Submission 3331 — Protect All Humans — NDIS Future Generations Bill

P R O T E C T A L L H U M A N S · A H U M A N I S T E T H I C A L C O N S E N S U S PA P E R

Strengthening the NDIS for Future Generations

Asks for the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, drawn from the Disability Royal Commission’s Final Report, public submissions to the Bill’s inquiry, and Protect All Humans’ own positions on data, automation and service delivery.

The NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 was built to give effect to Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Submitters — including the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Law Council of Australia, Grattan Institute, People with Disability Australia, National Legal Aid and First Peoples Disability Network — warn the Bill as drafted risks breaching that promise. Protect All Humans sets out what needs to change.

Uphold human rights law Model foundational supports first 1 2 Don’t pass the Bill until it’s checked against the CRPD’s ban on No eligibility changes until replacement supports are funded, rolling back rights (“non-retrogression”). running, and independently evaluated — with the modelling made public.

Publish honest fraud & abuse data Make accessibility a legal right 3 4 Fraud is ~0.5% of Scheme costs. Fund the same rigour for Easy Read, interpreters and culturally safe formats shouldn’t counting abuse and neglect of participants. be optional extras.

Interpret law without discrimination Regulate AI, protect review rights 5 6 Deliver the Disability Rights Act; apply the CRPD’s human No unchecked Ministerial power. No automated decision rights model, not a narrower medical model. without human review, and no NDIS data combined with AI without an Attorney-General privacy and consent investigation.

No cost-shifting Assess who is hit hardest 7 8 Don’t withdraw NDIS support on the promise of a mainstream Publish a combined impact assessment for First Nations service that isn’t actually there yet. people, women, children and other affected groups.

Strengthen oversight 9 Fund safeguarding and complaints data as seriously as fraud enforcement. Establish the National Disability Commission.

Track the psychosocial impact, over time 10 Fund and publish longitudinal research into how NDIS changes affect participants’ mental health and wellbeing — especially people with psychosocial disability — from commencement onward. If the Government never collects this evidence, Parliament cannot honestly call the harm an “unintended consequence.”

Easy English versions of all points, and full sourcing for every claim on this page — including which recommendations are Protect All Humans’ own position rather than a direct submitter request — are available in the companion document: Strengthening the NDIS for Future Generations.

Sources: Disability Royal Commission Final Report (2023); submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, including the PROTECT ALL HUMANS Australian Human Rights Commission, Law Council of Australia, National Legal Aid, Grattan Institute, People with JULY 2026 Disability Australia, First Peoples Disability Network Australia and Disability Representative Organisations.

STRENGTHENING THE NDIS

FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS

A position paper on human rights, evidence and accountability in the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Prepared by PROTECT ALL HUMANS, representing a humanist ethical consensus on the rights of people with disability.

Every point is set out twice — once for the Senate inquiry, once in Easy English — so that no one is shut out of a debate about their own rights.

Prepared from the Disability Royal Commission Final Report and public submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the Bill (2026). July 2026

How to read this document

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

was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee in May 2026. This paper is prepared by Protect All Humans, a body representing a humanist ethical consensus on the rights of people with disability. It sets out the points that submitters, the Disability Royal Commission’s Final Report, and Australia’s human rights obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) raise in relation to the Bill, together with Protect All Humans’ own positions on the regulation of automation and data, and on the structure of NDIS service delivery.

Each point appears twice. The Inquiry-level version is written for the Committee, Parliament and policy readers, with citations to named submissions (by submission number) and to the Disability Royal Commission’s twelve-volume Final Report. The Easy English version is written in short, plain sentences, following Easy Read conventions used across the Australian disability sector, so that people with disability — the people this Bill is actually about — can read and use this document directly, not only through an intermediary.

Most points restate and cite the evidence and recommendations already before the Committee. Two elements extend beyond what any single cited submission requests: the call for an Attorney-General investigation into NDIS data and artificial intelligence (Point 6), and the call for funded, published, longitudinal research tracking the psychosocial impact of this Bill over time (Point 10). Where this is the case, it is stated plainly in that point’s sources line, so readers can distinguish the evidence base from Protect All Humans’ own position built upon it.

