The Line We Hold (Participant experience)

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD

Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the

NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submitted by:

Nicole Moran

Tasmania, Australia

Disabled person, parent, advocate, and community member

Date of Submission:

29th May 2026

Contact:

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

DEDICATION AND STATEMENT ON EXCLUSION…………………………………………………………. 11

ABOUT THE AUTHOR………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12 Lived Experience as an NDIS Participant and the parent of a participant…………………………………… 13 METHODOLOGY / EVIDENCE BASE………………………………………………………………………………………….15 Use of Assistive Technology (Microsoft Copilot)………………………………………………………………………..15 Limitations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………………………………………….. 17

1. Access & Eligibility…………………………………………………………………………………………….17

2. Continuity of Supports & Foundational Supports………………………………………………..17

3. Rights, Safeguards & Accountability…………………………………………………………………..17

4. Children & Families…………………………………………………………………………………………… 17

5. Governance & Legislative Alignment…………………………………………………………………. 18 Closing Statement………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18 Bill at a Glance — Key Risks……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19

6. Narrowing Access to the NDIS……………………………………………………………………………………………19

7. Expansion of Ministerial Powers Without Safeguards…………………………………………………………….19

8. Premature Transitions to Foundational Supports…………………………………………………………………..19

9. Cost‑Shifting to State and Territory Systems…………………………………………………………………………19

10. Reduced Choice, Control, and Procedural Fairness……………………………………………………………… 19

11. Weakening of Transparency and Accountability…………………………………………………………………… 20

12. Misalignment with the UNCRPD………………………………………………………………………………………….20

13. Disproportionate Harm to First Nations People……………………………………………………………………..20 Overall Assessment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………20 Bill at a Glance — Key Amendments………………………………………………………………………………………… 21

14. Amend Access Provisions………………………………………………………………………………………………….21

15. Limit Ministerial Rule‑Making Powers…………………………………………………………………………………..21

16. Guarantee Continuity of Supports………………………………………………………………………………………. 21

17. Strengthen Foundational Supports………………………………………………………………………………………21

18. Prevent Cost‑Shifting…………………………………………………………………………………………………………22

19. Protect Choice, Control, and Procedural Fairness………………………………………………………………… 22

20. Strengthen Transparency and Accountability………………………………………………………………………..22

21. Ensure UNCRPD Alignment……………………………………………………………………………………………….22 Overall Amendment Objective………………………………………………………………………………………………..23 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………………….24 Critical Priorities (Non‑Negotiable Minimums)…………………………………………………………….. 24 Summary of All Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………… 25

22. Access & Eligibility………………………………………………………………………………………….25

23. Continuity of Supports & Foundational Supports…………………………………………………25

24. Rights, Safeguards & Accountability………………………………………………………………….25 Nicole Moran​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

4. Children & Families…………………………………………………………………………………………25
5. Governance & Legislative Alignment…………………………………………………………………25 Conclusion of the Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………….25 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY………………………………………………………………………………………. 26

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY…………………………………………… 27

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF LANGUAGE, LIVED EXPERIENCE, COMMUNITY LABOUR,

AND HARM………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 28 How to Read This Submission…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 29 Response to Terms of Reference……………………………………………………………………………………………… 30

1. Impact of the new access and eligibility provisions……………………………………………………………….. 30
2. Expansion of Ministerial rule‑making powers……………………………………………………………………….. 30
3. Transition to Foundational Supports…………………………………………………………………………………….30
4. Risk of cost‑shifting to other systems…………………………………………………………………………………..30
5. Impact on participant rights, autonomy, and procedural fairness…………………………………………….. 31
6. Alignment with the UNCRPD………………………………………………………………………………………………31
7. Impacts on children and families………………………………………………………………………………………… 31
8. Impacts on First Nations people………………………………………………………………………………………….31
9. Legal, administrative, and constitutional risks………………………………………………………………………. 31
10. Economic and social implications………………………………………………………………………………………31
11. Any other relevant matters………………………………………………………………………………………………..32

PART 1 — OVERVIEW OF THE BILL AND KEY CONCERNS…………………………………………. 33

1. New Access Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
2. Expansion of Ministerial Rule‑Making Powers………………………………………………………….33
3. Transition to Foundational Supports……………………………………………………………………….33
4. Risk of Cost‑Shifting……………………………………………………………………………………………. 34
5. Weakening of Choice and Control…………………………………………………………………………. 34
6. Lack of Transparency and Accountability……………………………………………………………….. 34
7. Impacts on Children and Families…………………………………………………………………………. 34
8. Misalignment with the UNCRPD…………………………………………………………………………….34

PART 2 — DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE BILL (SECTION‑BY‑SECTION)………………………. 36

Division 1 — Amendments to Access and Eligibility…………………………………………………….36

1. Introduction of “Functional Capacity” as a Statutory Concept……………………………………. 36 Key concerns……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 36 Aligned Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………………36

2. Requirement to Consider “All Appropriate Treatment”……………………………………………….36 Key concerns……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 36 Aligned Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………………37

3. Requirement to Consider Other Service Systems…………………………………………………….37 Key concerns……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37 Aligned Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………………37 Division 2 — Ministerial Rule‑Making Powers………………………………………………………… 37

4. Expansion of Ministerial Powers to Determine Supports……………………………………………37 Nicole Moran​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 3

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Key concerns……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37 Aligned Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………………37 Division 3 — Planning and Reassessment…………………………………………………………….. 38

5. Introduction of Plan End Dates………………………………………………………………………………38 Key concerns……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 38 Aligned Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………………38

6. Reduced Ability to Request Plan Variations……………………………………………………………. 38 Key concerns……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 38 Aligned Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………………38 Division 4 — Foundational Supports………………………………………………………………………38

7. Enabling Transitions Out of the NDIS……………………………………………………………………..38 Key concerns……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 38 Aligned Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………….39 Division 5 — Transparency, Data, and Accountability…………………………………………….. 39

8. Absence of New Transparency Requirements………………………………………………………… 39 Key concerns……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39 Aligned Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………………39 Division 6 — Alignment with the UNCRPD………………………………………………………………39

9. Inconsistencies with Human Rights Obligations……………………………………………………….39 Key concerns……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39 Aligned Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………………40 Conclusion of Part 2………………………………………………………………………………………………40

PART 3 — CRITICAL PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………… 41

Critical Priority Recommendation 1………………………………………………………………………..41

Recommendation 3 — Guarantee No Participant Is Made Worse Off………………………..41

Critical Priority Recommendation 2………………………………………………………………………..41 Recommendation 1 — Amend New Access Provisions………………………………………….. 41 Critical Priority Recommendation 3………………………………………………………………………..41 Recommendation 2 — Limit Ministerial Rule‑Making Powers………………………………….. 41 Critical Priority Recommendation 4………………………………………………………………………..42 Recommendation 4 — Strengthen Foundational Supports……………………………………… 42 Critical Priority Recommendation 5………………………………………………………………………..42 Recommendation 6 — Protect Choice and Control…………………………………………………42 Conclusion of Part 3………………………………………………………………………………………………42

PART 4 — DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………………………………43

Recommendation 1 — Amend New Access Provisions………………………………………….. 43 Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43 Risks……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43 Required Amendments………………………………………………………………………………………. 43 Expected Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43

Recommendation 2 — Limit Ministerial Rule‑Making Powers…………………………………..43

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      4

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43 Risks……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44 Required Amendments………………………………………………………………………………………. 44 Expected Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44

Recommendation 3 — Guarantee No Participant Is Made Worse Off………………………..44

Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44 Risks……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44 Required Amendments………………………………………………………………………………………. 44 Expected Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44

Recommendation 4 — Strengthen Foundational Supports………………………………………45

Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45 Risks……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45 Required Amendments………………………………………………………………………………………. 45 Expected Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45 Recommendation 5 — Prevent Cost‑Shifting…………………………………………………………. 45 Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45 Risks……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45 Required Amendments………………………………………………………………………………………. 46 Expected Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46 Recommendation 6 — Protect Choice and Control………………………………………………… 46 Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46 Risks……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46 Required Amendments………………………………………………………………………………………. 46 Expected Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46 Recommendation 7 — Require Transparency and Data Release…………………………….. 46 Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46 Risks……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47 Required Amendments………………………………………………………………………………………. 47 Expected Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47 Recommendation 8 — Strengthen UNCRPD Alignment………………………………………….. 47 Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47 Risks……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47 Required Amendments………………………………………………………………………………………. 47 Expected Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47

PART 5 — LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS REQUIRED (DRAFTING‑READY TEXT)……………48

Amendment 1 — Remove “All Appropriate Treatment” Requirement……………………….48 Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 48 Proposed Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………….. 48 Drafting‑Ready Text…………………………………………………………………………………………… 48 Amendment 2 — Remove or Amend Statutory Definition of Functional Capacity……..48 Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 48

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      5

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Proposed Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………….. 48 Drafting‑Ready Text…………………………………………………………………………………………… 49

Amendment 3 — Limit Ministerial Rule‑Making Powers…………………………………………..49

Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49 Proposed Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………….. 49 Drafting‑Ready Text…………………………………………………………………………………………… 49

Amendment 4 — Insert Continuity‑of‑Supports Provision……………………………………….49

Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49 Proposed Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………….. 49 Drafting‑Ready Text…………………………………………………………………………………………… 49 Amendment 5 — Define and Safeguard Foundational Supports……………………………… 50 Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 50 Proposed Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………….. 50 Drafting‑Ready Text…………………………………………………………………………………………… 50 Amendment 6 — Prevent Cost‑Shifting to Other Systems…………………………………………….50 Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 50 Proposed Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………….. 50 Drafting‑Ready Text…………………………………………………………………………………………… 50

Amendment 7 — Restore Participant‑Initiated Reassessments and Remove Mandatory

Plan End Dates………………………………………………………………………………………………………50 Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 51 Proposed Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………….. 51 Drafting‑Ready Text…………………………………………………………………………………………… 51 Amendment 8 — Mandate Transparency and Data Release……………………………………..51 Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 51 Proposed Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………….. 51 Drafting‑Ready Text…………………………………………………………………………………………… 51 Amendment 9 — Strengthen UNCRPD Alignment………………………………………………….. 51 Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 51 Proposed Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………….. 51 Drafting‑Ready Text…………………………………………………………………………………………… 52 Conclusion of Part 5………………………………………………………………………………………………52

PART 6 — COMMUNITY IMPACT ANALYSIS (EVIDENCE FROM LIVED EXPERIENCE AND

HARM DATA)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 53

1. Increased Exclusion From the NDIS……………………………………………………………………53 First Nations Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………53 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….53

2. Loss of Essential Supports During Transitions……………………………………………………53 First Nations Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………54 Relevant Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..54

3. Increased Administrative Harm…………………………………………………………………………..54 Nicole Moran​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 6

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

First Nations Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………55 Relevant Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..55

4. Cost‑Shifting and Systemic Abandonment………………………………………………………….55 First Nations Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………55 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….55

5. Lack of Transparency and Accountability……………………………………………………………56 First Nations Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………56 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….56

6. Regression of Disability Rights…………………………………………………………………………..56 First Nations Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………56 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….57 Conclusion of Part 6………………………………………………………………………………………………57

PART 7 — ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS…………………………58

1. Economic Implications……………………………………………………………………………………….58 1.1 Increased downstream costs to state and territory systems……………………………………..58 Relevant Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..58 1.2 Increased long‑term fiscal pressure………………………………………………………………………58 Relevant Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..59 1.3 Economic impacts on families and carers…………………………………………………………….. 59

2. Social Implications……………………………………………………………………………………………. 59 2.1 Increased inequality and social exclusion………………………………………………………………59 Relevant Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………..60 2.2 Increased risk of institutionalisation and restrictive practices…………………………………… 60 2.3 Impacts on children and young people………………………………………………………………….60

3. Human Rights Implications……………………………………………………………………………….. 60 3.1 UNCRPD non‑compliance………………………………………………………………………………….. 60 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….61 3.2 Disproportionate harm to First Nations people………………………………………………………. 61 Relevant Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..61 3.3 Reduced autonomy and self‑determination…………………………………………………………… 61 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….61 Conclusion of Part 7………………………………………………………………………………………………61

PART 8 — LEGAL RISKS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW VULNERABILITIES…………………… 63

1. Administrative Law Vulnerabilities…………………………………………………………………….. 63 1.1 Excessive and unconstrained Ministerial discretion……………………………………………….. 63 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….63 1.2 Procedural fairness risks……………………………………………………………………………………. 63 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….64 1.3 Risk of unlawful “constructive refusal”………………………………………………………………….. 64 1.4 Inconsistent decision‑making and lack of reasons…………………………………………………. 64 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….64

   Nicole Moran​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 7

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

2. Statutory Interpretation Risks……………………………………………………………………………. 65 2.1 Conflict with the NDIS Act’s objects and principles………………………………………………… 65 Relevant Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..65 2.2 Ambiguity in the definition of “functional capacity”…………………………………………………..65 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….65

3. Constitutional and Federalism Risks…………………………………………………………………..65 3.1 Cost‑shifting and cooperative federalism breakdown……………………………………………… 65 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….66 3.2 Potential inconsistency with anti‑discrimination law……………………………………………….. 66

4. Human Rights Law Risks……………………………………………………………………………………66 4.1 UNCRPD non‑compliance………………………………………………………………………………….. 66 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….66 4.2 Disproportionate harm to First Nations people………………………………………………………. 66

5. Litigation and Review Risks………………………………………………………………………………. 67 Conclusion of Part 8………………………………………………………………………………………………67

PART 9 — SAFEGUARDS, OVERSIGHT, AND ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS………….. 68

1. Safeguards for Access and Eligibility………………………………………………………………… 68 1.1 Remove coercive treatment requirements……………………………………………………………..68 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….68 1.2 Clarify and broaden the definition of functional capacity…………………………………………. 68

