review processes.

Paiiicipants must understand what evidence is required and why.

Require human rights oversight.

Review processes must comply with the CRPD. ####### Require disability-led monitoring. People with disability must oversee review processes.

Human Rights Requirement: Participants Must Be Allowed to Have Paid NDIS-Funded Personnel Assist Them at the ART Most paiiicipants cannot understand or navigate ART coITespondence without professional suppo1i . Advocacy services ai·e booked out months in advance. Therefore, participants must be allowed to receive assistance from: • Suppori Coordinators • Psychosocial Recovery Coaches • other paid NDIS-funded disability professionals This is a CRPD Article 13 procedural accommodation and a procedural fairness requirement.​ CRPD Analysis This refonn is required under Aliicles 5, 12, 13, 19, and 28. Administrative Law Analysis Without paid support, participants cannot meet procedural fairness requirements.

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

Submission 2243

Parliamentary Intent

Parliament intended a supportive, accessible, non-adversarial system.

Royal Commission Evidence

The Commission found that participants cannot navigate legal systems alone.

Systemic Risk Analysis

Without paid support, risks include exclusion, deterioration, crisis, trauma-tisation, and inequity.

Detailed Reform Requirements

• explicitly allow Support Coordinators and Psychosocial Recovery Coaches to assist
• require the NDIA to fund Support Coordination for ART matters
• require accessible communication
• require trauma-informed, disability-competent processes

Conclusion

This reform is essential to ensuring fairness, dignity, equality, and access to justice. 9. Conclusion Allowing the NDIA to use external law firms violates:

• CRPD,
• NDIS Act,
• administrative law,
• parliamentary intent, human rights principles It causes:* inequality,* traumatisation*, exclusion, * deterioration *, crisis , emotional distress systemic harm Requiring the NDIA to represent itself -and ensuring participants can access paid NDIS-funded support at the ART-is essential to restoring fairness,dignity,and human rights compliance.

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

Submission 2243

RECOMMENDATION 13

Prohibit the NDIA From Using Lawyers Against Participants and Require All NDIA Appearances at the ART to Be Made by Trained, non-Legal NDIA Officers

1. Recommendation

The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) must be prohibited from engaging:

• external law firms
• private legal contractors
• government legal services
• barristers or counsel in any matter before the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). Instead, the NDIA must be required to appear only through trained, non-legal NDIA officers who are: • skilled in administrative law• ta·ined iu human rights a nd CRPD obligations• ta·ine d u disability competence• taine d in trauma-informed practice• capable of engaging n o-adversarial ,inquisitorial review processesThis reform is essential tu :• restoring th e no-adversarial nature ot he N DIS• ensuring equality ol arms• preventing traumatisation• reducing systemic power imbalances• ensur ing CR PD-consistent access lo justice• reduc ing costs• improving transparency• improving fairness• en suring lawful evidence-based decision making This recommendation complements Recom mendation l2 and strengthens te requirement that the NDIA mu st not weaponize leg al representation against participants.

Human Rights Analysis

C R P D Obligations

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

Submission 2243 The CRPD requires States to ensure that people with disability have:

• equal access to justice
• non-adversarial, accessible review systems
• protection from discrimination
• protection from traumatisation
• access to fair and transparent processes The NDIA’s use of lawyers violates multiple CRPD articles.

Article 3 - General Principles

Adversarial legal representation undermines dignity, autonomy, and participation.

Article 5 — Equality and Non-Discrimination

The NDIA’s use of lawyers creates a profound power imbalance. Participants – many of whom cannot afford legal representation—face systemic disadvantage.

Article 12 — Equal Recognition Before the Law

Facing a government-funded legal team undermines equal access to justice.

Article 13 − Access to Justice

States must provide procedural accommodations and ensure accessible, non-adversarial processes.

Article 19 ─ Living Independently and Being Included in the Community

Unfair review processes restrict access to supports necessary for independent living. ####### Article 22 – Respect for Privacy Lawyers often request excessive or irrelevant medical records. ######## Article 28 ├── Adequate Standard of Living and Social Protection Adversarial review processes undermine access to social protection.