A one-page summary of all asks appears at the end of this document.

1. The Bill breaches Australia’s human rights obligations under the CRPD

INQUIRY-LEVEL VERSION

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) was enacted expressly “to give effect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” and five other core human rights treaties (Explanatory Memorandum, NDIS Bill 2012; Object clause, Part 2(3)(a) and (i)). Associate Professor Dinesh Wadiwel and Professor Linda Steele (Submission 1504) find that Schedule 1, Part 6 of the Bill — which would embed “financial sustainability” as a condition on “reasonable and necessary” supports — breaches the duty of non-retrogression in relation to economic, social and cultural rights. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ General Comment No. 5 on Article 19 states that “retrogressive measures constitute a violation of article 19” and that no CRPD right is conditioned on financial sustainability (CRPD/C/GC/5, [10]– [11]). The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the identical concern about the predecessor Bill in 2024, finding it “not clear” that financial sustainability would be accepted as a legitimate ground for retrogressive measures under international law.

The Australian Human Rights Commission (Submission 287) independently concludes the Bill “has the potential to be regressive in the protection and realisation of the rights of people with disability” and that Ministerial discourse around the changes “reinforces an ableist framing of people with disability as a cost pressure to be managed, rather than as people who have rights.” Belong’s submission maps specific risks to Article 19 (independent living and community inclusion), Article 5 (equality and non-discrimination), Article 16 (freedom from violence, abuse and neglect), Article 28 (adequate standard of living and social protection) and Article 4(3) (consultation and active involvement of people with disability).

Recommendation: The Bill should not be reported as human-rights compatible until it has been formally assessed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights should be revised to properly engage with the non-retrogression duty under Article 19 and General Comment No. 5.

Sources: NDIS Act 2013 Object clause; Submission 1504 (A/Prof Dinesh Wadiwel & Prof Linda Steele, University of Sydney/UTS); Submission 287 (Australian Human Rights Commission); DRC Belong NDIS Bill Submission; CRPD Committee General Comment No. 5.

EASY ENGLISH VERSION

The NDIS law was made to protect the rights of people with disability. These rights come from a United Nations agreement called the CRPD.

The new Bill lets the Government cut supports to save money.

Legal experts say this breaks international human rights rules. The United Nations says a country must not take away disability rights just to save money. This is called “going backwards” on rights. It is not allowed.

The Australian Human Rights Commission agrees the Bill could take away people’s rights.

What we want: A group of MPs called the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights must check the Bill properly before it becomes law. They must check if it breaks human rights rules.

2. Foundational supports must be modelled, funded and independently evaluated before anyone loses NDIS access

INQUIRY-LEVEL VERSION

Recommendation 26 of the NDIS Independent Review (2023) states that changes to access and budget-setting can only proceed once recommended foundational supports are in place outside the NDIS (Action 26.2). The Bill, as drafted, does not give effect to this condition (Submission 333, Dr Monique Ryan MP).

The  Disability Representative Organisations’  joint submission (Submission 809) states that a proper

assessment of the Bill’s cumulative impact “is not currently possible” due to “the lack of detail regarding foundational supports,” “significant unknown variables across systems” and “the absence of comparable data to assess impacts,” and calls for “robust evidence, modelling and impact analysis to be completed and publicly released.” People with Disability Australia (Submission 381) similarly recommends the Government be required to report on the implementation status of foundational supports, including Thriving Kids, before Schedule 1 Parts 4–9 commence, and to publish the economic modelling behind the projected $37.8 billion in savings over four years, including its assumptions and any cost-shifting onto state and territory systems.

The scale of the funding gap is material. Grattan Institute (Submission 276) previously estimated more than $700 million per year is needed to fund General Foundational Supports (low-level community disability supports) alone. The Commonwealth’s current commitment is $5 billion as a 50 per cent share of a funding agreement with the states and territories — $2 billion for Thriving Kids and $3 billion in a contingency fund — a commitment Grattan notes has already taken two-and-a-half years just to negotiate, against a January 2028 implementation deadline. Grattan’s modelling separately projects 346,000 fewer people on the Scheme in 2030–31 than would otherwise be the case.