2. Safeguards for Ministerial Powers and Rule‑Making…………………………………………… 68 2.1 Parliamentary oversight of rules………………………………………………………………………….. 68 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….69 2.2 Mandatory consultation with Disabled people……………………………………………………….. 69

3. Safeguards for Continuity of Supports………………………………………………………………. 69 3.1 No participant worse off……………………………………………………………………………………… 69 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….69 3.2 Mandatory transition safeguards…………………………………………………………………………. 69

4. Safeguards for Foundational Supports………………………………………………………………. 69 4.1 Legislative definition and minimum standards………………………………………………………..69 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….70 4.2 Independent quality and safety oversight……………………………………………………………… 70

5. Safeguards Against Cost‑Shifting……………………………………………………………………….70 5.1 Evidence‑based refusal criteria…………………………………………………………………………… 70 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….70 5.2 Intergovernmental accountability………………………………………………………………………….70

6. Safeguards for Choice, Control, and Procedural Fairness……………………………………70 6.1 Restore participant‑initiated reassessments…………………………………………………………..71 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….71 6.2 Remove mandatory plan end dates………………………………………………………………………71 6.3 Strengthen rights to reasons and review………………………………………………………………. 71

   Nicole Moran​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 8

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

7. Safeguards for Transparency and Accountability………………………………………………..71 7.1 Mandatory public reporting…………………………………………………………………………………. 71 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….71 7.2 Release of de‑identified administrative data…………………………………………………………..72

8. Safeguards for Human Rights Compliance………………………………………………………….72 8.1 UNCRPD‑alignment clause………………………………………………………………………………… 72 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….72 8.2 First Nations‑specific safeguards………………………………………………………………………….72 Conclusion of Part 9………………………………………………………………………………………………72

PART 10 — IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP AND TRANSITION PLAN……………………………..73

1. Guiding Principles for Implementation………………………………………………………………..73

2. Stage One — Legislative Amendments and Rule Redrafting………………………………..73 2.1 Amend the Bill in line with Recommendations 1–8………………………………………………….73 Relevant Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..73 2.2 Redraft rules with mandatory consultation……………………………………………………………..73

3. Stage Two — System Readiness and Infrastructure Development………………………. 74 3.1 Build Foundational Supports before any transition………………………………………………….74 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….74 3.2 Workforce development………………………………………………………………………………………74 3.3 Data and reporting infrastructure………………………………………………………………………….74 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….74

4. Stage Three — Participant‑Centred Transition Processes…………………………………… 75 4.1 Individual transition planning………………………………………………………………………………. 75 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….75 4.2 Voluntary, staged transitions………………………………………………………………………………..75 4.3 Maintain full review rights…………………………………………………………………………………… 75 Relevant Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………….75

5. Stage Four — Oversight, Monitoring, and Evaluation…………………………………………. 75 5.1 Independent oversight……………………………………………………………………………………….. 75 5.2 Continuous evaluation……………………………………………………………………………………….. 76 5.3 Parliamentary reporting……………………………………………………………………………………… 76

6. Stage Five — Long‑Term System Stabilisation…………………………………………………….76 6.1 Legislative review after two years…………………………………………………………………………76 6.2 Ongoing co‑design governance……………………………………………………………………………77 Conclusion of Part 10…………………………………………………………………………………………….77

PART 11 — CONCLUSION AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………. 78

1. Summary of Required Amendments…………………………………………………………………………………… 78 1.1 Amend access provisions…………………………………………………………………………………………………78 1.2 Limit Ministerial rule‑making powers…………………………………………………………………………………. 79 1.3 Guarantee continuity of supports……………………………………………………………………………………….79 1.4 Strengthen Foundational Supports…………………………………………………………………………………….79

   Nicole Moran​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 9

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

1.5 Prevent cost‑shifting………………………………………………………………………………………………………..79 1.6 Protect choice, control, and procedural fairness…………………………………………………………………. 79 1.7 Strengthen transparency and accountability………………………………………………………………………. 80 1.8 Ensure UNCRPD alignment…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 80

2. Why These Amendments Are Necessary……………………………………………………………………………..80
3. The Path Forward……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..80
4. Final Statement……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 81

PART 12 — FORMAL STATEMENT OF SUPPORT AND DECLARATION………………………….82

1. Basis of the Submission……………………………………………………………………………………. 82

2. Representativeness and Consultation……………………………………………………………….. 82

3. Commitment to Co‑Design and Rights‑Based Reform………………………………………… 82

4. Declaration……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 83

5. Closing Statement…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 83 REFERENCE LIST……………………………………………………………………………………………………….84 Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools……………………………………………………………………………………………. 86

   Nicole Moran​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 10

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

DEDICATION AND STATEMENT ON EXCLUSION

This submission is dedicated to my community — to the Disabled people, families, carers, advocates, and organisers who hold the line every day, often without recognition, resourcing, or safety. We hold one another through systems that were not built for us, and we continue to show up even when the doors are closed, the timelines are inaccessible, and the risks are real.

I want to acknowledge the many Disabled people who have been unable to participate in this inquiry because the process itself has been inaccessible. The short submission timeframe, the lack of accessible formats, the absence of community‑centred consultation, and the failure to provide adequate notice or support have all contributed to the exclusion of voices that should have been central to this process.

These are not individual oversights.

They are systemic design choices that silence the very people whose rights and futures are being legislated.

The very voices that must be centred and heard.

Many in my community — including those who require substantial support, those in crisis, those in regional and remote areas, those without digital access, those caring for Disabled children, and those already harmed by recent NDIS changes — have been effectively shut out of this inquiry. This also includes people who do not have the privilege of access to the same technology, education, or digital literacy that I have, and those who simply have not had enough time to organise the supports they would need in order to make a submission at all.

Their experiences, fears, and expertise are no less real for being unheard.

I carry their voices with me in this submission.

I honour their stories, their labour, and their refusal to be erased.

And I dedicate this work to the lines we hold together — the lines of dignity, safety, autonomy, and community care that have always sustained us when systems have not.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      11

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

I am Disabled, Tasmanian, and a single parent of a Disabled child. I grew up in Burnie on the North‑West Coast — a region long recognised as a service desert — and I now live, study, parent, and advocate on Muwinina Country. My lived experience spans both the pre‑NDIS state systems and the contemporary NDIS environment, giving me a clear understanding of what the Scheme replaced and what is at risk of returning.

I hold roles within the Regional Autistic Engagement Network, the Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association, and the Nobody Worse Off Coalition, where I co‑lead the Harm Tracker project documenting the real‑time impacts of NDIS reforms on Disabled children and families. I am also a scholarship student in the Bachelor of Disability and Community Inclusion at Flinders University, studying within an allied‑health and rights‑based framework.

My advocacy is grounded in lived experience, academic study, community accountability, and deep engagement with Disabled communities across Tasmania and Australia. I work from the principle that Disabled people must be centred in decisions that affect our lives. This submission is made in my private capacity.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      12

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Lived Experience as an NDIS Participant and the parent of a participant

My lived experience as both a Disabled person and the parent of a Disabled child is central to this submission. I have navigated significant life challenges, including gender‑based violence and major life transitions, while maintaining stability, safety, and continuity of care for my son. The NDIS has strengthened our wellbeing and supported us to manage these transitions in a planned, safe, and effective way. These supports enhance my capacity — they do not replace it.

Between us, we access occupational therapy, physiotherapy (including in‑rooms sessions, gym‑based programs, and hydrotherapy), capacity‑building supports, and community access. These supports assist us to participate confidently in everyday activities such as attending supermarkets, chemists, medical appointments, and community events. Community access funding covers the support worker’s time only; the cost of attending activities remains my responsibility. We also receive respite, which acknowledges the natural complexity of our household and supports healthy family functioning. These supports complement my parenting and strengthen my ability to meet my son’s needs.

We have also accessed limited assistive technology through the Scheme, including an iPad during COVID and noise‑cancelling headphones that make community participation possible. Most other assistive technology — such as my walking stick, my own iPad, wrist sleeves, and strapping tape — I have funded myself. Even with these gaps, the supports we do receive have been life‑changing.

NDIS supports have played an important role in helping me navigate major life changes, including recovering from significant surgery and moving house. These were periods that required careful planning and continuity of routine. The supports I received ensured that these transitions were managed smoothly and that my son’s needs were consistently met. Without appropriate supports, these events would have been more disruptive and placed greater pressure on our household — not because of any lack of capacity on my part, but because major life changes are inherently demanding, and the NDIS provides the scaffolding that allows Disabled people to manage them with stability and dignity.

While the supports we receive have been transformative, they are not currently sufficient to meet the level of need identified by treating professionals. For example, I currently receive 10 hours of physiotherapy per year, despite significantly higher recommendations from qualified clinicians based on their professional expertise. To maintain my health and functioning, I have had to pay for additional physiotherapy out of pocket. This has a substantial financial impact on me as a single parent and demonstrates a broader systemic issue: professional recommendations grounded in evidence‑based best practice are being overlooked or minimised in planning decisions.

It is important to be clear that unmet support needs do not reflect a lack of capacity or stability on my part. They reflect a gap between what treating professionals have recommended and what has been funded. When supports are insufficient, the burden shifts onto families, informal carers, and other service systems. This is not sustainable, and it is not cost‑effective.

Because my plan does not currently reflect the level of support recommended by clinicians, I have had to pay for additional physiotherapy and other supports out of pocket. This has a significant financial impact as a single parent. It also demonstrates a broader inequity: people with fewer financial resources are unable to bridge these gaps, leading to poorer outcomes and greater long‑term system costs.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      13

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

This is not a reflection of my capacity or stability — it is a reflection of a system that is increasingly disconnected from clinical evidence. It is of significant concern that the Bill proposes further mechanisms that would allow supports to be restricted or removed even when they are recommended by treating professionals. This risks undermining the very purpose of the Scheme: to provide reasonable and necessary supports that enable Disabled people to build capacity, maintain functioning, and participate in community life.

With appropriate supports in place, I have been able to study at university, maintain a functional home, and participate in my community. These supports enhance my capacity — they do not substitute for it. They allow me to manage daily living, meet my parenting responsibilities, regulate my sensory and physical needs, and contribute to my community through advocacy, organising, and systemic work. This contribution may not fit traditional definitions of “work,” but it is meaningful labour that strengthens communities and fills gaps left by inaccessible systems.

The difference NDIS supports have made in my son’s life is profound. I see the contrast between his experience and the limited supports I received at his age, and the improvement is visible in every aspect of his life. When he has a plan that meets his needs, he is able to regulate, participate, learn, communicate, and be included. He is safer, happier, and more connected. He has opportunities I never had — opportunities that support his development, independence, and long‑term wellbeing.

This is the reality that must be understood:

When someone has support needs that aren’t met, those needs don’t disappear. They shift — into crisis services, emergency departments, child protection, homelessness systems, and long‑term costs that are far greater than providing appropriate supports in the first place. Unmet needs grow, compound, and erode quality of life.

The NDIS has allowed my son and me to build capacity, stability, and connection. It has enabled us to participate in education, community, and family life. It has strengthened our safety, autonomy, and wellbeing. These supports are not luxuries — they are the infrastructure that allows Disabled people and families to thrive, contribute, and live with dignity.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      14

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

METHODOLOGY / EVIDENCE BASE

This methodology reflects a triangulated evidence base combining lived experience, community‑level data, and formal research to ensure accuracy, accountability, and alignment with disability rights principles.

The submission draws on the following interconnected evidence sources:

Lived experience — as a Disabled person and as a single parent of a Disabled child, navigating both pre‑NDIS state systems and the contemporary NDIS environment. Lived experience is not anecdotal; it is a recognised and essential evidence source in disability policy, particularly where system failures disproportionately affect Disabled people.

Academic study — through the Bachelor of Disability and Community Inclusion at Flinders University, grounded in rights‑based, allied‑health, and community inclusion frameworks. This provides theoretical, legislative, and historical context for interpreting policy impacts.

Community engagement — through my roles with the Regional Autistic Engagement Network, the

Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association, and the Nobody Worse Off Coalition. This includes

co‑leadership of the Harm Tracker project, which provides real‑time, community‑verified data on the impacts of NDIS reforms, functioning as an early‑warning system for systemic harm.

Verified data sources — including the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022), the Productivity Commission (2011), the Disability Royal Commission (2023), and cohort‑specific modelling such as the ANPA Thriving Kids Community Leaders Roundtable Brief (2026).

Legislative and policy analysis — including the NDIS Act 2013, the Amendment Bill 2026, relevant Explanatory Memoranda, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which anchors this submission in internationally recognised human rights obligations.

Triangulating these sources ensures that the analysis reflects both systemic patterns and lived realities, reducing the risk of policy conclusions that overlook community‑level impacts or reproduce structural harm.

Use of Assistive Technology (Microsoft Copilot)

This submission also utilised Microsoft Copilot as an assistive drafting tool. Copilot was used to support the organisation, structuring, and refinement of complex policy material, including improving clarity of expression, ensuring internal consistency, and assisting with summarising legislative provisions. Its use was strictly limited to drafting support. All substantive content, lived‑experience evidence, policy analysis, and recommendations were written, directed, reviewed, and approved by me.

The use of Copilot is disclosed for transparency and methodological integrity. Transparent acknowledgement of assistive technologies strengthens the credibility of a submission by clearly delineating the role of digital tools, ensuring accountability in the drafting process, and aligning with emerging best practice in academic, policy, and government settings.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      15

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Copilot was also used as an accessibility support. As a Disabled person, assistive technologies enable equitable participation in policy processes, particularly when consultation periods are short and the material is complex. The compressed timeframe for submissions to this Bill required rapid synthesis of legislative content, analysis of proposed reforms, and integration of lived‑experience insights. Copilot supported this process in the same way that other recognised accessibility tools—such as screen readers, dictation software, or grammar‑checking programs—support participation without diminishing authorship or expertise.