#Non-Retrogression Principle

The NDIA’s use of lawyers constitutes a retrogressive measure because it:

• increases adversarilism
• increases retraumatization
• increases inequality
• reduces access to justice
• reduces fairness
• reduces transparency

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

Submission 2243 Such measures are prohibited unless strictly justified — and no such justification exists.

Administrative Law Analysis

Administrative law requires that review processes be: • fair • transparent • rational • lawful • non-adversarial • consistent with statutory purpose The NDIA’s use of external law firms creates systemic risks of unlawful review processes.

Procedural unfairness

Participants face unequal access to legal expertise and evidence.

Legal unreasonableness

Adversarial conduct undermines rational decision making.

Decisions inconsistent with statutory purpose

The NDIS Act requires a supportive, non-adversarial system.

Unlawful fettering of discretion

Lawyers often rely on internal guidelines rather than statutory criteria.

Failure to consider relevant considerations.

Clinical evidence is often disregarded.

Increased risk of invalid decisions

Adversarial processes undermine lawful decision-making. Requiring the NDIA to appear through trained non-legal officers reduces these risks.

Parliamentary Intent Analysis

Hansard from 2012–2013 demonstrates that Parliament intended the NDIS to be: •non-adversarial •participant-centred •rights-based

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

Submission 2243 • accessible • supportive • transparent Parliament explicitly rejected: • adversarial review processes • legalistic systems • power imbalances • welfare-style gatekeeping The NDIA’s use of external law firms contradicts this intent. Requiring the NDIA to represent itself restores alignment with parliamentary purpose.

Royal Commission Evidence

The Royal Commission identified systemic failures in: adversarial conduct retraumatisationpower imbalanceslack of transparencypoor evidence handlingprocedural unfairnessParticipants reported:beging cross-examinedbeing intimidatedbeging retraumatisedbeng overwhelmedbeng unable to challenge legal argumentsbeig forced to disclose irrelevant medical information The Commission emphasised the need for:nondversarial review processestrauma-informed practicedisability-competent systemsrighs-based governanceThe NDIA’s use of external law firms contradicts these findings.

Systemic Risk AnalysisAllowing the NOIA to use external law fnms creates systemic risks, including: redacted

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

Submission 2243

Increased Inequality

Participants cannot match the NDIA’s legal resources.

Increased Retraumatisation

Adversarial processes cause psychological harm.

Increased Exclusion

People unable to navigate legal processes are excluded.

Increased Deterioration

delays and stress worsen health.

Increased Crisis

Unfair decisions increase crisis-driven service use. ####### Increased Emotional Distress\nLegal confrontation undermines wellbeing. ######## Increased Systemic Harm\nadversarial culture becomes entrenched.Requiringthe NDIAto represent itself mitigates these risks to comply with human rights obligations, the NDIS must:Prohibit“the “NDIAnot using external law firms.“This includes private fums,“governmentlegal services,and barristers.Require”the “NDAItoaappear through trained non-legal officers.Officersmust betrained in:•administrativelaw•humanrights•CRPDobligations•disabilitycompetence•trauma-informedpractice•evidence handling`. RequirethearTtotaadoptaninquisitorialmodel.The Tribunal must:”,“

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

Submission 2243 • investigate • seek evidence • ensure fairness

Require transparency in all review processes.

Paiicipants must understand: • what evidence is equired • how decisions are made • why decisionsaremade

Require human rights oversight.

ReviewprocessesmustcomplywiththeCRPD.

Require disability-led monitoring.