Recommendation: Commencement of Schedule 1, Parts 4–9 should be conditional on the Minister tabling a statement in both Houses of Parliament on the funding, scope and operational readiness of foundational supports in every jurisdiction, and on publication of the full underlying economic and cost-shifting modelling, consistent with amendments proposed in Submission 333 (Attachment A) and Recommendations 1–3 of Submission 381.

EASY ENGLISH VERSION

The Government wants some people to get help from new services called “foundational supports” instead of the NDIS.

These new services do not exist properly yet in most places.

Experts say the Government has not shown its modelling — the maths and evidence — that these new services will actually work and be enough.

The independent NDIS Review said the Government must build these new services before changing who can get the NDIS.

The Government has promised $5 billion to help build foundational supports. Experts say this may not be enough money.

What we want: The Government must show its full plan and evidence for foundational supports. No one should lose their NDIS support until the new services are built, funded, and proven to work.

Sources: NDIS Independent Review (2023) Recommendation 26; Submission 333 (Dr Monique Ryan MP); Submission 809 (Disability Representative Organisations); Submission 381 (People with Disability Australia); Submission 276 (Grattan Institute).

3. The Government must publish accurate data on fraud and abuse before using it to justify cuts to individuals

INQUIRY-LEVEL VERSION

Ministerial commentary supporting the Bill has repeatedly invoked “shonks, grifters, fraudsters, and crooks” in the NDIS. Grattan Institute’s analysis (Submission 276) finds this framing is not proportionate to the evidence: Treasury estimates the savings attributable to fraud measures at $0.9 billion over four years — 2 per cent of total savings in the reform package and 0.5 per cent of total Scheme costs — while $769 million in new funding has been committed to fraud and integrity initiatives across the past five federal budgets. Grattan concludes “fraud is unlikely to be a big driver of cost growth,” and that “few of the savings in this package will be delivered by cracking down on fraud.”

The Law Council of Australia (Submission 1731) similarly finds that the proposed reduction of the claims window from two years to 90 days is justified in the Explanatory Memorandum by reference to fraud risk, “despite the lack of evidence of fraud which would justify this burden being placed upon claimants.” National Legal Aid (Submission 577) warns that Schedule 2’s expanded compliance and investigative powers “risk unintended consequences for participants who are not engaging in deliberate fraudulent conduct,” particularly through lengthy record-retention requirements (3–5 years) for self-managing participants.

This is not an argument against integrity measures. It is an argument for evidence proportionate to the claim. The Disability Royal Commission’s own Final Report found that “violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation towards people with disability are likely to be under-reported,” and that this under-reporting “conceals the full extent of the problem and limits the evidence base to inform well-targeted and effective public policy responses.” Data collection and reporting on the use of restrictive practices was separately found to be “poor,” such that their prevalence “cannot be properly assessed, monitored over time or compared across settings or jurisdictions.” The rigour missing from the fraud narrative is precisely what is needed — and largely absent — in Australia’s evidence base on abuse and exploitation of people with disability.

Recommendation: Before Schedule 2 measures commence, the Government should publish disaggregated data on substantiated NDIS fraud (separating provider fraud, organised crime and participant error) alongside equivalent, properly resourced data collection on the abuse, neglect and exploitation of participants, so that policy responses are proportionate to the real, evidenced risks on both sides of the ledger.

Sources: Submission 276 (Grattan Institute); Submission 1731 (Law Council of Australia); Submission 577 (National Legal Aid); Submission 1727 (Antipoverty Centre); Disability Royal Commission Final Report, Executive Summary and Recommendations.

EASY ENGLISH VERSION

Some politicians say there is a lot of fraud in the NDIS. Fraud means stealing money by lying.

Experts checked the numbers. They found real fraud is a very small part of NDIS costs — about half of one per cent.

The Government already spends a lot of money trying to stop fraud.

At the same time, we do not have good data on how many people with disability experience abuse. The Disability Royal Commission found that abuse is often not reported and not properly counted.