The insights, arguments, and recommendations contained in this submission remain entirely my own. Copilot’s role was limited to enhancing clarity and accessibility of the final document.

Limitations

This submission is limited by the exclusion of many Disabled people from the inquiry process due to inaccessible timelines, formats, and consultation structures. Their absence reflects systemic barriers, not a lack of expertise or interest, and must be recognised as a structural limitation of the inquiry itself.

Conclusion

This combined evidence base positions me to provide an informed, rights‑aligned analysis of the Bill and its likely impacts on Disabled people.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      16

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations reflect the minimum legislative and policy changes required to ensure that the does not undermine the rights, safety, or autonomy of Disabled people. They are grounded in lived experience, community‑level evidence, and rights‑based legislative analysis.

1. Access & Eligibility Remove or substantially amend the new access provisions ★ Critical Priority

1.​ To prevent narrowed eligibility, cohort exclusion, and the re‑emergence of pre‑NDIS gatekeeping practices. 2.​ Legislate clear definitions for key terms such as “Foundational Supports,” “reasonable and necessary,” and “mainstream responsibility,” ensuring they cannot be reinterpreted through rules or operational guidelines. 3.​ Limit Ministerial rule‑making powers to prevent significant policy changes being made without parliamentary oversight or co‑design with Disabled people.

2. Continuity of Supports & Foundational Supports Guarantee that no participant is made worse off ★ Critical Priority

4.​ Through continuity‑of‑supports provisions in primary legislation, not rules. 5.​ Ensure Foundational Supports are fully funded, disability‑competent, and nationally consistent before any participant is transitioned out of the NDIS. 6.​ Prevent cost‑shifting to states, schools, health systems, or families, particularly those already experiencing structural disadvantage.

3. Rights, Safeguards & Accountability 7.​ Retain participant choice and control as a core principle, including the right to choose providers, supports, and modes of delivery. 8.​ Require transparent, public reporting with mandatory publication timelines, including disaggregated data on harm, exclusion, and unmet need. 9.​ Require transparent release of administrative data to enable independent monitoring of systemic impacts, including through community‑led mechanisms such as the Harm Tracker. 10.​Embed co‑design with Disabled people and representative organisations at every stage of implementation, including rule‑making, operational guidelines, and transition planning.

4. Children & Families Protect children’s developmental supports ★ Critical Priority

11.​ Ensuring early intervention remains rights‑based, non‑behaviourist, and aligned with the Disability Royal Commission’s findings.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      17

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

5. Governance & Legislative Alignment 12.​Strengthen alignment with the UNCRPD by ensuring reforms uphold autonomy, non‑discrimination, and the right to live independently and be included in the community.

Closing Statement

These recommendations reflect Parliament’s responsibility to uphold the rights of Disabled people and ensure that reforms strengthen — rather than erode — the foundations of the NDIS. Any legislative change must protect autonomy, prevent harm, and guarantee that no Disabled person is made worse off.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      18

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Bill at a Glance — Key Risks

This page summarises the eight critical risks posed by the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. These risks are drawn from lived experience, legislative analysis, community‑level harm data, and administrative law review.

1. Narrowing Access to the NDIS The Bill introduces a statutory definition of functional capacity, a requirement to consider all appropriate treatment, and mandatory consideration of other service systems.

Risk: Exclusion of people with fluctuating, episodic, psychosocial, or complex disability.

Impact: Increased unmet need; regression to pre‑NDIS inequities.

2. Expansion of Ministerial Powers Without Safeguards The Bill allows the Minister to determine supports through legislative instruments that may not be disallowable.

Risk: Reduced parliamentary oversight; opaque rule‑making; inconsistent administration.

Impact: Loss of transparency, accountability, and public trust.

3. Premature Transitions to Foundational Supports The Bill enables transitions before Foundational Supports exist, are funded, or are accessible.

Risk: Loss of essential supports for children, families, and people with high needs.

Impact: Increased crisis presentations, school disengagement, and carer burnout.

4. Cost‑Shifting to State and Territory Systems The Bill allows refusals based on theoretical access to mainstream services.

Risk: Health, mental health, education, child protection, housing, and justice systems absorbing unmet need.

Impact: Higher downstream costs; system overload; poorer outcomes.

5. Reduced Choice, Control, and Procedural Fairness Mandatory plan end dates and reduced rights to reassessment weaken participant autonomy.

Risk: Constructive refusals, administrative harm, and inconsistent decision‑making.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      19

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Impact: Increased appeals, legal exposure, and participant distress.

6. Weakening of Transparency and Accountability The Bill introduces new obligations for participants but no new obligations for the NDIA.

Risk: Ongoing opacity in decision‑making and data release.

Impact: Inability to monitor equity, outcomes, or systemic risk.

7. Misalignment with the UNCRPD Multiple provisions conflict with Articles 4, 5, 12, 14, 19, 23, and 25.

Risk: Regression of disability rights; breach of international obligations.

Impact: Increased discrimination, reduced autonomy, and loss of independent living supports.

8. Disproportionate Harm to First Nations People The Bill compounds existing inequities in access, cultural safety, and service availability.

Risk: Higher exclusion rates; increased institutionalisation; reduced community‑controlled pathways.

Impact: Deepened intergenerational harm and widening of the Closing the Gap targets.

Overall Assessment

Without amendment, the Bill will:

●​ increase harm ●​ reduce rights ●​ destabilise the Scheme ●​ heighten legal risk ●​ shift costs to crisis systems ●​ undermine public trust ●​ breach human rights obligations

The Bill can only achieve its stated purpose if amended in line with Recommendations 1–8.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      20

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Bill at a Glance — Key Amendments

These are the eight essential amendments required for the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 to be lawful, rights‑based, and safe. They correspond directly to Recommendations 1–8 and the drafting‑ready text in Part 5.

1. Amend Access Provisions What must change:

●​ Remove coercive “all appropriate treatment” requirement ●​ Replace statutory “functional capacity” definition with a UNCRPD‑aligned approach ●​ Recognise fluctuating and episodic disability

Outcome:

Fair, lawful, evidence‑based access decisions.

2. Limit Ministerial Rule‑Making Powers What must change:

●​ Ensure all rules are disallowable ●​ Require public consultation ●​ Require human rights compatibility statements

Outcome:

Transparency, parliamentary oversight, and lawful administration.

3. Guarantee Continuity of Supports What must change:

●​ Insert a “no participant worse off” clause ●​ Prohibit transitions until Foundational Supports exist and are funded ●​ Require individualised transition planning

Outcome:

Safety, stability, and prevention of harm.

4. Strengthen Foundational Supports What must change:

●​ Define Foundational Supports in primary legislation

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      21

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ Fully fund through intergovernmental agreement ●​ Require cultural safety and disability competence

Outcome:

A real, functioning system—not a theoretical one.

5. Prevent Cost‑Shifting What must change:

●​ Require evidence of actual access to mainstream services ●​ Prohibit refusals based on theoretical or aspirational availability ●​ Establish intergovernmental accountability mechanisms

Outcome:

Reduced crisis costs and protection of state systems.

6. Protect Choice, Control, and Procedural Fairness What must change:

●​ Restore participant‑initiated reassessments ●​ Remove mandatory plan end dates ●​ Strengthen rights to reasons and review

Outcome:

Autonomy, fairness, and lawful decision‑making.

7. Strengthen Transparency and Accountability What must change:

●​ Mandatory quarterly public reporting ●​ Release of de‑identified administrative data ●​ Establish data governance standards

Outcome:

Visibility, integrity, and public trust.

8. Ensure UNCRPD Alignment What must change:

   Nicole Moran​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 22

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ Insert a UNCRPD‑alignment clause ●​ Require human rights impact assessments ●​ Embed First Nations‑specific safeguards

Outcome:

Rights‑based reform consistent with Australia’s obligations.

Overall Amendment Objective

These eight amendments ensure the Bill:

●​ strengthens the NDIS ●​ prevents harm ●​ aligns with human rights ●​ protects participants ●​ maintains lawful administration ●​ supports sustainable reform

Without these amendments, the Bill cannot meet its stated purpose.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      23

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This submission demonstrates that the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, as drafted, will materially reduce the rights, safety, and autonomy of Disabled people. The Bill risks re‑creating the systemic failures the NDIS was designed to replace, particularly for those who rely on the Scheme for essential supports. It expands Ministerial powers, narrows access pathways, and enables transitions to unfunded and undefined Foundational Supports — all without adequate safeguards, transparency, or accountability.

The evidence presented here shows that the Bill:

●​ introduces new access provisions that risk excluding entire cohorts ●​ enables significant policy changes through Ministerial rule‑making without parliamentary oversight ●​ creates pathways for participants to be moved out of the NDIS before Foundational Supports are established, funded, or disability‑competent ●​ increases the likelihood of cost‑shifting to families, schools, and state systems ●​ weakens participant choice and control ●​ lacks adequate mechanisms for public reporting, administrative data release, or monitoring of harm ●​ risks replicating pre‑NDIS failures, particularly for children and those requiring substantial support

These concerns are not hypothetical. Community‑verified evidence — including real‑time data from the Harm Tracker — shows that Disabled people are already experiencing harm, exclusion, and unmet need under current administrative settings. The Bill, if passed without amendment, will accelerate these harms and deepen inequities.

It is also important to acknowledge that many Disabled people were unable to participate in this inquiry due to inaccessible timelines, formats, and consultation processes. Their exclusion is a structural failure of the inquiry, not a reflection of their expertise or value. This Executive Summary therefore reflects both the evidence available and the voices that were shut out.

The recommendations in this submission directly address the structural risks created by the Bill. They provide a rights‑aligned pathway for reform that protects participants, prevents harm, and ensures that no Disabled person is made worse off. They are grounded in lived experience, community‑level data, and rights‑based legislative analysis.

Critical Priorities (Non‑Negotiable Minimums)

These three recommendations are essential to preventing immediate and irreversible harm:

1.​ Remove or substantially amend the new access provisions to prevent narrowed eligibility and cohort exclusion. 2.​ Guarantee that no participant is made worse off through continuity‑of‑supports provisions in primary legislation. 3.​ Protect children’s developmental supports to ensure early intervention remains rights‑based and aligned with the Disability Royal Commission.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      24

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Summary of All Recommendations

1. Access & Eligibility ●​ Remove or amend new access provisions ●​ Legislate clear definitions ●​ Limit Ministerial rule‑making powers

2. Continuity of Supports & Foundational Supports ●​ Guarantee no one is made worse off ●​ Ensure Foundational Supports are fully funded and disability‑competent ●​ Prevent cost‑shifting

3. Rights, Safeguards & Accountability ●​ Retain participant choice and control ●​ Require transparent public reporting ●​ Require transparent release of administrative data ●​ Embed co‑design with Disabled people

4. Children & Families ●​ Protect children’s developmental supports

5. Governance & Legislative Alignment ●​ Strengthen alignment with the UNCRPD

Conclusion of the Executive Summary

Parliament must amend the Bill to ensure that reforms strengthen — rather than weaken — the NDIS. Anything less risks returning Disabled people to the fragmented, unsafe systems the NDIS was created to replace. The recommendations in this submission provide a clear, evidence‑based pathway to uphold rights, prevent harm, and ensure that no Disabled person is made worse off.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      25

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

I acknowledge the Muwinina people, the Traditional Owners of the land on which I live, study, parent, and write. I pay my respects to Elders past and present, and I recognise that sovereignty was never ceded. This always was, and always will be, Aboriginal land.

I acknowledge that the systems we navigate — including disability, health, education, and social services — operate on lands shaped by ongoing colonisation. The inequities experienced by Disabled people today cannot be separated from the broader history of dispossession, institutionalisation, segregation, and state control imposed on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These histories intersect, compound, and continue to shape the lives of Disabled First Nations people, who face some of the highest rates of discrimination, institutional harm, and unmet need.

I recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have always practiced community care, collective responsibility, and relational ways of supporting Disabled people — long before the existence of government systems. These strengths, knowledges, and cultural practices continue today, despite ongoing structural barriers and systemic violence.

I acknowledge that any conversation about rights, safety, and inclusion — including the future of the NDIS — must be grounded in truth‑telling, respect for sovereignty, and a commitment to dismantling the colonial structures that continue to harm First Nations communities. I honour the leadership of Disabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, whose advocacy, cultural knowledge, and lived experience must be centred in all decisions that affect their lives.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      26

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY

I pay my respect to the history of the Disability community — a history marked by resistance, survival, and collective care in the face of systemic exclusion. I acknowledge the trauma our community has experienced and continues to endure: institutionalisation, segregation, forced interventions, denial of autonomy, and the ongoing struggle for recognition as full participants in society.

I recognise the generations of Disabled people who fought for rights, access, and dignity long before the NDIS existed, and whose labour laid the groundwork for every advancement we have today. Their stories, strategies, and solidarity continue to guide our movements.

I acknowledge that Disabled people today continue to face discrimination, gatekeeping, and structural harm across systems that were not designed for us. These harms are not historical artefacts — they are present realities. Remembering our past and telling our stories is essential to preventing erasure, resisting regression, and ensuring that reforms do not repeat the injustices we have already survived.

I honour the leadership of Disabled advocates, organisers, families, and community networks who continue to hold the line, often without recognition, resourcing, or safety. Their expertise, lived experience, and community‑led evidence — including lived‑experience research and systemic monitoring — are central to this submission.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      27

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF LANGUAGE, LIVED EXPERIENCE,

COMMUNITY LABOUR, AND HARM

I acknowledge the power of language in shaping how Disabled people are understood, valued, and treated within policy, law, and community. Language is not neutral; it carries histories of harm, exclusion, and resistance. The words used to describe Disabled people have been used to justify institutionalisation, segregation, forced interventions, and the denial of autonomy. They have also been reclaimed by our communities as expressions of identity, pride, and collective power.