People withdisabilitymustovertserviewprocesse.s. 8.Conclusion AllowingthenDIAtousetexternallawfirmsviolates:•thecRDPD•thesNDISActadministrative lawparliamentary intenthumanrights principlesItcauses:inequalityretraumatisationexclusiondeteriorationcrisisemotional distresssystemic harmRequiring then DIA to represent itself at the ART - through trained, non-legal officers is essential torestitoringfairness,dignity,andhumansrightsc ompliance.RECOMMENDATION14

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

Submission 2243

Strengthen Privacy Protections and Prohibit Irrelevant, Excessive, or Disproportionate Evidence Requests to Ensure Human Rights Compliance, Dignity, and Procedural Fairness

Recommendation:

• TheNational Disability Insurance Scheme(NDIS)must adopt strict statutory privacy protectionsand clear legal limits ontheevidence thenationaldisabilityinsuranceAgency(NDIA)cankrequestfromparticipants.This includes:
  • prohibiting irrelevant,eccessiveor disproportional evidencerequests.
  • prohibiting requestsfor historicalour unrelated medical records .
  • prohibitingsensitive informationnot directly relevantto functional impairment.
  • requiring all evedence requeststobenecessary , proportionate,and rights-consistent
  • requirinwritten justificationforyny additional evidence request.
  • requireingthenDIA minimise intrusion into participants’ private lives,
  • requiringtheneDia comply withCRPD,thePrivacy Act anda dministrative law.
  • reauiring trauma-informed disability competent evendce handling. * requrig thne Dia destroy irrelevantevidnce an cease unlawful collection practices. The Bill expands NDIA discretionandevidentiary powerswithout embedding corresponding privacysafeguards This creates a significant risk of humanrights violationsprivacy breachesan unalawful decision making.

Human Rights Analysis

21 CRP DObligation s: the CRPD requires States to ensure that peoplewith disabilit y are protected from:

• unnecessary intrus ion.
• discrimination.
• arbitrary interference*
• privacyviolations.* retaumatisation.TheNDIAs current and proposedevidencecollectionpracticesviolate multiple CPDR articles Article 3 - General Principles

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

Submission 2243 The CRPD requires respect for:

• dignity
• autonomy
• privacy
• integrity Excessive evidence requests undermine these principles.

Equality and Non-Discrimination

Article 5 — Equality and Non-Discrimination Excessive evidence requests disproportionately harm people with psychosocial disabilities, trauma histories, communication disabilities, cognitive disabilities, limited access to specialists in rural areas or remote locations; this constitutes indirect discrimination.

Equal Recognition Before the Law - Article 12

People with disability must have equal access to fair, lawful, transparent decision-making processes; excessive evidence requests undermine this right.

Protecting the Integrity of the Person – Article 17

Requests for invasive or irrelevant medical records violate bodily integrity, as well as psychological privacy rights protected under international law through the Convention on Rights Protection.

Respect for Privacy— Article 22

The CRPD prohibits unnecessary intrusions into personal information and medical data by government agencies such as NDIA. Current practices are found wanting here according to human rights standards set out within the convention’s framework.

Adequate Standard of Living & Social Protection– Article 28

Excessive evidentiary burdens hinder social protection services provided to individuals living with a range of impairments covered broadly across various categories including mental health disorders, physical limitations among others.

The Principle Against Retrogression (Non-Retrogressive Principle)

Increasing evidential demands and intrusive measures constitute retrograde steps because they:

• Increase administrative burden can lead to increased exclusion from support networks due to heightened scrutiny requirements imposed upon beneficiaries seeking assistance.
• Can result in retraumatization especially when dealing with sensitive issues related directly linked to trauma histories.
• Reduce dignity and autonomy which is contrary to what should be expected regarding access to necessary supports designed specifically catered towards those who require them most acutely.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 2243

Administrative Law Analysis

Administrative law requires that evidence requests be:

• relevant canonicalized as relevant prominently displayed in boldface text. to ensure clarity and emphasis, lawful described using lowercase letters for consistency within this context, rational each item is separated clearly, ensuring readability without altering original intent or structure of document content.,consistent with statutory purpose

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

Submission 2243 • non-adversarial • participant-centred • rights-based • respectful of privacy • protective of dignity Parliament explicitly rejected: • medical gatekeeping • excessive evidence burdens • repeated proof of permanence • intrusive information collection The Bill contradicts this intent by expanding NDIA evidentiary powers without embedding privacy safeguards.