What we want: Before the Government makes new fraud rules, it must publish honest numbers on fraud. It must also properly count and report abuse of people with disability, so both problems get a fair, evidence-based response — not just the one politicians talk about most.

4. Accessible information, communication and services must be a legislated right, not a discretionary courtesy

INQUIRY-LEVEL VERSION

The Disability Royal Commission’s Final Report (Volume 6, Enabling Autonomy and Access) finds that “accessible information and communications are a critical safeguard against violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation” and are “necessary for people with disability to exercise autonomy,” yet people with disability routinely experience inaccessible information in health care, disability services, education, employment and prisons. Recommendation 6.1 calls for a national plan, co-designed with people with disability, to improve accessibility of information and communications, tied to Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021–2031. The Commission separately recommends that its proposed Disability Rights Act impose a duty on Commonwealth entities to provide communications “in at least two formats accessible to people with disability” and to fund appropriately trained interpreters, including Auslan interpreters, on request.

Submissions to this inquiry demonstrate the consequence of not meeting this standard now. People with Disability Australia (Submission 381) reports that almost 20,000 people signed its petition calling for, among other things, genuine co-design with people with disability. The Australian Human Rights Commission (Submission 287) found the Bill’s own two-week consultation period was conducted without accessible formats being systematically offered, undermining the Government’s capacity to demonstrate compliance with Article 4(3) of the CRPD. First Peoples Disability Network Australia (Submission 448) further finds that reforms increasing reliance on digital systems, specialist evidentiary requirements and formal engagement with government administration will disproportionately exclude Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability already facing geographic isolation, digital exclusion and institutional distrust.

Recommendation: Accessible information and communication requirements — including Easy Read materials, funded interpreters, and culturally safe formats for First Nations communities — should be embedded as enforceable duties in the Bill and its supporting rules, not left to future discretionary policy, consistent with Disability Royal Commission Recommendation 6.1 and the Commission’s proposed Disability Rights Act duties.

Sources: Disability Royal Commission Final Report, Volume 6 (Enabling Autonomy and Access), Recommendation 6.1; Submission 381 (People with Disability Australia); Submission 287 (Australian Human Rights Commission); Submission 448 (First Peoples Disability Network Australia).

EASY ENGLISH VERSION

People with disability have a right to get information in a way they can understand.

This can mean Easy Read documents, Auslan interpreters, or other accessible formats.

The Disability Royal Commission says accessible information helps stop abuse and neglect. It said the Government must make a national plan for this.

Right now, information about the new Bill is often hard to understand. Many people with disability, including First Nations people with disability, have not been able to properly take part in decisions about the Bill.

What we want: The law should make accessible information a right, not just a nice idea. This includes Easy Read, interpreters, and formats that respect First Nations culture.

5. Human rights law and the CRPD/OHCHR framework must be interpreted without discrimination

INQUIRY-LEVEL VERSION

The Disability Royal Commission’s central legislative recommendation is the enactment of an Australian Disability Rights Act (DRA) “to translate the international human rights of people with disability into domestic Australian law,” alongside strengthening the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The DRA is intended to give effect to the rights recognised under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, an instrument administered under the United Nations human rights treaty system overseen by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), including the right to non-discrimination and equality before the law, recognition as a person before the law, freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse, liberty and security, and equitable access to health services, with enforceable remedies where rights are breached.

This inquiry is an opportunity to test whether current law meets that standard. Australia entered an interpretative declaration on ratifying the CRPD in 2008 concerning Articles 12, 17 and 18 (decision-making and compulsory treatment); four of the Royal Commission’s six Commissioners (Bennett, Galbally, Mason and McEwin) recommended it be withdrawn to focus law and policy on a principled, rights-centred approach to supported decision-making (Recommendation 6.20). The Australian Human Rights Commission’s analysis of this Bill (Submission 287) demonstrates why this matters in practice: the Bill’s new “functional capacity” definition removes consideration of environmental and personal circumstance, moving the NDIS “away from the human rights model of disability toward a narrower, impairment-focused, medical model.” First Peoples Disability Network Australia (Submission 448) frames its concerns explicitly under the CRPD and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — both OHCHR instruments — read alongside the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and warns that the Bill’s cumulative effect risks reproducing structural racism and discrimination already faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability.