In this submission, I use identity‑first language in recognition of its grounding in disability culture, rights‑based frameworks, and community preference. I avoid depersonalising abbreviations that flatten identity or distance people from their lived experience. I also recognise that language preferences vary, and that each Disabled person has the right to define their own identity and terminology. Language is a site of ongoing struggle — between medicalised, deficit‑based framings and community‑led, rights‑based understandings of disability.

I acknowledge the centrality of lived experience as a legitimate and essential evidence source. Lived experience reveals what systems obscure, what datasets fail to capture, and what policy frameworks often overlook. The insights, expertise, and analysis contributed by Disabled people and families form the backbone of this submission and the broader disability rights movement.

I acknowledge the immense community labour that sustains Disabled people in the absence of accessible, safe, and adequately funded systems. This labour — emotional, cultural, intellectual, logistical, and often life‑preserving — is overwhelmingly unpaid, unrecognised, and carried by those already experiencing structural disadvantage. It includes the work of advocates, carers, peer networks, community organisers, and those who document harm through community‑led evidence and systemic monitoring. This labour fills the gaps left by systems that fail to uphold their obligations.

I acknowledge the harm that Disabled people continue to experience across disability, health, education, and social service systems. This harm is not incidental — it is patterned, predictable, and structurally produced. It includes exclusion from essential supports, retraumatisation through inaccessible processes, the denial of autonomy, and the cumulative impact of policies that prioritise cost containment over human rights. The stories shared with me — privately, publicly, and through community‑verified data — reflect a depth of distress that must be recognised as evidence of systemic failure, not individual vulnerability.

I honour the courage of those who have shared their experiences, often at personal cost, to ensure that the truth of what is happening is neither minimised nor erased. I recognise that many who have been harmed are unable to speak publicly due to fear, exhaustion, retraumatisation, or lack of support. Their silence is not absence; it is a reflection of the conditions imposed upon them. Their experiences remain central to this submission.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      28

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

How to Read This Submission

This submission is structured to support rapid navigation by Committee members, advisers, and Secretariat staff. It combines lived experience, legislative analysis, community‑level data, and drafting‑ready amendments. Each part is designed to stand alone while contributing to a coherent, rights‑based assessment of the Bill.

●​ The Executive Summary provides a high‑level overview of the Bill’s impacts and the critical amendments required. ●​ The Summary of Recommendations consolidates all proposed reforms into a single, accessible list. ●​ The Response to Terms of Reference maps each ToR to the relevant sections of the submission for ease of reference. ●​ Parts 1–2 outline the key concerns and provide a section‑by‑section analysis of the Bill, identifying risks, inconsistencies, and legal vulnerabilities. ●​ Parts 3–5 set out detailed recommendations and drafting‑ready legislative amendments. ●​ Parts 6–10 present the evidence base, including community‑verified harm data, economic modelling, human rights analysis, and an implementation roadmap. ●​ Part 11 synthesises the findings and presents final recommendations. ●​ Part 12 provides a formal declaration of authorship, representativeness, and commitment to rights‑based reform.

Readers seeking a concise overview should begin with the Executive Summary and Summary of Recommendations. Readers seeking legal, administrative, or drafting detail should refer to Parts 2, 4, 5, and 8. The submission is designed so that each section can be read independently while maintaining internal consistency and alignment with the Terms of Reference.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      29

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Response to Terms of Reference

This submission responds directly to the Terms of Reference for the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee’s inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. Each ToR is addressed through lived experience, legislative analysis, community‑level data, and evidence‑based recommendations. Cross‑references are provided to assist the Committee in locating the relevant detailed analysis.

1. Impact of the new access and eligibility provisions Relevant sections: Part 1 (Items 1–3), Part 2 Division 1, Part 4 Recommendation 1, Part 5 Amendments 1–2, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8.

The proposed access changes—including the statutory definition of functional capacity, the requirement to consider “all appropriate treatment,” and the requirement to consider other service systems—will narrow access, disproportionately exclude people with fluctuating or episodic disability, and introduce coercive treatment pressures.

2. Expansion of Ministerial rule‑making powers Relevant sections: Part 1 (Item 2), Part 2 Division 2, Part 4 Recommendation 2, Part 5 Amendment 3, Part 8.

The Bill grants broad, unconstrained powers to the Minister to determine supports through legislative instruments that may not be disallowable, undermining parliamentary oversight and increasing legal risk.

3. Transition to Foundational Supports Relevant sections: Part 1 (Item 3), Part 2 Division 4, Part 3, Part 4 Recommendation 4, Part 5 Amendment 5, Part 6, Part 10.

Significant risks arise from transitioning participants out of the NDIS before Foundational Supports exist, are funded, or are accessible.

4. Risk of cost‑shifting to other systems Relevant sections: Part 1 (Item 4), Part 2, Part 4 Recommendation 5, Part 5 Amendment 6, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8.

The Bill enables cost‑shifting to health, mental health, education, child protection, housing, and justice systems that cannot absorb unmet need.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      30

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

5. Impact on participant rights, autonomy, and procedural fairness Relevant sections: Part 1 (Items 5–6), Part 2 Division 3, Part 4 Recommendation 6, Part 5 Amendment 7, Part 8.

The Bill reduces procedural fairness by limiting reassessments, introducing mandatory plan end dates, and weakening rights to reasons and review.

6. Alignment with the UNCRPD Relevant sections: Part 1 (Item 8), Part 2 Division 6, Part 4 Recommendation 8, Part 5 Amendment 9, Part 7, Part 8.

Multiple provisions are inconsistent with Articles 4, 5, 12, 14, 19, 23, and 25 of the UNCRPD.

7. Impacts on children and families Relevant sections: Part 1 (Item 7), Part 2 Division 4, Part 3, Part 4 Recommendations 3–4, Part 6, Part 7.

The Bill disproportionately affects children and families by enabling premature transitions and reducing early intervention supports.

8. Impacts on First Nations people Relevant sections: Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10.

The Bill will disproportionately harm First Nations people through increased exclusion, reduced access to culturally safe supports, and heightened risk of institutionalisation.

9. Legal, administrative, and constitutional risks Relevant sections: Part 8, Part 5, Part 9.

The Bill introduces significant administrative law vulnerabilities, including excessive discretion, procedural fairness risks, and constructive refusals.

10. Economic and social implications Relevant sections: Part 6, Part 7.

Unmet needs increase downstream costs to state systems, deepen inequality, and reduce social and economic participation.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      31

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

11. Any other relevant matters Relevant sections: Part 1–10.

This submission also addresses transparency, governance, oversight, implementation risks, workforce readiness, and the need for co‑design.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      32

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

PART 1 — OVERVIEW OF THE BILL AND KEY CONCERNS

Building on the concerns outlined in the Executive Summary, this section provides a structured overview of the Bill and the key risks it creates for Disabled people, their families, and the systems that support them.

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

2026 introduces significant structural changes to the NDIS. While the stated purpose of the Bill is to ensure the Scheme’s long‑term sustainability, the mechanisms it proposes create substantial risks for Disabled people, particularly those who rely on the NDIS for essential supports. The Bill expands Ministerial powers, narrows access pathways, and enables transitions to unfunded and undefined Foundational Supports — all without adequate safeguards, transparency, or accountability.

These concerns are heightened for Disabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who already experience disproportionate harm across disability, health, education, and child protection systems. Any reform that increases gatekeeping, reduces autonomy, or shifts responsibility onto state systems will compound existing inequities rooted in colonisation and systemic discrimination.

This section outlines the primary concerns raised by Disabled people, families, advocates, and community‑led evidence sources.

1. New Access Provisions The Bill introduces new access requirements that risk narrowing eligibility and excluding entire cohorts of Disabled people. These provisions shift the burden of proof onto individuals and families, replicate pre‑NDIS gatekeeping practices, and create uncertainty about who will qualify for supports.

This concern directly informs the recommendation to remove or substantially amend the new access provisions.

2. Expansion of Ministerial Rule‑Making Powers The Bill grants the Minister broad authority to make or amend rules that determine access, supports, and operational processes. These powers can be exercised without parliamentary oversight, co‑design, or public consultation.

This raises significant governance and accountability concerns and underpins the recommendation to limit Ministerial rule‑making powers.

3. Transition to Foundational Supports The Bill enables participants to be moved out of the NDIS into Foundational Supports — a system that is not yet established, funded, or disability‑competent. Without clear definitions, safeguards, or continuity‑of‑supports provisions in primary legislation, this transition risks leaving Disabled people without essential supports.

This informs the recommendations to:

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      33

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ Guarantee that no participant is made worse off ●​ Ensure Foundational Supports are fully funded and disability‑competent

4. Risk of Cost‑Shifting The Bill creates structural incentives for the NDIS to shift responsibility onto families, schools, state systems, and mainstream services that are already under‑resourced and often inaccessible to Disabled people. This replicates pre‑NDIS failures and disproportionately harms those requiring substantial support.

This concern underpins the recommendation to prevent cost‑shifting.

5. Weakening of Choice and Control The Bill’s mechanisms — including new access pathways, expanded rule‑making powers, and transitions to Foundational Supports — collectively weaken participant choice and control. This undermines one of the core principles of the NDIS and contradicts the rights‑based intent of the Scheme.

This informs the recommendation to retain participant choice and control.

6. Lack of Transparency and Accountability The Bill does not include adequate requirements for public reporting, administrative data release, or monitoring of harm, exclusion, or unmet need. Community‑led evidence, including real‑time data from the Harm Tracker, shows that Disabled people are already experiencing harm under current administrative settings.

This informs the recommendations to:

●​ Require transparent public reporting ●​ Require transparent release of administrative data

7. Impacts on Children and Families Children are at particular risk under the Bill. The combination of new access provisions, transitions to Foundational Supports, and the absence of safeguards threatens early intervention pathways and risks reintroducing behaviourist, non‑rights‑based models of support.

This informs the critical priority recommendation to protect children’s developmental supports.

8. Misalignment with the UNCRPD The Bill’s mechanisms — particularly those that reduce autonomy, weaken safeguards, and enable exclusion — are inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

   Nicole Moran​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 34

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

This informs the recommendation to strengthen alignment with the UNCRPD.

These overarching concerns are examined in detail in the following section, which provides a clause‑by‑clause analysis of the Bill.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      35

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

PART 2 — DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE BILL

(SECTION‑BY‑SECTION)

(All recommendation references aligned to your Summary of Recommendations)

This section provides a clause‑by‑clause analysis of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. It examines how each amendment interacts with existing NDIS legislation, administrative practice, and Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD. This analysis draws on community‑verified evidence, including real‑time harm data, to identify the likely impacts on Disabled people, families, and service systems. It also highlights how specific clauses disproportionately affect Disabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, whose experiences of colonisation, discrimination, and systemic exclusion amplify the risks created by the Bill.

Division 1 — Amendments to Access and Eligibility

1. Introduction of “Functional Capacity” as a Statutory Concept The Bill introduces a statutory definition of functional capacity, which becomes a central determinant of access. This definition is narrower than current practice and risks excluding people whose support needs fluctuate, are episodic, or arise from multiple interacting impairments.

Key concerns

●​ Embeds a medicalised, deficit‑based framework inconsistent with the UNCRPD. ●​ Risks excluding Autistic people, people with psychosocial disability, people with chronic illness, and children with developmental delay. ●​ Shifts the burden of proof onto individuals and families, replicating pre‑NDIS gatekeeping. ●​ Disproportionately affects Disabled First Nations people, who already face barriers to diagnosis, assessment, and culturally safe healthcare.

Aligned Recommendation

Recommendation 1 — Remove or substantially amend the new access provisions

2. Requirement to Consider “All Appropriate Treatment” The Bill requires decision‑makers to consider whether a person has undertaken “all appropriate treatment” before determining permanence.

Key concerns

●​ Reintroduces coercive treatment pathways. ●​ Disproportionately harms people who have experienced medical trauma or discrimination. ●​ Contradicts the Disability Royal Commission’s findings on forced and coercive interventions.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      36

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ Creates additional barriers for First Nations people, who face systemic racism in healthcare and may avoid services due to past harm.

Aligned Recommendation

Falls under Recommendation 1, as coercive treatment expectations are part of the new access provisions that must be amended.

3. Requirement to Consider Other Service Systems The Bill requires the NDIA to consider whether a person’s needs should be met by other systems (health, education, housing, etc.).

Key concerns

●​ Creates structural incentives for cost‑shifting. ●​ State systems are under‑resourced and often inaccessible to Disabled people. ●​ Risks returning to pre‑NDIS fragmentation. ●​ Exacerbates inequities for First Nations people, who experience disproportionate intervention by child protection, justice, and health systems.

Aligned Recommendation

Recommendation 5 — Prevent cost‑shifting

Division 2 — Ministerial Rule‑Making Powers

4. Expansion of Ministerial Powers to Determine Supports The Bill grants the Minister broad authority to make rules that determine:

●​ which supports are available ●​ which supports can be funded ●​ which supports can be reduced for entire groups

Key concerns

●​ Powers can be exercised without parliamentary oversight. ●​ Enables reductions in supports for entire cohorts through delegated legislation. ●​ Undermines participant choice and control. ●​ Creates heightened risk for First Nations communities, who have historically been subject to unilateral government decisions without consultation.

Aligned Recommendation

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      37

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Recommendation 2 — Limit Ministerial rule‑making powers

Division 3 — Planning and Reassessment

5. Introduction of Plan End Dates The Bill introduces mandatory plan end dates and restricts unscheduled plan reassessments.