Royal Commission Evidence

The Royal Commission identified systemic failures in: • evidence handling • privacy protection • trauma-informed practice • procedural fairness • transparency • administrative burden Participants reported:\n• being asked for irrelevant medical records\n• being asked for childhood records\n• being asked for psychiatric histories unrelated to functional impairment\n• being retraumatised by repeated requests\n• being forced to disclose deeply personal information The Commission emphasised the need for:\n• stronger privacy protections \n• rights-based evidence handling • traumas informed practice • proportionality • relevance The Bill does not address these failures.Instead, it exacerbates them.

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

Submission 2243

Systemic Risk Analysis

Excessive evidence requests create systemic risks, including:

Increased Exclusion

People unable to obtain specialist reports are excluded.

Increased Deterioration

Delays in evidence provision delay supports.

Increased Crisis

People deteriorate while waiting for evidence to be accepted.

Increased Inequality

People with fewer resources face greater barriers.

Increased Emotional Distress

Repeated evidence requests cause exhaustion and trauma.

Increased Privacy Violations

Requests for irrelevant medical records violate human rights.

Increased Legal Vulnerability

Unlawful evidence collection increases appeals and judicial review.

Detailed Reform Requirements

To comply with human rights obligations, the NDIS must:

Prohibit irrelevant or excessive evidence requests.

Evidence must be strictly necessary and proportionate.

Prohibit requests for historical or unrelated medical records.

Privacy must be protected.

Require written justification for any additional evidence request.

This ensures transparency and procedural fairness.

Require NDIA to minimise intrusion into participants’ private lives.

Privacy is a human right.

Require trauma-informed, disability-competent evidence handling.

Evidence processes must not retraumatise participants.

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

Submission 2243

Conclusion

Excessive, irrelevant, or intrusive evidence requests violate:

• CRPD, The NDIS Act. administrative law., parlimentary intent,, human rights principles,. They cause: exclusion,deterioration,crisis,inequality,equiality.emotional distress.privacy violations.systemic harm.The NDIS must adopt strict privacy protections and prohibit relevant or excessive evidence requests to ensure fairness.dignity,and human.rights compliance.

Recommendation 15Require.the.NDIA.to.Publish.Transparent.Data..Decision.MakingMetrics.and.Rights.-Based.Performance.Indicators.to.EnsureAccountability.Prevent.Systemic.Harm.and.Enable.Public.Oversight

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

Submission 2243 The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) must be required to publish comprehensive, rights-based, transparent data on:

• Decision-making quality
• Internal review outcomes
• ART outcomes
• Evidence-request patterns
• Delays and processing times
• Privacy breaches
• Use of internal guidelines
• Use of external contractors
• Participant demographics
• Systemic disparities
• Human rights compliance metrics This data must be:
• Public
• Disaggregated
• Rights-based
• Accessible
• Updated quarterly
• Independently audited
• Linked to CRPD obligations
• Linked to administrative law standards
• Linked to parliamentary intent The Bill expands NDIA discretion and administrative power without embedding transparency requirements. This creates a significant risk of systemic harm, discrimination, and unlawful decision making. Transparency is essential to ensuring accountability, fairness, and human rights compliance.

Human Rights Analysis

2.1 CRPD Obligations

The CRPD requires States to ensure: - Accountability - Non-discrimination - Equal access to rights

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

Submission 2243

• monitoring of systemic outcomes • public reporting on disability rights implementation The NDIA’s current lack of transparency violates multiple CRPD articles.

General Principles

Article 3 — The CRPD requires respect for:

• dignity, autonomy, participation inclusion Opaque decision-making systems undermine these principles.

Article 5 – Equality and Non-Discrimination Without disaggregated data, systematic discrimination cannot be identified or addressed.

Article 19 Living Independently and Being Included in the Community Transparency is essential to ensuring access to supports necessary for independent living.

Article 33 National Implementation and Monitoring States must establish transparent monitoring mechanisms.