Recommendation: The Committee should recommend the Government progress the Disability Rights Act and Disability Discrimination Act reforms recommended by the Royal Commission, reconsider Australia’s interpretative declaration on Article 12, and require that all Bill provisions — including the new functional capacity test — be interpreted and applied consistently with the social and human rights model of disability under the CRPD, not a narrower medical model.

Sources: Disability Royal Commission Final Report, Executive Summary and Volume 4 (Realising the Human Rights of People with Disability), Recommendation 6.20; Submission 287 (Australian Human Rights Commission); Submission 448 (First Peoples Disability Network Australia).

EASY ENGLISH VERSION

The United Nations has rules to protect the rights of people with disability. These rules are called the CRPD.

The Disability Royal Commission wants Australia to make a new law called the Disability Rights Act. This law would make these UN rules part of Australian law, with real ways to enforce them.

Some parts of this Bill move away from a rights-based way of thinking about disability. Instead, they focus more on what is “wrong” with a person’s body, not on removing the barriers around them.

First Nations people with disability say the Bill could make racism and unfair treatment worse for them.

What we want: Australia should make the Disability Rights Act a reality. All parts of the Bill should be read and used in a way that protects rights and does not discriminate against anyone.

6. Regulate AI and automated decision-making — and investigate how NDIS data is used

INQUIRY-LEVEL VERSION

The Australian Human Rights Commission (Submission 287) identifies a new Ministerial power to reduce funding for groups of supports by legislative instrument, without detailed criteria, a requirement to justify decisions, or adequate avenues for review. Combined with a reduction across the Bill in reviewable administrative decisions, this “significantly diminishes the role of the Administrative Review Tribunal and the judiciary, compromising pathways to access justice.” National Legal Aid (Submission 577) documents specific mechanisms of concern, including a change to reassessment provisions (proposed s 48(3)) that would remove the automatic review currently triggered when the CEO fails to decide a reassessment request within the prescribed time, and recommends the Government “release any modelling that has been undertaken on the systemic impacts of the proposed reforms, including increased demand on the Administrative Review Tribunal” (Recommendation 59).

On automation specifically, the AHRC warns that expanded automated administrative decision-making under Schedule 3, Part 2 “raises significant transparency, accountability and fairness concerns,” noting its own findings in the automated aged care assessment context that automation “risks overlooking individual circumstances and entrenching systemic disadvantage.” People with Disability Australia (Submission 381, Recommendations 38–40) calls for automated decision-making to be prohibited for any action resulting in access refusal, funding reduction, suspension, revocation or debt creation, for mandatory human review before any adverse decision, and for explicit legislative assurance that ART review will be retained “with no erosion of procedural fairness or review rights.”

Protect All Humans holds that the risk identified by the AHRC extends beyond the fairness of individual decisions to the underlying data itself. NDIS participant records are health and disability information and, as such, fall within the “sensitive information” category under the Australian Privacy Principles (Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)) — the highest protection tier in Australian privacy law — and engage the right to privacy under Article 22 of the CRPD, which specifically protects the confidentiality of health, rehabilitation and personal information. Where NDIS data is combined with, or used to train and calibrate, automated decision-making systems under Schedule 3, participants are not asked for — and cannot meaningfully give — informed, specific consent to that particular use at the point their supports are approved. Protect All Humans considers this data to be of the highest legal sensitivity, what we term sovereign data, warranting protection at least equivalent to other nationally significant data holdings, and not to be combined with AI systems without independent legal clearance.

Recommendation: The Bill should be amended to preserve automatic and merits review rights currently available under the Act, require mandatory human review before any automated decision adverse to a participant, and require independent oversight of Ministerial pricing and funding-reduction powers.

Recommendation: The Attorney-General should commission and publish an investigation into whether the

collection, combination and automated processing of NDIS data with  artificial intelligence systems  is

consistent with the right to privacy and the right to freely given, specific and informed consent, before any Schedule 3 automated decision-making power is used on an NDIS participant.

EASY ENGLISH VERSION

This Bill gives the Minister more power to make decisions about NDIS funding, without always explaining why.