Key concerns

●​ Participants may be locked into inadequate plans for extended periods. ●​ Disproportionately harms people with high or rapidly changing support needs. ●​ Increases administrative burden and delays. ●​ Creates additional barriers for First Nations participants who already face long wait times and limited access to culturally safe providers.

Aligned Recommendation

Recommendation 6 — Protect choice and control

6. Reduced Ability to Request Plan Variations The Bill limits the circumstances in which participants can request changes to their plan.

Key concerns

●​ Reduces autonomy and flexibility. ●​ Increases the risk of unmet need and crisis escalation. ●​ Contradicts the NDIS principle of individualised support. ●​ Harms First Nations families who often rely on flexible supports to navigate complex, intersecting systems.

Aligned Recommendation

Recommendation 3 — Guarantee no participant is made worse off

Division 4 — Foundational Supports

7. Enabling Transitions Out of the NDIS The Bill creates pathways for participants to be moved into Foundational Supports.

Key concerns

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      38

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ Foundational Supports are not yet defined, funded, or disability‑competent. ●​ No legislative safeguards ensure continuity of supports. ●​ Risks immediate and irreversible harm, particularly for children. ●​ First Nations children are at heightened risk due to systemic racism in education, health, and child protection systems.

Aligned Recommendations

●​ Recommendation 3 — Guarantee no participant is made worse off ●​ Recommendation 4 — Strengthen Foundational Supports

Division 5 — Transparency, Data, and Accountability

8. Absence of New Transparency Requirements The Bill expands NDIA powers but does not expand obligations for:

●​ public reporting ●​ administrative data release ●​ monitoring of harm

Key concerns

●​ Community‑verified evidence (including the Harm Tracker) shows rising harm under current settings. ●​ Without transparency, systemic failures remain hidden. ●​ Undermines trust and accountability. ●​ Obscures the disproportionate harm experienced by First Nations participants.

Aligned Recommendation

Recommendation 7 — Require transparent public reporting and release of administrative data

Division 6 — Alignment with the UNCRPD

9. Inconsistencies with Human Rights Obligations The Bill’s mechanisms reduce autonomy, increase gatekeeping, and expand executive power.

Key concerns

●​ Conflicts with Articles 4, 19, 21, 26, and 28 of the UNCRPD. ●​ Does not embed co‑design or lived experience leadership. ●​ Risks regression of disability rights.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      39

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ Fails to uphold the rights of First Nations people under both the UNCRPD and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Aligned Recommendation

Recommendation 8 — Strengthen alignment with the UNCRPD

Conclusion of Part 2

Taken together, these clauses represent a structural shift away from a rights‑based NDIS and toward a more restrictive, administratively driven system. The cumulative effect of these amendments is likely to increase harm, reduce autonomy, and deepen inequities — particularly for Disabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, children, and those requiring substantial support. The following section outlines the critical priority recommendations required to prevent immediate and irreversible harm.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      40

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

PART 3 — CRITICAL PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS

This section identifies the recommendations that require urgent legislative action to prevent immediate and irreversible harm to Disabled people, particularly those most affected by the Bill’s structural changes. These priorities are drawn directly from the Summary of Recommendations and are grounded in the evidence presented in Parts 1 and 2, including community‑verified harm data and the disproportionate impacts on Disabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The following recommendations are identified as critical priorities because they address the most immediate risks created by the Bill: exclusion from the Scheme, loss of essential supports, unchecked executive power, and the absence of safeguards during transitions.

Critical Priority Recommendation 1

Recommendation 3 — Guarantee No Participant Is Made Worse Off

Guarantee that no participant is made worse off

This is the most urgent safeguard required. The Bill enables transitions, reassessments, and movement into undefined Foundational Supports without legislated continuity‑of‑supports protections. Without this guarantee, participants — including children, people with high support needs, and First Nations families — face immediate risk of losing essential supports.

This recommendation must be enacted before any transition pathways or new access provisions commence.

Critical Priority Recommendation 2

Recommendation 1 — Amend New Access Provisions

Remove or substantially amend the new access provisions

The new access provisions risk excluding entire cohorts of Disabled people, particularly those with fluctuating, episodic, psychosocial, or developmental disabilities. They also embed coercive treatment expectations and replicate pre‑NDIS gatekeeping.

If these provisions proceed without amendment, the Scheme will contract sharply and inequitably, with disproportionate harm to First Nations people who already face systemic barriers to diagnosis and assessment.

Critical Priority Recommendation 3

Recommendation 2 — Limit Ministerial Rule‑Making Powers

Limit Ministerial rule‑making powers

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      41

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

The Bill grants the Minister broad authority to determine access, supports, and operational rules without parliamentary oversight. These powers enable unilateral reductions in supports for entire groups and undermine participant rights.

Limiting these powers is essential to prevent executive overreach and ensure that changes affecting Disabled people occur transparently and with co‑design.

Critical Priority Recommendation 4

Recommendation 4 — Strengthen Foundational Supports

Ensure Foundational Supports are fully funded and disability‑competent

The Bill enables participants to be moved out of the NDIS into Foundational Supports that do not yet exist in a defined, funded, or disability‑competent form. Without legislative safeguards, this transition risks immediate loss of supports, particularly for children and First Nations families.

Foundational Supports must be established, funded, and tested before any transition occurs.

Critical Priority Recommendation 5

Recommendation 6 — Protect Choice and Control

Retain participant choice and control

Plan end dates, reassessment restrictions, and reduced ability to request variations significantly weaken participant autonomy. These mechanisms risk locking people into inadequate plans and increasing unmet need.

Protecting choice and control is essential to maintaining the rights‑based intent of the NDIS and preventing administrative harm.

Conclusion of Part 3

These five recommendations represent the minimum urgent actions required to prevent immediate harm and uphold the rights of Disabled people. They address the most dangerous elements of the Bill: exclusion, loss of supports, unchecked executive power, and the absence of safeguards during transitions. Implementing these critical priorities is essential to ensuring that the NDIS remains a rights‑based, person‑centred scheme consistent with Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      42

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

PART 4 — DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS

This section provides the full legislative and policy rationale for each of the eight recommendations outlined in the Summary of Recommendations. These recommendations are grounded in the evidence presented in Parts 1–3, including community‑verified harm data, analysis of the Bill’s clauses, and the disproportionate impacts on Disabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Each recommendation includes the rights‑based justification, the legislative issue it addresses, the risks created by the Bill, the required amendments, and the expected impact.

Recommendation 1 — Amend New Access Provisions

Remove or substantially amend the new access provisions

Issue

The Bill introduces new access requirements, including a statutory definition of functional capacity and a requirement to consider “all appropriate treatment.” These provisions narrow eligibility and risk excluding people with fluctuating, episodic, psychosocial, or developmental disabilities.

Risks

●​ Reintroduces pre‑NDIS gatekeeping. ●​ Embeds coercive treatment expectations. ●​ Disproportionately excludes First Nations people due to systemic barriers to diagnosis and assessment. ●​ Contradicts the UNCRPD’s social model of disability.

Required Amendments

●​ Remove “all appropriate treatment” from permanence assessments. ●​ Remove or amend the statutory definition of functional capacity. ●​ Ensure access criteria reflect fluctuating and episodic disability. ●​ Embed culturally safe assessment pathways for First Nations people.

Expected Impact

A fair, inclusive, rights‑based access pathway that prevents exclusion and protects people with complex or non‑linear disability experiences.

Recommendation 2 — Limit Ministerial Rule‑Making Powers

Limit Ministerial rule‑making powers

Issue

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      43

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

The Bill grants the Minister broad authority to determine access, supports, and operational rules through delegated legislation.

Risks

●​ Enables unilateral reductions in supports for entire cohorts. ●​ Removes parliamentary oversight. ●​ Undermines participant rights and scheme stability. ●​ Heightens risks for First Nations communities historically harmed by unilateral government decisions.

Required Amendments

●​ Restrict Ministerial powers to administrative matters only. ●​ Require parliamentary scrutiny for any rule affecting access or supports. ●​ Mandate co‑design with Disabled people and representative organisations.

Expected Impact

A transparent, accountable governance framework that prevents executive overreach and protects participant rights.

Recommendation 3 — Guarantee No Participant Is Made Worse Off

Guarantee that no participant is made worse off

Issue

The Bill enables transitions, reassessments, and movement into Foundational Supports without legislated continuity‑of‑supports protections.

Risks

●​ Immediate loss of essential supports. ●​ Increased crisis escalation, hospitalisation, and child protection intervention. ●​ Disproportionate harm to First Nations families and children. ●​ Breach of the NDIS Act’s object to support “social and economic participation.”

Required Amendments

●​ Legislate continuity‑of‑supports provisions. ●​ Prohibit transitions until Foundational Supports are fully funded and disability‑competent. ●​ Require individualised transition planning.

Expected Impact

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      44

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

A safe, stable transition environment that prevents harm and protects the rights of current participants.

Recommendation 4 — Strengthen Foundational Supports

Ensure Foundational Supports are fully funded and disability‑competent

Issue

The Bill enables participants to be moved into Foundational Supports that are not yet defined, funded, or operational.

Risks

●​ Participants may lose essential supports. ●​ State systems may be overwhelmed or unable to respond. ●​ First Nations communities face heightened risk due to systemic racism in mainstream services. ●​ Creates a two‑tiered disability system.

Required Amendments

●​ Define Foundational Supports in primary legislation. ●​ Guarantee funding, workforce, and disability competence. ●​ Require independent evaluation before any transition.

Expected Impact

A safe, equitable system of supports outside the NDIS that complements — rather than replaces — the Scheme.

Recommendation 5 — Prevent Cost‑Shifting

Prevent cost‑shifting

Issue

The Bill requires the NDIA to consider whether other systems “should” provide supports, creating incentives for cost‑shifting.

Risks

●​ Participants may be denied supports due to theoretical service availability. ●​ State systems may be unable or unwilling to provide supports. ●​ First Nations families face disproportionate harm due to systemic discrimination in health, education, and child protection.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      45

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Required Amendments

●​ Prohibit denial of supports based on theoretical service availability. ●​ Require evidence of actual access to alternative supports. ●​ Embed a “no disadvantage” test.

Expected Impact

A fair, consistent approach that prevents participants from falling through gaps between systems.

Recommendation 6 — Protect Choice and Control

Retain participant choice and control

Issue

The Bill introduces plan end dates, restricts reassessments, and reduces flexibility.

Risks

●​ Participants may be locked into inadequate plans. ●​ Increased unmet need and crisis escalation. ●​ Reduced autonomy and self‑determination. ●​ Disproportionate harm to First Nations families who rely on flexible supports.

Required Amendments

●​ Remove mandatory plan end dates. ●​ Restore participant‑initiated reassessments. ●​ Protect flexible funding arrangements.

Expected Impact

A rights‑based planning system that respects autonomy and supports individual needs.

Recommendation 7 — Require Transparency and Data Release

Require transparent public reporting

Require transparent release of administrative data

Issue

The Bill expands NDIA powers but does not expand transparency obligations.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      46

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Risks

●​ Harm, exclusion, and unmet need remain hidden. ●​ Public trust erodes. ●​ Disproportionate harm to First Nations participants is obscured. ●​ Evidence‑based policy becomes impossible.

Required Amendments

●​ Mandate public reporting on access, reassessments, transitions, and outcomes. ●​ Require release of de‑identified administrative data. ●​ Establish independent oversight mechanisms.

Expected Impact

A transparent, accountable system that enables evidence‑based decision‑making and public scrutiny.

Recommendation 8 — Strengthen UNCRPD Alignment

Strengthen alignment with the UNCRPD

Issue

Several mechanisms in the Bill — including narrowed access, expanded executive power, and reduced autonomy — conflict with Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD.

Risks

●​ Regression of disability rights. ●​ Increased discrimination and exclusion. ●​ Breach of international human rights obligations. ●​ Failure to uphold the rights of First Nations people under both the UNCRPD and UNDRIP.

Required Amendments

●​ Embed co‑design and lived experience leadership. ●​ Remove provisions that reduce autonomy or increase gatekeeping. ●​ Ensure all reforms uphold Articles 4, 19, 21, 26, and 28 of the UNCRPD.

Expected Impact

A rights‑based NDIS that aligns with international obligations and protects the dignity, autonomy, and

inclusion of Disabled people.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      47

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

PART 5 — LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS REQUIRED

(DRAFTING‑READY TEXT)

The following drafting‑ready amendments provide a clear legislative pathway to implement Recommendations 1–8 and ensure the Bill aligns with human rights obligations, prevents harm, and maintains the NDIS as a rights‑based scheme. These amendments are structured in the style used by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and correspond directly to the clauses amended by the Bill.

Amendment 1 — Remove “All Appropriate Treatment” Requirement

Implements: Recommendation 1

Issue

The Bill requires decision‑makers to consider whether a person has undertaken “all appropriate treatment” before determining permanence.

Proposed Amendment

Delete all references to “all appropriate treatment” in the amended s.24 and any related subsections introduced by Schedule 1 of the Bill.

Drafting‑Ready Text

Omit: “the CEO must consider whether the person has undertaken all appropriate treatment”.

Substitute: “the CEO must consider the person’s functional impairment and support needs, recognising that disability may be permanent irrespective of treatment history.”

Amendment 2 — Remove or Amend Statutory Definition of Functional

Capacity

Implements: Recommendation 1

Issue

The proposed definition is narrow and medicalised.

Proposed Amendment

Replace the definition inserted by Schedule 1, Item X with a UNCRPD‑aligned formulation.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      48

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Drafting‑Ready Text

Omit the proposed definition of “functional capacity”.

Insert: “functional capacity means the interaction between a person’s impairment and environmental, social, and attitudinal barriers that affect their ability to participate in daily life.”