Section: 2.2 Non-Retrogression Principle Lack of transparency constitutes a retrogressive measure because it reduces accountability • reduces fairness increases risk of harm Such measures are prohibited unless strictly justified -and no such justification exists.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 2243

Administrative Law Analysis

Administrative law requires:

• Decision-making must be transparent.
• Relevant factors should influence decisions, while irrelevant ones shouldn’t affect them directly or indirectly; this includes ensuring statutory purposes are upheld and procedural fairness observed; Lack of transparency creates systemic risks for unlawful decisionmaking in administrative processes.

Procedural Unfairness (Kioa v West)

The principle states participants cannot understand challenges their decisions without adequate information being provided through a process free of bias towards any party involved,

Legal Unreasonableness(Li Stretton)

Opaque systems increase risk irrationality within legal frameworks as they obscure reasoning behind certain actions taken under such conditions,

Decisions Inconsistent with Statutory Purpose(Project Blue Sky)

Pursuant to Project Blue Sky’s findings, NDIS Act mandates that all procedures followed during its implementation need maintain high levels both accountability & transparencies which ensures alignment between legislative intent & actual practice undertaken thereby reducing scope misinterpretation leading into potential misuse thereof,

Unlawful Fettering Of Discretion(Drake)

Inadequate disclosure regarding internal guidelines used by authorities can lead individuals making judgments based on assumptions rather than facts thus undermining legitimacy inherent therein,

Failure To Consider RelevanT ConSiderations(Peko-Wallsend)

Opaqueness surrounding operational details often results from lack sufficient oversight resulting poor quality control measures implemented over time hence increasing likelihood occurrence errors or mistakes Transparency is essential ensuring lawful decision-making.## Parliamentary Intent AnalysisHansard records 2013-2014 demonstrate Parliament intended the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS):

• Transparent;
• Accountable;* Participant-centred;

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

Submission 2243

• opaque decision-making systems
• hidden criteria
• secret guidelines
• unreviewable administrative power The Bill expands NDIA power without embedding transparency requirements, contradicting parliamentary intent. Transparency is essential to restoring alignment with the original purpose of the scheme.

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

Submission 2243 Without disaggregated data, systemic bias cannot be identified.

Increased Exclusion

Opaque systems disproportionately harm people with complex disabilities.

Increased Deterioration

Participants cannot challenge unfair decisions.

Increased Crisis

Lack of transparency increases crisis-driven service use.

Increased Inequality

People with fewer resources are disproportionately harmed.

Increased Emotional Distress

Uncertainty undermines wellbeing. ####### Increased Legal Vulnerability Opaque systems increase appeals and judicial review. Transparency is essential to preventing systemic harm.

Detailed Reform Requirements

To comply with human rights obligations, the NDIS must:

• Publish disaggregated decision-making data:
  • disability type,
  • age,
  • gender,
  • location,
  • cultural background,
  • support needs.

Publish internal review and ART outcome data: * overturn rates, * reasons for overturn* * terms of error.*

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

Submission 2243

Publish evidence-request patterns.

• frequency type,relevance,proportionality

Publish privacy breach data.

number_of_breaches,type_of_breach,corrective_action

Publish human rights compliance metrics.

CRPD_alignment,equality_and_non_discrimination_procedural_fairness_indicators

Require independent auditing.

audits_must_be_public

Require disability-led oversight.

person_with_disability_must_oversee_transparency_systems 8. Conclusion lack_of_transparency_violates: The_CRPD,the_NDIS_Act_administrative_law_parliamentary_intent_human_rights_principles,discrimination_exclusion_deterioration_crisis

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

Submission 2243 • inequality • emotional distress • systemic harm The NDIS must adopt strict transparency requirements to ensure fairness, accountability, and human rights compliance.