It also lets computers make more decisions about people’s support, instead of a person checking carefully.

Experts warn this could mean unfair decisions with no proper way to challenge them.

NDIS records are private health information. This is some of the most protected information under Australian law. We call it sovereign data.

No one has properly asked participants if it is okay to use this information with AI (computer) systems.

What we want: People must keep the right to ask for an independent review if they disagree with a decision. A person — not just a computer — must check any decision that could take away someone’s support. The Attorney-General must check if using AI with NDIS data breaks people’s right to privacy and their right to say yes or no.

Sources: Submission 287 (Australian Human Rights Commission); Submission 577 (National Legal Aid); Submission 381 (People with Disability Australia); CRPD Article 22 (Respect for privacy); Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), Australian Privacy Principles. The Attorney-General investigation and sovereign-data classification are Protect All Humans’ own recommendations, extending beyond the submissions cited.

7. No cost-shifting onto unproven, under-resourced mainstream and foundational systems

INQUIRY-LEVEL VERSION

The Australian Human Rights Commission (Submission 287) finds that measures shifting costs and care responsibilities away from the NDIS and onto hospitals, health, aged care and other already-strained service systems are likely, where those systems cannot meet demand, to fall back onto “families, carers and informal supports” — with “predictable and disproportionate gendered impacts,” since reduced funded supports

“transfer care  responsibilities  to unpaid  carers, who are predominantly women.” The Commission

recommends the Bill not proceed without a comprehensive, public gender impact analysis, a recommendation also made by Women With Disabilities Australia.

Belong’s submission recommends the Bill create “strong protections against cost-shifting between the NDIS and mainstream systems, including a requirement that no support be withdrawn on the basis of another system unless that system is actually available and accessible to the person” — and that transitional provisions guarantee no participant loses support, or is assumed to have access to mainstream or foundational supports, “unless those supports are already funded, available, accessible, culturally safe, disability competent and independently proven to meet the relevant need.” The Disability Representative Organisations (Submission

809. similarly recommend that Thriving Kids — currently the most developed foundational supports program — be “fully established, operational and independently evaluated” before children eight years of age and under are transitioned out of the NDIS on the assumption of equivalent support elsewhere.

Recommendation: The Bill should include a statutory guarantee that no participant’s NDIS support is reduced, suspended or withdrawn on the assumption of an alternative mainstream or foundational support unless that alternative is demonstrably funded, accessible and operating.

Sources: Submission 287 (Australian Human Rights Commission); DRC Belong NDIS Bill Submission; Submission 809 (Disability Representative Organisations).

EASY ENGLISH VERSION

The Government wants some people to use other services instead of the NDIS.

But many of those other services are not ready yet, or do not exist.

If people lose NDIS support before other help is ready, families — especially women who are unpaid carers — often have to fill the gap themselves.

What we want: No one should lose NDIS support because of a service that does not really exist yet or is not ready. New services must be proven to work first.

8. Assess and prevent disproportionate impacts on First Nations people, women, children and other intersectionally affected participants

INQUIRY-LEVEL VERSION

First Peoples Disability Network Australia (Submission 448) — endorsed by Bullinah Aboriginal Health Service, Indigenous Allied Health Australia, the Lowitja Institute and SNAICC — finds that while individual amendments may appear administrative in isolation, their cumulative effect “risks significantly increasing exclusion, disengagement and inequity” for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, who already experience structural racism, poverty, housing insecurity, digital exclusion, barriers to healthcare and diagnosis, geographic isolation, and institutional distrust arising from historical harm. FPDN notes the Explanatory Memorandum itself “acknowledges that elements of the Bill may disproportionately affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability and may negatively impact Closing the Gap outcomes,” and assesses the Bill against the CRPD, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021– 2031 and National Agreement on Closing the Gap.

The Australian Human Rights Commission’s finding on gendered impacts (Point 8, above) and Grattan Institute’s analysis of the Thriving Kids cohort — around 170,000 children and young people currently accessing the NDIS under early intervention criteria — together demonstrate that specific cohorts face materially different risks under this Bill. No consolidated, published assessment currently exists of how the Bill’s combined measures affect these cohorts together, rather than considered schedule-by-schedule.