Amendment 3 — Limit Ministerial Rule‑Making Powers

Implements: Recommendation 2

Issue

The Bill expands Ministerial powers without adequate oversight.

Proposed Amendment

Amend the rule‑making provisions in Schedule 2 to restrict powers affecting access, supports, or participant rights.

Drafting‑Ready Text

Insert: “Rules made under this section that affect access, supports, or participant rights must be subject to disallowance and require consultation with Disabled people and their representative organisations.”

Amendment 4 — Insert Continuity‑of‑Supports Provision

Implements: Recommendation 3

Issue

The Bill enables transitions without safeguards.

Proposed Amendment

Insert a new section after s.48 to guarantee continuity of supports.

Drafting‑Ready Text

Insert new s.48A: “A participant must not be made worse off as a result of any legislative amendment, rule, or administrative decision. Existing supports must continue until equivalent or greater supports are in place.”

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      49

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Amendment 5 — Define and Safeguard Foundational Supports

Implements: Recommendation 4

Issue

Foundational Supports are undefined and unfunded.

Proposed Amendment

Insert a new Division defining Foundational Supports and establishing minimum safeguards.

Drafting‑Ready Text

Insert new Division: “Foundational Supports must be defined in this Act, funded through intergovernmental agreement, and delivered by disability‑competent providers. No participant may be transitioned until these conditions are met.”

Insert: “Foundational Supports must be culturally safe and co‑designed with Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander communities.”

Amendment 6 — Prevent Cost‑Shifting to Other Systems

Implements: Recommendation 5

Issue

The Bill allows denial of supports based on theoretical availability in other systems.

Proposed Amendment

Amend the relevant paragraphs in Schedule 1 to require evidence of actual access.

Drafting‑Ready Text

Insert: “A support must not be refused on the basis that another service system ‘should’ provide it unless the participant has actual, timely, and culturally safe access to that support.”

Amendment 7 — Restore Participant‑Initiated Reassessments and Remove

Mandatory Plan End Dates

Implements: Recommendation 6

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      50

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Issue

Mandatory plan end dates and restricted reassessments reduce autonomy.

Proposed Amendment

Amend Schedule 3 to remove mandatory end dates and restore participant‑initiated reassessments.

Drafting‑Ready Text

Omit provisions mandating plan end dates.

Insert: “A participant may request a reassessment at any time. The CEO must consider such requests in a timely manner.”

Amendment 8 — Mandate Transparency and Data Release

Implements: Recommendation 7

Issue

The Bill expands NDIA powers without expanding transparency obligations.

Proposed Amendment

Insert a new reporting and data‑release obligation after s.204.

Drafting‑Ready Text

Insert new s.204A: “The Agency must publish quarterly data on access decisions, reassessments, plan variations, transitions, and outcomes. De‑identified administrative data must be made available for public research and accountability.”

Amendment 9 — Strengthen UNCRPD Alignment

Implements: Recommendation 8

Issue

Several mechanisms in the Bill conflict with the UNCRPD.

Proposed Amendment

Insert an explicit UNCRPD‑alignment clause.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      51

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Drafting‑Ready Text

Insert: “All decisions, rules, and amendments under this Act must be interpreted consistently with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”

Conclusion of Part 5

The amendments above provide a drafting‑ready pathway to implement Recommendations 1–8 and ensure the Bill is rights‑based, culturally safe, and aligned with Australia’s human rights obligations. The next section outlines the real‑world impacts of the Bill and demonstrates why these amendments are urgently required.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      52

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

PART 6 — COMMUNITY IMPACT ANALYSIS (EVIDENCE

FROM LIVED EXPERIENCE AND HARM DATA)

This section draws on community‑verified harm data, lived experience evidence, and systemic patterns already emerging under current administrative settings. It demonstrates how the Bill’s mechanisms — when combined — create conditions that increase harm, reduce autonomy, and disproportionately affect groups already facing structural disadvantage. Harm Tracker data shows consistent patterns of unmet need, plan cuts, administrative delays, and adverse outcomes that mirror the risks created by the Bill.

These impacts are not hypothetical. They reflect real‑world experiences of Disabled people, families, and communities, and are expected to intensify if the Bill proceeds without the amendments outlined in Recommendations 1–8.

These impacts are further compounded for Disabled people who experience intersecting forms of discrimination, including gender‑based violence, poverty, rural isolation, racism, and the ongoing effects of colonisation.

1. Increased Exclusion From the NDIS The introduction of new access provisions — including the statutory definition of functional capacity and the “all appropriate treatment” requirement — will:

●​ exclude people with fluctuating, episodic, psychosocial, or developmental disabilities ●​ disproportionately impact Autistic people, people with chronic illness, and people with complex support needs ●​ replicate pre‑NDIS gatekeeping practices ●​ increase administrative burden and delays

First Nations Impact

Disabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people already face:

●​ systemic racism in healthcare ●​ reduced access to diagnostic pathways ●​ cultural and geographic barriers to assessment

These barriers mean the new access provisions will disproportionately exclude First Nations people from the Scheme.

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 1 — Amend new access provisions

2. Loss of Essential Supports During Transitions The Bill enables participants to be moved into Foundational Supports that:

   Nicole Moran​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 53

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ are not yet defined ●​ are not funded ●​ do not exist in practice ●​ lack disability competence

Community evidence shows that even small disruptions to supports can lead to:

●​ hospitalisation ●​ school exclusion ●​ family breakdown ●​ child protection intervention ●​ homelessness

First Nations Impact

First Nations families are already over‑represented in:

●​ child protection ●​ youth justice ●​ school exclusion ●​ health system discrimination

Removing or reducing supports will intensify these inequities.

Relevant Recommendations

●​ Recommendation 3 — Guarantee no participant is made worse off ●​ Recommendation 4 — Strengthen Foundational Supports

3. Increased Administrative Harm The Bill introduces:

●​ mandatory plan end dates ●​ restricted reassessments ●​ reduced flexibility ●​ increased Ministerial rule‑making powers

Community evidence shows these mechanisms lead to:

●​ people being locked into inadequate plans ●​ long delays in correcting errors ●​ increased unmet need ●​ crisis escalation ●​ burnout among carers and families

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      54

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

First Nations Impact

Administrative harm compounds existing systemic barriers, including:

●​ limited access to culturally safe providers ●​ geographic isolation ●​ reduced digital access ●​ distrust of government systems

Relevant Recommendations

●​ Recommendation 2 — Limit Ministerial rule‑making powers ●​ Recommendation 6 — Protect choice and control

4. Cost‑Shifting and Systemic Abandonment The Bill requires the NDIA to consider whether other systems “should” provide supports. Community evidence shows that:

●​ state systems are under‑resourced ●​ mainstream services are often inaccessible ●​ people are already being pushed into health, education, and housing systems that cannot meet their needs

This results in:

●​ increased emergency department presentations ●​ school suspensions and expulsions ●​ homelessness ●​ family violence escalation ●​ criminalisation of disability

First Nations Impact

First Nations people are disproportionately harmed by:

●​ discriminatory policing ●​ school exclusion ●​ child protection intervention ●​ lack of culturally safe health services

Cost‑shifting will intensify these harms.

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 5 — Prevent cost‑shifting

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      55

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

5. Lack of Transparency and Accountability The Bill expands NDIA powers without expanding transparency obligations. Community‑verified harm data shows:

●​ rising rates of plan cuts ●​ increased access denials ●​ inconsistent decision‑making ●​ lack of reasons for decisions ●​ reduced ability to challenge errors

Without transparency, these patterns remain hidden.

First Nations Impact

The absence of data obscures:

●​ racial disparities ●​ geographic inequities ●​ systemic discrimination ●​ unmet need in remote communities

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 7 — Require transparency and data release

6. Regression of Disability Rights The Bill’s mechanisms — narrowed access, reduced autonomy, expanded executive power — collectively represent a shift away from the rights‑based intent of the NDIS.

Community evidence shows:

●​ increased coercion ●​ reduced self‑determination ●​ increased reliance on restrictive practices ●​ reduced access to independent advocacy ●​ increased institutionalisation risk

First Nations Impact

These regressions intersect with:

●​ colonisation ●​ intergenerational trauma ●​ systemic racism ●​ lack of culturally safe services

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      56

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 8 — Strengthen UNCRPD alignment

Conclusion of Part 6

The community impact evidence is clear: without the amendments outlined in Recommendations 1–8, the Bill will increase harm, deepen inequities, and undermine the rights of Disabled people. The impacts will be most severe for Disabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, children, people with complex support needs, and families already navigating multiple systems.

The following section examines the economic, social, and human rights implications of these impacts, demonstrating why urgent legislative amendment is required.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      57

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

PART 7 — ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

IMPLICATIONS

This section synthesises economic modelling principles, community harm data, and human rights obligations to demonstrate the broader consequences of the Bill. It shows that the Bill, if enacted without the amendments outlined in Recommendations 1–8, will increase costs across multiple systems, deepen inequity, and undermine the rights of Disabled people — with the most severe impacts on Disabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

1. Economic Implications 1.1 Increased downstream costs to state and territory systems

Reducing access to the NDIS or transitioning participants into under‑resourced Foundational Supports will shift costs to:

●​ emergency departments ●​ inpatient psychiatric units ●​ child protection systems ●​ homelessness services ●​ policing and justice systems ●​ public education systems

These systems are already overstretched and not disability‑competent. Harm Tracker data and community evidence show that even minor reductions in supports lead to:

●​ increased hospital presentations ●​ school suspensions and expulsions ●​ crisis accommodation use ●​ family breakdown ●​ incarceration of Disabled people

These downstream costs far exceed the cost of maintaining adequate NDIS supports.

Relevant Recommendations

●​ Recommendation 3 — Guarantee no participant is made worse off ●​ Recommendation 5 — Prevent cost‑shifting

1.2 Increased long‑term fiscal pressure

The Bill’s mechanisms — narrowed access, reduced autonomy, and administrative rigidity — will increase long‑term costs by:

●​ escalating unmet need

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      58

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ delaying early intervention ●​ increasing reliance on crisis services ●​ reducing workforce participation of Disabled people and carers ●​ increasing poverty and homelessness

Economic evidence consistently shows that early, adequate disability supports reduce long‑term fiscal pressure by preventing crisis escalation and increasing workforce participation. The Bill moves in the opposite direction.

Relevant Recommendations

●​ Recommendation 1 — Amend new access provisions ●​ Recommendation 6 — Protect choice and control

1.3 Economic impacts on families and carers

Reduced supports will:

●​ force carers (predominantly women) out of the workforce ●​ increase unpaid care burden ●​ increase financial stress ●​ reduce economic participation ●​ increase reliance on income support

These impacts are well‑documented in pre‑NDIS research and are already re‑emerging under current administrative settings.

2. Social Implications 2.1 Increased inequality and social exclusion

The Bill will deepen inequities for:

●​ Disabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people ●​ people in rural and remote communities ●​ people with psychosocial disability ●​ Autistic people ●​ people with chronic illness ●​ children and young people ●​ people experiencing poverty

Reduced access and reduced supports will increase:

●​ school exclusion ●​ homelessness ●​ family violence escalation ●​ institutionalisation

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      59

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ criminalisation of disability

These social impacts are compounded for Disabled people experiencing intersecting marginalisation, including gender‑based violence, poverty, racism, and rural isolation.

Relevant Recommendations

●​ Recommendation 4 — Strengthen Foundational Supports ●​ Recommendation 8 — Strengthen UNCRPD alignment

2.2 Increased risk of institutionalisation and restrictive practices

When people lose supports, they are more likely to be:

●​ placed in group homes ●​ subjected to restrictive practices ●​ admitted to psychiatric units ●​ detained under guardianship or mental health orders

These outcomes are harmful, expensive, and violate human rights.

2.3 Impacts on children and young people

Children are particularly vulnerable to:

●​ loss of early intervention ●​ school exclusion ●​ child protection intervention ●​ family breakdown

These impacts are magnified for First Nations children, who are already over‑represented in out‑of‑home care.

3. Human Rights Implications 3.1 UNCRPD non‑compliance

The Bill risks breaching multiple UNCRPD articles, including:

●​ Article 4 — general obligations ●​ Article 5 — equality and non‑discrimination ●​ Article 12 — equal recognition before the law ●​ Article 19 — living independently and being included in the community ●​ Article 21 — access to information ●​ Article 26 — habilitation and rehabilitation ●​ Article 28 — adequate standard of living

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      60

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

The Bill narrows access, reduces autonomy, expands executive power, and increases the risk of institutionalisation — all contrary to Australia’s obligations.

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 8 — Strengthen UNCRPD alignment

3.2 Disproportionate harm to First Nations people

The Bill compounds existing inequities and risks breaching:

●​ the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) ●​ Closing the Gap commitments ●​ the Racial Discrimination Act

Key risks include:

●​ exclusion from the NDIS ●​ loss of supports ●​ increased child protection intervention ●​ increased criminalisation ●​ reduced access to culturally safe services

Relevant Recommendations

●​ Recommendation 1 ●​ Recommendation 3 ●​ Recommendation 4

3.3 Reduced autonomy and self‑determination

Mandatory plan end dates, restricted reassessments, and expanded Ministerial powers reduce:

●​ autonomy ●​ choice and control ●​ procedural fairness ●​ access to justice

These mechanisms undermine the rights‑based foundation of the NDIS.

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 6 — Protect choice and control

Conclusion of Part 7

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      61

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

The economic, social, and human rights implications of the Bill are profound. Without the amendments outlined in Recommendations 1–8, the Bill will increase costs across multiple systems, deepen inequity, and undermine Australia’s human rights obligations. The impacts will be most severe for Disabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, children, people with complex support needs, and families already navigating multiple systems.