Recommendation 16 Create a Unified Rights-Based Reform Framework That Integrates All Recommendations into a Coherent Legally Enforceable CRPD-Aligned NDIS Governance Model### RecommendationThe Australian Government must adopt a unified right-based reform frameworkthat integratesall preceding recommendationsintoasingle coherent legally enforceable governance modelfortheNationalDisabilityInsuranceScheme(NDIS).Thisframeworkmust:

• embedCRPDObligationsdirectlyintotheNDISAAct
• constrainNDIAdiscretion
• limitRules-makingpowers
• mandateHumanRightsImpactAssessments
• strengthenadministrativecapacity
• centre lived experience
• preserveinsurancebaseddesign
• establishindependentoversight
• prohibitadversarial NDIAconductatART
• guaranteeaccess topaidsupport atthearT
• strengenthprivacyprotections
• mandatenbsp;transparencyandpublicreporting
• ensures allreformsareco-designedwithpeople withdisability Thisunifiedframeworke mustbelegislatedenforcable,andbindingon: • theNDAIa • themInister • thenDeparment • th e ART • al lcontractors • al lserviceproviders TheBill asdrafted introducesfragmented reforms thatexpandNDIApowerwithout embeddingcorresponding rights protections.

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

Submission 2243

Human Rights Analysis

CRPD Obligations

The CRPD requires States to adopt comprehensive, coordinated, rights-based frameworks for disability governance. Fragmented reforms violate this obligation.

Article 4 — General Obligations

States must adopt legislative and administrative measures consistent with the CRPD. A unified framework is required to ensure compliance.

Article 5 – Equality and Non-Discrimination

Fragmented reforms create inconsistent protections and systemic discrimination.

Article 12— Equal Recognition Before the Law

Rights must be embedded in law, not policy.

Article 19– Living Independently and Being Included in the Community

Supports must be stable, predictable, and rights-based.

Article 33 -National Implementation and Monitoring

States must establish coordinated monitoring frameworks.

Non-Retrogression Principle

Fragmented reforms that expand administrative power without embedding rights protection constitute retrogressive measures. A unified framework is required to prevent retrogression.

Administrative Law Analysis

Administrative law requires:

• coherence,
• consistency,
• rationality,
• transparency,
• fairness,
• lawful exercise of power Fragmented reforms increase the risk of:

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

Submission 2243

• inconsistent decision making
• unlawful discretion
• procedural unfairness
• legal unreasonableness
• decisions inconsistent with statutory purpose A unified framework reduces these risks.

Parliamentary Intent Analysis

Hansard from 2012–2013 demonstrates that Parliament intended the NDIS to be: • rights-based • participant-centred • transparent • consistent • non-adversarial • insurance-based Parliament did not intend: • fragmented reforms • unchecked discretion • opaque systems • adversarial processes • privacy intrusions • cost-containment models A unified framework restores alignment with parliamentary intent.

Royal Commission Evidence

The Royal Commission found that:
• systemic failures are interconnected
• reforms must be comprehensive\ \ •rightsmustbeembeddedinlaw\· oversight must be independent · administrative systemsmustbestrengthened·· lived experience must bencentral·privacy mustbeprotected·adversarialismmustbee l iminated TheBilldoes not implementthesefmdings. Aunifiedframework is requiredtodoso.

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

Submission 2243

Systemic Risk Analysis

Fragmented reforms create systemic risks including:

Increased Inconsistency

different reforms operate independently.

Increased Discrimination\nlack of coherence results in unequal outcomes.

Increased Administrative Burden\nparticipants navigate multiple systems to access services and supports.

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

Submission 2243

Strengthened Administrative Capacity

Training, systems, and culture must be reform.

Lived Experience Leadership

People with disability must co-design all reforms.

Preservation of the Insurance-Based Design

Long-term investment must guide the Scheme.

Independent Oversight

Oversight must be external, empowered, and disability-led.

Prohibition on NDIA Legal Representation

The NDIA must appear through trained non-legal officers. ####### Guaranteed Access to Paid Support at the ART Support Coordinators and Recovery Coaches must be funded. ######## Strengthened Privacy Protections Evidence requests must be necessary, proportionate, and rights-consistent. ######### Mandatory Transparency and Public Reporting Data must be disaggregated, public, and independently audited. 8. Conclusion A unified, rights-based reform framework is essential to ensuring that the NDIS: • complies with CRPD, • complies with administrative law, • aligns with parliamentary intent, • implements Royal Commission findings, • protects dignity, autonomy, and independence, • prevents systemic harm, • ensures fairness, transparency, and accountability. Fragmented reforms cannot achieve these outcomes only a unified legally enforceable right based framework can.