Recommendation: The Government should commission and publish a consolidated intersectional impact assessment — covering First Nations people with disability, women and gender-diverse people, children, and people with psychosocial, intellectual and multiple disabilities — before any Schedule of the Bill affecting eligibility or funding commences.

Sources: Submission 448 (First Peoples Disability Network Australia, endorsed by Bullinah Aboriginal Health Service, Indigenous Allied Health Australia, Lowitja Institute, SNAICC); Submission 287 (Australian Human Rights Commission); Submission 276 (Grattan Institute).

EASY ENGLISH VERSION

Some groups of people with disability could be hurt more by this Bill than others.

This includes First Nations people with disability, women who are unpaid carers, and children.

First Nations disability groups say the Bill could make things like racism and unfair treatment worse. The Government’s own paperwork admits this is possible.

What we want: The Government must properly check how the Bill affects these groups, together — not just look at each rule on its own — before the Bill goes ahead.

9. Strengthen independent oversight, complaint handling and safeguarding data collection

INQUIRY-LEVEL VERSION

The Disability Royal Commission’s Final Report (Volume 11, Independent Oversight and Complaint Handling)

found that violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability “are likely to be under-reported,” in part because “an existing complaints system… is too complex to participate in without appropriate assistance and support,” and that this under-reporting “conceals the full extent of the problem and limits the evidence base to inform well-targeted and effective public policy responses.” The Commission recommended all states and territories introduce adult safeguarding laws, nationally consistent community visitor schemes, disability death review schemes, and reportable conduct schemes — several jurisdictions still lack these mechanisms. The Commission also recommended a new, independent National Disability Commission, led by people with disability, with functions set out in the proposed Disability Rights Act, including monitoring implementation of the Royal Commission’s own recommendations.

Separately, Australia’s Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) obligations require independent monitoring of places where people, including people with disability, may be deprived of their liberty; the Royal Commission heard evidence of mistreatment in such settings and recommended resourcing

for National Preventive Mechanism bodies to  fulfil their core functions. This  Bill’s expansion of NDIA

compliance and enforcement powers under Schedule 2 is not matched by equivalent, resourced investment in independent oversight of participant safety and wellbeing.

Recommendation: Alongside any fraud and integrity measures that proceed, the Government should implement Disability Royal Commission Volume 11 recommendations on adult safeguarding laws, community visitor schemes, disability death review schemes and reportable conduct schemes, and establish the National Disability Commission, so that abuse and rights breaches affecting NDIS participants are as reliably detected and reported as suspected fraud.

Sources: Disability Royal Commission Final Report, Volume 11 (Independent Oversight and Complaint Handling); Executive Summary and Recommendations

EASY ENGLISH VERSION

The Disability Royal Commission found that abuse of people with disability is often not reported or properly recorded.

This means we don’t have the full picture of the problem.

The Royal Commission wants a new independent body called the National Disability Commission. It also wants better systems in every state to record deaths, abuse, and complaints properly.

What we want: The Government should build strong, independent systems to catch and report abuse — just as it is building strong systems to catch fraud.

.

10. Fund and publish longitudinal research on the psychosocial impact of NDIS changes — so Parliament cannot claim it was blind to the consequences

INQUIRY-LEVEL VERSION

Grattan Institute (Submission 276) recommends a “mandatory post-implementation review mechanism” be added to the reform package: “A cyclical review process, aligned with the staged rollout of reforms, should assess the impact of savings measures on people on the NDIS, identify any unintended consequences, and assess whether replacement services are operating effectively,” so government “can make adjustments before problems become entrenched.” National Legal Aid (Submission 577) devotes a dedicated section to the “risk of unintended consequences” arising from a Bill whose substantive detail is left to future rules and Ministerial determination, warning that “without access to accurate and timely data, systemic problems may not be identified until significant harm has occurred.” People with Disability Australia (Submission 381) similarly finds that “rushed and inadequately scrutinised reforms of this magnitude are likely to produce unintended consequences, destabilise supports, and erode trust in the Scheme.”