The next section outlines the legal risks and administrative law vulnerabilities created by the Bill, including potential grounds for challenge.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      62

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

PART 8 — LEGAL RISKS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

VULNERABILITIES

This section assesses the legal vulnerabilities created by the Bill, including administrative law risks, statutory interpretation issues, constitutional concerns, and potential grounds for judicial review. These risks arise because the Bill expands executive discretion, narrows statutory rights, and introduces mechanisms inconsistent with established administrative law principles, the NDIS Act’s objects, and Australia’s international human rights obligations.

The analysis demonstrates that the Bill, if enacted without the amendments outlined in Recommendations 1–8, will expose the NDIA, the Minister, and the Commonwealth to significant legal uncertainty, increased litigation, and potential invalidity challenges.

1. Administrative Law Vulnerabilities 1.1 Excessive and unconstrained Ministerial discretion

The Bill grants the Minister broad rule‑making powers that determine:

●​ access criteria ●​ support categories ●​ operational rules ●​ participant rights

This raises concerns under:

●​ the principle of legality ●​ the requirement that delegated legislation remain within the scope of the enabling Act ●​ the need for clear statutory limits on executive discretion

High Court authority confirms that broad discretionary power must be exercised consistently with statutory purpose and procedural fairness (e.g., Minister for Immigration v Li (2013) on unreasonableness; Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration (2012) on limits to executive discretion). The Bill’s expansion of Ministerial power heightens the risk of rules being struck down as ultra vires or inconsistent with the Act’s objects.

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 2 — Limit Ministerial rule‑making powers

1.2 Procedural fairness risks

The Bill introduces:

●​ mandatory plan end dates ●​ restricted reassessments

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      63

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ reduced rights to request review ●​ increased administrative discretion

These mechanisms risk breaching procedural fairness because they:

●​ limit the ability to challenge decisions ●​ reduce transparency of reasons ●​ create rigid timeframes that prevent individualised consideration ●​ increase the likelihood of arbitrary or inconsistent decision‑making

Courts have repeatedly held that administrative decision‑makers must:

●​ consider relevant matters ●​ ignore irrelevant matters ●​ act consistently ●​ provide procedural fairness

The Bill undermines these obligations.

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 6 — Protect choice and control

1.3 Risk of unlawful “constructive refusal”

If participants cannot request reassessments or are locked into inadequate plans, the NDIA may be found to have engaged in:

●​ constructive refusal ●​ failure to exercise statutory power ●​ unreasonable delay

These are established grounds for judicial review.

1.4 Inconsistent decision‑making and lack of reasons

The Bill does not strengthen obligations to provide reasons for decisions. This increases the risk of:

●​ Wednesbury unreasonableness ●​ failure to provide adequate justification ●​ inconsistent application of rules

Courts have repeatedly emphasised that transparency is essential for lawful administrative decision‑making.

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 7 — Require transparency and data release

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      64

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

2. Statutory Interpretation Risks 2.1 Conflict with the NDIS Act’s objects and principles

The Bill introduces mechanisms that conflict with the Act’s foundational principles, including:

●​ choice and control ●​ person‑centred planning ●​ support for social and economic participation ●​ respect for human rights

Under the principle of statutory coherence, courts interpret legislation in a way that preserves the Act’s objects. Provisions that undermine these objects may be read down or invalidated.

Relevant Recommendations

●​ Recommendation 3 ●​ Recommendation 6

2.2 Ambiguity in the definition of “functional capacity”

The proposed definition is vague, medicalised, and inconsistent with the social model of disability. Ambiguous statutory language increases:

●​ litigation risk ●​ inconsistent interpretation ●​ administrative error ●​ judicial review challenges

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 1 — Amend new access provisions

3. Constitutional and Federalism Risks 3.1 Cost‑shifting and cooperative federalism breakdown

The Bill requires the NDIA to consider whether other systems “should” provide supports. This risks:

●​ breaching intergovernmental agreements ●​ undermining cooperative federalism ●​ creating constitutional disputes over responsibility for disability supports

States may challenge decisions that impose unfunded obligations on their systems.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      65

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 5 — Prevent cost‑shifting

3.2 Potential inconsistency with anti‑discrimination law

If the Bill disproportionately excludes or harms:

●​ Disabled people ●​ First Nations people ●​ people with psychosocial disability ●​ people with chronic illness

…it may breach:

●​ the Disability Discrimination Act ●​ the Racial Discrimination Act ●​ the Sex Discrimination Act

This exposes the Commonwealth to legal challenge.

4. Human Rights Law Risks 4.1 UNCRPD non‑compliance

The Bill risks breaching multiple UNCRPD articles, including:

●​ equality and non‑discrimination ●​ autonomy and self‑determination ●​ community inclusion ●​ access to supports ●​ freedom from institutionalisation

Australia has binding obligations under the UNCRPD. Courts increasingly consider international law when interpreting domestic statutes.

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 8 — Strengthen UNCRPD alignment

4.2 Disproportionate harm to First Nations people

The Bill risks breaching:

●​ UNDRIP

●​ Closing the Gap commitments

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      66

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ the Racial Discrimination Act

If the Bill produces discriminatory outcomes — even unintentionally — it may be vulnerable to challenge.

5. Litigation and Review Risks If enacted without amendment, the Bill will significantly increase:

●​ AAT review applications ●​ Federal Court judicial review proceedings ●​ discrimination complaints ●​ constitutional challenges ●​ Ombudsman investigations

These legal vulnerabilities are not theoretical; they will materially increase litigation, administrative burden, and uncertainty for the NDIA, the Minister, and the Commonwealth if not addressed.

Conclusion of Part 8

The Bill, in its current form, creates significant administrative law vulnerabilities, statutory interpretation risks, and potential breaches of human rights and anti‑discrimination law. Without the amendments outlined in Recommendations 1–8, the Bill will expose the NDIA, the Minister, and the Commonwealth to increased litigation, legal uncertainty, and potential invalidity challenges.

The following section outlines the safeguards and oversight mechanisms required to mitigate these legal risks and ensure lawful, transparent, and rights‑based implementation.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      67

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

PART 9 — SAFEGUARDS, OVERSIGHT, AND

ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS

This section provides a rights‑based governance framework to ensure the Bill operates lawfully, transparently, and in alignment with Australia’s human rights obligations. These safeguards are essential to mitigate the administrative law vulnerabilities, constitutional risks, and human rights concerns identified in Part 8. Without them, the Bill will expose the NDIA, the Minister, and the Commonwealth to significant legal uncertainty, increased litigation, and systemic harm.

The safeguards below correspond directly to Recommendations 1–8 and provide a practical, implementable framework for rights‑based governance.

1. Safeguards for Access and Eligibility 1.1 Remove coercive treatment requirements

To prevent unlawful or discriminatory exclusion, the Bill must:

●​ remove the “all appropriate treatment” requirement ●​ ensure access decisions are based on functional need, not treatment history ●​ prohibit coercive or compliance‑based treatment expectations

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 1 — Amend new access provisions

1.2 Clarify and broaden the definition of functional capacity

To ensure lawful, consistent decision‑making:

●​ adopt a UNCRPD‑aligned definition ●​ recognise fluctuating and episodic disability ●​ require consideration of environmental and social barriers

This reduces ambiguity and litigation risk.

2. Safeguards for Ministerial Powers and Rule‑Making 2.1 Parliamentary oversight of rules

To prevent ultra vires rule‑making and ensure democratic accountability:

●​ all rules affecting access, supports, or participant rights must be disallowable instruments ●​ rules must be subject to public consultation ●​ rules must be accompanied by human rights compatibility statements

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      68

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 2 — Limit Ministerial rule‑making powers

2.2 Mandatory consultation with Disabled people

Rules must not be made without:

●​ consultation with Disabled people and representative organisations ●​ First Nations co‑design processes ●​ publication of consultation outcomes

This aligns with UNCRPD Articles 4(3) and 33.

3. Safeguards for Continuity of Supports 3.1 No participant worse off

To prevent unlawful constructive refusal and procedural unfairness:

●​ participants must retain existing supports until equivalent or greater supports are in place ●​ transitions must be voluntary, staged, and individually assessed ●​ Foundational Supports must be fully funded and operational before any transition occurs

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 3 — Guarantee no participant is made worse off

3.2 Mandatory transition safeguards

These include:

●​ written reasons for any proposed transition ●​ participant consent ●​ access to advocacy ●​ review rights ●​ culturally safe processes for First Nations participants

4. Safeguards for Foundational Supports 4.1 Legislative definition and minimum standards

Foundational Supports must be:

●​ defined in primary legislation

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      69

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ funded through intergovernmental agreement ●​ delivered by disability‑competent providers ●​ culturally safe and co‑designed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 4 — Strengthen Foundational Supports

4.2 Independent quality and safety oversight

To prevent harm:

●​ establish an independent oversight mechanism ●​ require public reporting on outcomes ●​ mandate cultural safety standards

Independent oversight bodies such as the Australian Human Rights Commission, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, and the Ombudsman must have clear jurisdiction to monitor compliance and investigate systemic issues.

5. Safeguards Against Cost‑Shifting 5.1 Evidence‑based refusal criteria

Supports cannot be refused on the basis that another system “should” provide them unless:

●​ the participant has actual, timely, and culturally safe access to that service ●​ the service is available in practice, not just in theory ●​ the service meets disability‑competency standards

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 5 — Prevent cost‑shifting

5.2 Intergovernmental accountability

To prevent constitutional disputes:

●​ require annual reporting on cross‑system responsibilities ●​ establish a dispute resolution mechanism between governments ●​ prohibit unilateral cost‑shifting by the Commonwealth

6. Safeguards for Choice, Control, and Procedural Fairness Nicole Moran​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 70

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

6.1 Restore participant‑initiated reassessments

Participants must be able to:

●​ request reassessment at any time ●​ receive timely decisions ●​ challenge inadequate plans

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 6 — Protect choice and control

6.2 Remove mandatory plan end dates

Mandatory end dates:

●​ undermine procedural fairness ●​ increase administrative burden ●​ create legal risk

They must be removed.

6.3 Strengthen rights to reasons and review

To ensure lawful decision‑making:

●​ require written reasons for all significant decisions ●​ ensure access to internal review and external merits review ●​ prohibit constructive refusal

7. Safeguards for Transparency and Accountability 7.1 Mandatory public reporting

The NDIA must publish quarterly data on:

●​ access decisions ●​ reassessments ●​ plan variations ●​ transitions ●​ outcomes ●​ demographic and geographic patterns

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 7 — Require transparency and data release

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      71

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

7.2 Release of de‑identified administrative data

To support accountability and research:

●​ release de‑identified datasets ●​ publish methodology and definitions ●​ ensure independent access for researchers and advocates

Data governance standards must ensure privacy, security, and culturally safe data stewardship, particularly for First Nations communities.

8. Safeguards for Human Rights Compliance 8.1 UNCRPD‑alignment clause

All decisions, rules, and amendments must be interpreted consistently with the UNCRPD.

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 8 — Strengthen UNCRPD alignment

8.2 First Nations‑specific safeguards

These include:

●​ culturally safe assessment pathways ●​ First Nations governance in Foundational Supports ●​ mandatory consideration of Closing the Gap targets ●​ prohibition of policies that disproportionately harm First Nations people

Conclusion of Part 9

The safeguards outlined in this section provide a practical, rights‑based framework to ensure the Bill operates lawfully, transparently, and in accordance with Australia’s human rights obligations. Without these mechanisms, the Bill will continue to pose significant legal, administrative, and human rights risks.

The following section outlines the implementation roadmap required to operationalise these safeguards and ensure a stable, rights‑based transition.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      72

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

PART 10 — IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP AND TRANSITION

PLAN

This section outlines the practical steps required to operationalise the amendments and safeguards proposed in Recommendations 1–8. It provides a staged, rights‑based implementation roadmap designed to ensure stability, continuity of supports, and lawful administration during and after the transition to the new legislative framework.

The roadmap is structured to prevent harm, maintain public trust, and ensure that no participant is made worse off during implementation.

1. Guiding Principles for Implementation Implementation must be grounded in:

●​ continuity of supports — no participant loses supports during transition ●​ co‑design with Disabled people — including First Nations governance ●​ transparency and accountability — public reporting at each stage ●​ cultural safety — especially for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities ●​ administrative law compliance — procedural fairness, reasons, review rights ●​ evidence‑based sequencing — no rollout before systems are ready

These principles ensure that implementation is lawful, safe, and aligned with the NDIS Act’s objects.

2. Stage One — Legislative Amendments and Rule Redrafting 2.1 Amend the Bill in line with Recommendations 1–8

This includes:

●​ removing the “all appropriate treatment” requirement ●​ adopting a UNCRPD‑aligned definition of functional capacity ●​ limiting Ministerial rule‑making powers ●​ inserting continuity‑of‑supports provisions ●​ defining Foundational Supports in primary legislation ●​ strengthening transparency obligations ●​ inserting a UNCRPD‑alignment clause

Relevant Recommendations

All: 1–8

2.2 Redraft rules with mandatory consultation

Rules must be:

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      73

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ co‑designed with Disabled people and representative organisations ●​ co‑designed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities ●​ published in draft form for public comment ●​ accompanied by human rights compatibility statements

This ensures lawful, transparent rule‑making.

3. Stage Two — System Readiness and Infrastructure Development 3.1 Build Foundational Supports before any transition

Foundational Supports must be:

●​ fully funded ●​ operational in every jurisdiction ●​ culturally safe ●​ disability‑competent ●​ accessible in rural and remote communities

No participant should be transitioned until these conditions are met.