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

Submission 2243

Conclusion

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) stands at a critical turning point. The reforms proposed in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 represent the most significant restructuring of the Scheme since it was created Yet the Bill as drafted risks: • undermining the rights of people with disability • expanding executive and administrative power without safeguards • weakening parliamentary oversight • increasing discrimination • increasing administrative burden • increasing retraumatisation • increasing exclusion • increasing crisis • increasing systemic harm The NDIS was created as an insurance-based participant-centred non-adversarial system grounded on CRPD.The Bill departs from this foundation.This submission has outlined comprehensive legally-grounded human-rights-aligned reform framework that restores to its original purpose ensures long-term sustainability fairness integrity.

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

Submission 2243 This increases systemic risk and reduces public trust.

Summary of Key Recommendations

The submission proposes a unified, rights-based reform framework that includes:

Embedding CRPD obligations directly into the NDIS Act Rights must be statutory, not discretionary.

Limiting Rules-making powers Core entitlements must remain in primary legislation.

Mandating Human Rights Impact Assessments All reforms must be assessed for CRPD compliance.

Strengthening administrative capacity before reform The NDIA must be capable of lawful, fair, evidence-based decision making.

Centring lived experience in all reform processes People with disability must co-design all reforms.

Preserving the insurance-based design Long-term investment must guide the Scheme.

Establishing independent oversight Oversight must be external, empowered, and disability-led.

Prohibiting NDIA legal representation at the ART The NDIA must appear through trained non-legal officers.

Guaranteeing access to paid NDIS-funded support at the ART Support Coordinators and Recovery Coaches must be funded to assist participants.

Strengthening privacy protections Evidence requests must be necessary, proportionate, and rights-consistent.

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

Submission 2243

Mandating transparency and public reporting

Data must be disaggregated, public, and independently audited.

Creating a unified., rights-based reform framework.

Fragmented reforms must be replaced with a coherent governance model.

Human Rights Imperative

The CRPD is not optional.Itis binding international law.Australia has legal obligations:

• prevent discrimination
• prevent retrogression
• ensure access to justice
• ensure transparency
• ensure accountability
• ensure dignity and autonomy
• ensure equal recognition before the law
• ensure independent living
• ensure participation in decision making The Bill, as drafted, does not meet these obligations.The recommendations in this submission provide a clear, legally grounded pathway to compliance.

Administrative Law Imperative

Administrative law requires: - lawful exercise of power ational decision makings procedural fairnesstransparencyconsistencyadherence to statutory purposeThe Bill increases the risk of administrative law breaches The recommendations in this submission restore legality and fairness. Parliamentary Intent Imperative

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

Submission 2243 The NDIS was created to:

• empower people with disability
• provide stable, predictable supports
• reduce crisis
• reduce inequality
• support independence
• upholding dignity
• protect rights The Bill departs from this intent. The recommendations in this submission restore alignment with the original vision of the Scheme.

Section 7 - Royal Commission Imperative

The Royal Commission found:

• systematic failures
• discrimination
• retraumatisation
• adversarial conduct
• privacy violations
• lack of transparency
• lack of oversight
• lack of disability competence The Bill does not implement these findings.The recommendations in this submission do.

Final Statement The NDIS is not merely a program.It is a human rights commitment,a social contract,and a promise made by Parliamenttopeoplewithdisability.Thatpromisemustbehonoured.Therecommendationsinthissubmissionprovideaclear,coherentlegallyenforceablepathwaytorestoretherightsofpeopleshewithdisabilitystrengthentheintegrityoftheschemeensurelong-term sustainabilitypreventsystemicharmupholdAustralia’shumanrightsobligationsandhonortheadoriginalvisionofthenNDIS.

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

Submission 2243 The NDIS must remain a rights-based, participant-centred, insurance-based, transparent, accountable, disability-led system — not a cost-containment mechanism. The future of the Scheme depends on it.The dignity, safety, and independence of people with disability depend on it.Australia’s human rights obligations depend on it.This is the moment to choose a rights-based future.