The  Disability Royal Commission's  Final Report (Recommendation 12.8) already commits  Australian

governments to fund the National Disability Data Asset (NDDA) as “a national resource for longitudinal analysis of linked data across service systems,” with an annual, disaggregated, publicly reported statistical summary. That commitment has not been extended to the specific population most foreseeably affected by this Bill: NDIS participants with psychosocial disability, whose support needs are frequently episodic and fluctuating, and are poorly captured by one-off functional assessment (DRC Belong; PWDA Recommendation 7). The Australian Human Rights Commission (Submission 287) separately finds the Bill’s Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights lacks “an outcomes framework that incorporates human rights indicators,” meaning it will “continue to be difficult to assess whether the NDIS is meeting its human rights objectives, or whether the proposed cost-control measures amount to impermissible retrogressive human rights impacts.”

Protect All Humans holds that this is not a gap Parliament can responsibly leave unfilled. A legislature can only describe a harm as an “unintended consequence” if it took reasonable steps to find out, in advance and on an ongoing basis, what the consequences of its own legislation would be. Where evidence could be collected and is not, the resulting silence is a choice, not an accident. Commissioning, funding and publishing longitudinal research into the psychosocial impact of this Bill’s access, assessment and funding changes — tracking the same population over time, not merely at a single point of transition — is the minimum due diligence required before Parliament can treat itself as anything other than wilfully blind to what its own legislation does to the people it governs.

Recommendation: The Government should fund the National Disability Research Partnership and the National Disability Data Asset to design, commission and publish a longitudinal study tracking the psychosocial impact of this Bill’s access, assessment and funding changes on NDIS participants — with particular attention to people with psychosocial disability — from commencement, on the same cyclical, staged basis recommended by Grattan Institute’s post-implementation review model, with findings tabled in Parliament and publicly released on a regular, fixed schedule.

EASY ENGLISH VERSION

Some experts want the Government to check what happens to people after the NDIS changes start — not just once, but again and again over time.

This is called longitudinal research. It means watching what happens over months and years, not just checking once at the start.

Right now, no one is properly tracking how these changes affect people’s mental health and wellbeing, especially people with psychosocial disability.

If the Government does not collect this information, it cannot honestly say later that it didn’t know what would happen. Choosing not to look is not the same as not being responsible.

What we want: The Government must fund and publish ongoing research that tracks what happens to people’s mental health and wellbeing after these changes. Parliament must not be allowed to look away from what its own laws do to people.

Sources: Submission 276 (Grattan Institute); Submission 577 (National Legal Aid); Submission 287 (Australian Human Rights Commission); Submission 381 (People with Disability Australia); Disability Royal Commission Final Report, Recommendation 12.8 (National Disability Data Asset); DRC Belong NDIS Bill Submission. The framing of Parliamentary due diligence and “wilful blindness” is Protect All Humans’ own argument, built on the evidence and recommendations cited.

Summary of the asks

1. Do not pass the Bill until the PJCHR has assessed it against the CRPD non-retrogression duty.

2. Do not commence access/eligibility changes until foundational supports are funded, operating and independently evaluated, with full modelling published.

3. Publish accurate, disaggregated fraud data — and invest equally in data on abuse and exploitation of participants.

4. Make accessible information and communication a legislated right (Easy Read, interpreters, cultural safety).

5. Progress the Disability Rights Act and Disability Discrimination Act reforms; interpret the Bill consistently with the CRPD social/human rights model, not a medical model.

6. Preserve independent review and appeal rights; require human review before any adverse automated decision. The Attorney-General must investigate whether combining NDIS data with AI is consistent with the right to privacy and the right to informed consent.

7. Guarantee no support is withdrawn on the assumption of an alternative service that isn’t actually funded, accessible and operating.

8. Publish a consolidated intersectional impact assessment (First Nations people, women, children, and other affected cohorts).

9. Implement DRC Volume 11 oversight recommendations and establish the National Disability Commission.

10. Fund and publish longitudinal research tracking the psychosocial impact of NDIS changes over time — so Parliament cannot claim to be blind to the consequences of its own legislation.