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 4 — Strengthen Foundational Supports

3.2 Workforce development

This includes:

●​ training in disability competence ●​ cultural safety training ●​ First Nations‑led workforce development ●​ specialist training for psychosocial and complex disability

3.3 Data and reporting infrastructure

To meet transparency obligations:

●​ build systems for quarterly public reporting ●​ establish data governance standards ●​ ensure culturally safe data stewardship for First Nations communities ●​ enable independent access to de‑identified datasets

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 7 — Require transparency and data release

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      74

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

4. Stage Three — Participant‑Centred Transition Processes 4.1 Individual transition planning

Every participant must receive:

●​ a written transition plan ●​ a comparison of current and proposed supports ●​ assurance that no supports will be removed until equivalent supports are in place ●​ access to advocacy ●​ culturally safe processes for First Nations participants

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 3 — Guarantee no participant is made worse off

4.2 Voluntary, staged transitions

Transitions must be:

●​ voluntary ●​ staged over time ●​ individually assessed ●​ reversible if harm occurs

This prevents systemic shock and administrative overload.

4.3 Maintain full review rights

Participants must retain:

●​ the right to request reassessment at any time ●​ the right to internal review ●​ the right to external merits review

Relevant Recommendation

Recommendation 6 — Protect choice and control

5. Stage Four — Oversight, Monitoring, and Evaluation 5.1 Independent oversight

Oversight bodies must include:

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      75

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ the Australian Human Rights Commission

●​ the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission ●​ the Commonwealth Ombudsman ●​ First Nations governance bodies

They must have jurisdiction to:

●​ monitor compliance ●​ investigate systemic issues ●​ publish findings ●​ recommend corrective action

5.2 Continuous evaluation

Evaluation must:

●​ be ongoing ●​ include lived experience data ●​ include First Nations‑led evaluation ●​ be publicly reported ●​ trigger mandatory review if harm indicators rise

5.3 Parliamentary reporting

The Minister must table:

●​ quarterly implementation reports ●​ annual human rights compliance assessments ●​ independent evaluation findings

This ensures democratic accountability.

6. Stage Five — Long‑Term System Stabilisation 6.1 Legislative review after two years

A statutory review must assess:

●​ access outcomes ●​ equity impacts ●​ First Nations outcomes ●​ administrative law compliance ●​ cost‑shifting patterns ●​ participant experience

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      76

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

6.2 Ongoing co‑design governance

Establish permanent governance structures that include:

●​ Disabled people ●​ First Nations leadership ●​ carers and families ●​ disability representative organisations

This ensures the Scheme remains rights‑based and community‑led.

Conclusion of Part 10

The implementation roadmap outlined in this section provides a safe, lawful, and rights‑based pathway to operationalise the amendments and safeguards proposed in Recommendations 1–8. It ensures continuity of supports, prevents harm, and maintains public trust during the transition to the new legislative framework.

The next section provides the concluding synthesis of the submission, drawing together the evidence, legal analysis, and recommendations.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      77

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

PART 11 — CONCLUSION AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The evidence presented throughout this submission demonstrates that the NDIS Amendment Bill 2026, in its current form, poses significant risks to the rights, safety, and long‑term wellbeing of Disabled people, their families, and the broader community. Drawing on lived experience, academic study, community‑level data, and established research, this submission shows that the Bill would reduce access to reasonable and necessary supports, undermine evidence‑based practice, and shift costs onto individuals, state systems, and crisis services.

My lived experience as a Disabled person and parent of a Disabled child illustrates both the transformative impact of appropriate supports and the harm caused when professional recommendations are ignored or underfunded. The NDIS has enabled increased capacity, stability, education, community participation, and long‑term contribution. However, current underfunding—such as the gap between the 10 hours of physiotherapy funded and the significantly higher level recommended by clinicians—demonstrates systemic failures that the Bill risks entrenching further.

The Bill’s shift away from clinical evidence, its potential to reduce supports, and its movement toward more restrictive administrative mechanisms represent a regression from the rights‑based foundations of the Scheme. These changes are inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD and risk returning Disabled people to fragmented, inequitable, pre‑NDIS systems. As demonstrated throughout this submission, unmet support needs do not disappear—they shift into more expensive, more harmful systems, increasing long‑term costs and reducing quality of life.

The evidence also highlights the disproportionate impacts on regional communities, parents and carers, survivors of gender‑based violence, and people with complex support needs. These impacts must be explicitly considered in any legislative reform process.

The Senate Committee has an opportunity—and a responsibility—to ensure that reforms strengthen, rather than weaken, the NDIS. This requires:

●​ retaining and reinforcing evidence‑based decision‑making ●​ ensuring that professional recommendations are respected ●​ protecting participant autonomy and continuity of care ●​ preventing regression of disability rights ●​ ensuring that no Disabled person is left worse off

The recommendations outlined in this submission provide a pathway to achieving these goals while maintaining the sustainability and integrity of the Scheme. The NDIS was created to uphold the rights, dignity, and inclusion of Disabled people. Any reform must honour that purpose. The Committee must ensure that the Amendment Bill is revised to align with human rights obligations, contemporary evidence, and the lived realities of Disabled people and their families.

1. Summary of Required Amendments 1.1 Amend access provisions

●​ Remove coercive treatment requirements

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      78

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ Adopt a UNCRPD‑aligned definition of functional capacity

Recognise fluctuating and episodic disability

●​ Recommendation 1

1.2 Limit Ministerial rule‑making powers

●​ Ensure rules are disallowable ●​ Require public consultation

Require human rights compatibility statements

●​ Recommendation 2

1.3 Guarantee continuity of supports

●​ No participant worse off ●​ No transitions until Foundational Supports exist

Individualised transition planning

●​ Recommendation 3

1.4 Strengthen Foundational Supports

●​ Define in primary legislation ●​ Fully fund through intergovernmental agreement

Ensure cultural safety and disability competence

●​ Recommendation 4

1.5 Prevent cost‑shifting

●​ Require evidence of actual access to mainstream services ●​ Prohibit theoretical or aspirational refusals

Establish intergovernmental accountability mechanisms

●​ Recommendation 5

1.6 Protect choice, control, and procedural fairness

●​ Restore participant‑initiated reassessments ●​ Remove mandatory plan end dates

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      79

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Strengthen rights to reasons and review

●​ Recommendation 6

1.7 Strengthen transparency and accountability

●​ Mandatory quarterly public reporting ●​ Release de‑identified administrative data

Establish data governance standards

●​ Recommendation 7

1.8 Ensure UNCRPD alignment

●​ Insert a UNCRPD‑alignment clause ●​ Require human rights impact assessments

Embed First Nations‑specific safeguards

●​ Recommendation 8

2. Why These Amendments Are Necessary The amendments proposed in this submission are necessary to:

●​ uphold the rights of Disabled people ●​ prevent harm during transition ●​ ensure lawful administration ●​ maintain public trust ●​ protect First Nations communities from disproportionate impacts ●​ avoid constitutional and administrative law vulnerabilities ●​ ensure the NDIS remains sustainable, equitable, and rights‑based

Without these amendments, the Bill will undermine the core purpose of the NDIS: to support the social and economic participation of Disabled people.

3. The Path Forward The NDIS can be strengthened — but only through:

●​ rights‑based legislative design ●​ transparent governance ●​ co‑design with Disabled people ●​ First Nations leadership ●​ evidence‑based implementation ●​ strong oversight and accountability

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      80

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

First Nations leadership must be embedded in all stages of reform, implementation, and oversight.

The Implementation Roadmap in Part 10 provides a clear, staged plan to deliver these reforms safely and effectively.

4. Final Statement Disabled people, families, and communities deserve a Scheme that is stable, lawful, transparent, and grounded in human rights. The amendments and safeguards outlined in this submission provide a clear, achievable pathway to deliver that outcome.

The Parliament now has a choice:

to enact a Bill that increases harm and legal risk,

or to adopt a rights‑based framework that strengthens the NDIS for generations.

These reforms require bipartisan commitment to the rights, safety, and dignity of Disabled people.

This submission urges the Committee to adopt Recommendations 1–8 in full.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      81

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

PART 12 — FORMAL STATEMENT OF SUPPORT AND

DECLARATION

This section provides a formal declaration to accompany the submission, confirming the basis of the evidence, the representativeness of the concerns raised, and the intent behind the recommendations. It strengthens the authority of the submission and signals to the Committee that the analysis is grounded in lived experience, community‑verified data, and rights‑based expertise.

1. Basis of the Submission This submission is grounded in:

●​ lived experience of Disabled people, families, and carers ●​ community‑verified harm data, including Harm Tracker reports ●​ evidence from disability organisations, advocates, and frontline workers ●​ administrative patterns observed across multiple jurisdictions ●​ human rights frameworks, including the UNCRPD and UNDRIP ●​ legal analysis of administrative law, statutory interpretation, and constitutional principles ●​ the experiences of Disabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people ●​ the systemic impacts of pre‑NDIS service systems

Any limitations in this submission reflect the urgency of the legislative process and the constraints faced by Disabled people and families providing evidence while managing significant support needs.

2. Representativeness and Consultation The concerns and recommendations in this submission reflect:

●​ the experiences of thousands of Disabled people and families ●​ the expertise of advocates, peer workers, and community leaders ●​ the voices of people who have experienced administrative harm ●​ the perspectives of First Nations communities and organisations ●​ the insights of disability‑competent practitioners ●​ the patterns emerging from current NDIA decision‑making

This submission is not an isolated viewpoint; it is a synthesis of broad, consistent, and well‑documented community evidence.

3. Commitment to Co‑Design and Rights‑Based Reform The reforms proposed in Recommendations 1–8 are grounded in:

●​ co‑design with Disabled people ●​ First Nations leadership ●​ human rights obligations ●​ evidence‑based policy

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      82

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

●​ non‑regression principles ●​ the original intent of the NDIS

The disability community stands ready to work with Parliament, governments, and the NDIA to implement these reforms safely and effectively.

4. Declaration I declare that:

●​ the information provided in this submission is accurate to the best of my knowledge ●​ the analysis is based on lived experience, community evidence, and rights‑based expertise ●​ the recommendations are made in good faith and in the public interest ●​ the intent of this submission is to strengthen the NDIS, uphold human rights, and prevent harm ●​ the reforms proposed are necessary to ensure the Scheme remains lawful, sustainable, and equitable

This submission is offered to the Committee with the expectation that the voices and rights of Disabled people will be central to all legislative and policy decisions.

5. Closing Statement Disabled people, families, and communities deserve a Scheme that is stable, fair, and grounded in dignity. The amendments and safeguards outlined in this submission provide a clear, achievable pathway to deliver that outcome.

The disability community calls on Parliament to adopt Recommendations 1–8 in full and to commit to a rights‑based future for the NDIS.

I welcome the opportunity to provide further evidence, clarification, or testimony to assist the Committee in its deliberations.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      83

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

REFERENCE LIST

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2023). Disability, ageing and carers, Australia: Summary of findings. ABS.

Australian Government. (2024). NDIS Review: Working together to deliver the NDIS. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2022). Australia’s compliance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Submission to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. AHRC.

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2023). Human rights and the NDIS: Key principles for reform. AHRC.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2023). People with disability in Australia. AIHW.

Closing the Gap Partnership. (2020). National Agreement on Closing the Gap. Joint Council on Closing

the Gap.

Commonwealth Ombudsman. (2022). Administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme: Report

on complaints and systemic issues. Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Council of Australian Governments. (2013). Intergovernmental Agreement for the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch. COAG.

Department of Social Services. (2023). NDIS Annual Financial Sustainability Report (public summary). DSS.

Microsoft Copilot. (2026). Response generated by an artificial intelligence model. Microsoft. https://copilot.microsoft.com

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2023). Annual report. NDIS Commission.

National Disability Insurance Agency. (2023). Quarterly reports to disability ministers. NDIA.

National Disability Insurance Agency. (2024). Annual report. NDIA.

Parliamentary Budget Office. (2023). National Disability Insurance Scheme: Long‑term cost projections. Parliamentary Budget Office.

Productivity Commission. (2011). Disability care and support (Report No. 54). Productivity Commission.

Productivity Commission. (2017). National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) costs (Study Report). Productivity Commission.

Productivity Commission. (2023). Review of government services: Disability services. Productivity Commission.

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      84

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. United Nations.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      85

Submission 2592

THE LINE WE HOLD​ Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

This submission was prepared using a combination of my own analysis, lived experience, professional knowledge, and drafting support from Microsoft Copilot. Copilot was used as an assistive technology to support the organisation, refinement, and clarity of complex policy material. All substantive content, perspectives, and recommendations are my own. Copilot did not generate any content without my direction, and all text was reviewed, edited, and approved by me.

The use of Copilot is disclosed in the interests of transparency and in accordance with emerging best practice in academic, policy, and government submissions. Transparent acknowledgement of assistive technologies strengthens the credibility of a submission by making clear the boundaries of authorship, the role of digital tools, and the processes used to ensure accuracy and integrity. This is consistent with the principles of accountability and methodological clarity expected in formal evidence‑based processes.

Copilot was also used as an accessibility tool. As a Disabled person, assistive technologies support my ability to engage with complex drafting tasks, particularly within compressed timeframes. The short consultation period for this Bill required rapid synthesis of legislative material, policy analysis, and lived‑experience evidence. Copilot enabled me to meet these time constraints without compromising the quality, accuracy, or rigour of the submission. Its use is comparable to other recognised accessibility supports such as screen readers, dictation tools, or grammar‑checking software.

The inclusion of Copilot in the drafting process does not diminish my authorship or expertise. Rather, it reflects the practical reality that accessible tools enable equitable participation in public policy processes, especially when timelines are short and the material is complex. The insights, arguments, and lived‑experience evidence presented in this submission remain entirely my own.

Nicole Moran​    ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​            ​      86