SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION
COMMITTEE INQUIRY
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
When Counting Beans is More Important Than Human Beings, Lives Are Lost
Tracy Leigh, NDIS participant and disability and consumer advocate
1
Introduction
Julia Gillard, Prime Minister, National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill (2012), Second Reading
speech 29 November 2012: “The scheme to be established by this bill will transform the lives of people with disability, their families and carers. For the first time they will have their needs met in a way that truly supports them to live with choice and dignity. It will bring an end to the tragedy of services denied or delayed and instead offer people with disability the care and support they need over their lifetimes. This is a complex bill, yet at its heart is a very simple moral insight: Disability can affect any of us and therefore it affects all of us.“1
Mark Butler, Minister for the NDIS, National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing
the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, Second Reading speech 14 May 2026: “The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 seeks to return the NDIS to its original intent—providing lifetime supports for Australians with permanent and significant disability… The bill will improve the quality of supports and the operation of the scheme for participants”2
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Supporting the Future of the NDIS) Bill 2026 (“the Future Generations Bill”) does not return the NDIS to its original intent in any way. In fact, it does the complete the opposite. It is entirely inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities “the UNCRPD” and the objects and principles of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (“NDIS Act”). It will lead to more uncertainty, more suffering and harm, more preventable deaths, less community access, less social inclusion, fewer therapy hours for functional capacity building, maintaining or slowing degeneration, less work capacity for people with disabilities, unhygienic living conditions, homelessness, malnourishment, the list is endless. It will send us back to the dark days of institutional abuse and neglect, hidden behind the closed doors of institutions, that the NDIS was specifically introduced to ameliorate.
The cost of mitigating the effects of the Future Generations Bill will potentially be shifted to other budget lines and to state and territory budgets. It is likely to increase expenditure across all governments, not make the NDIS more financially sustainable. It will reduce the work capacity and economic input directly by people with disabilities. It will reduce the support and provider workforce
1 Julia Gillard (Prime Minister), Second Reading Speech, National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012
(Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 29 November 2012) 13877–80. 2 Mark Butler (Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Minister for Health and
Ageing and Deputy Leader of the House), Second Reading Speech, National Disability Insurance Scheme
Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, Proof, 14 May 2026) 6.
2
dramatically, which will have a further negative impact on the economy. Current participants such as myself may be removed from the NDIS without any evidence of a reduction in support needs and where they have previously proven permanency or likely permanency, when we were originally promised support for our lifetimes. This will create immense harm. I know because I am already suffering mentally from the fear of losing everything I now have as a result of the NDIS.
The Future Generations Bill turns the NDIS on its head from what it originally was in 2013. Prime Minister Gillard’s Second Reading speech on 29 November 2012 was full of hope, aspiration and excitement. The demise of the NDIS as we knew it started on 3 October 2024, particularly with the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (“the Transitional Rules”), which has led to significant adverse consequences for thousands of participants and applicants; increased requests for internal reviews; significantly increased review applications to the ART which are largely decided in favour of the applicant, not the NDIA who spends millions on external lawyers, including Kings Counsel, to intimidate and thwart participants and applicants from getting their lawful entitlements. They are rarely if ever ‘Model Litigants’ from my own experience and social media reports.
Then there is the emotional cost and declining mental health; the time cost especially for parents caring for children with severe impairments around the clock; the financial cost to applicants in lost work hours, paperwork preparations and printing. The narrative on social media for the past few years since the 3 October 2024 amendments and rules has been one of overwhelm and exhaustion. The Future Generations Bill has exacerbated this exhaustion and overwhelm significantly. This government and the NDIA do not appear to either understand the complexity of the lives of people with severe impairments and their families or, if they do, are behaving like psychopathic narcissists behind dimpled smiles.
The Future Generations Bill would increase reviews exponentially, if it didn’t also severely limit review rights. In his National Press Club address on 22 April 2026, Minister for the NDIS Mark Butler stated that, “[d]ecisions in the Federal Court and Administrative Review Tribunal have restricted the Agency’s ability to implement scheme changes to ensure the Scheme serves and supports those it was built for.”3 In fact, it is quite the opposite, where tribunals and courts are protecting people with disability from too many erroneous and unlawful decisions by the NDIA.
3 Mark Butler, ‘Minister Butler Speech at the National Press Club, 22 April 2026’ Department of Health and Aged Care (Speech, 22 April 2026) <https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-mark-butler mp/media/minister-butler-speech-at-the-national-press-club-22-april-2026>.
3
The Administrative Review Tribunal (“the ART”) and the Federal Court, by interpreting the NDIS Act according to its objects and principles and second reading speeches, as is required under the Acts Interpretation Act 1903, has become an impediment to the government agenda that it seeks to keep hidden behind the Orwellian ‘doublespeak’ of “returning the NDIS to its original intent”, while so dramatically undermining it that it barely resembles the original. It also appears that Mr Butler has forgotten the basic principle of the separation of powers. If the Prime Minister and Mr Butler truly want the reform agenda they are seeking, they need to be honest, open and transparent about it, rather than hiding excessive Executive power in legislative instruments that are yet to be drafted.
This is not only anti-democratic, potentially inconsistent with the Australian Constitution, but also a fundamental breach of human rights, including as a breach of Article 13 of the UNCRPD, “Access to justice”.4 In fact, this bill is inconsistent with: Article 3 – autonomy, participation and inclusion; Article 13 – access to justice Article 19 – living independently and being included in the community; Article 20 – personal mobility; Article 26 – habilitation and rehabilitation; Article 28 – adequate standard of living and social protection.
Compare those rights with the Future Generations Bill amendments that potentially permit: cohort-wide support reductions; support exclusions through legislative rules; functional-capacity thresholds; reassessment against new criteria; reductions in supports that facilitate community participation and capacity building therapies.
This Senate committee and parliament should legitimately ask: If the Act continues to declare that its purpose is to implement the UNCRPD, how do these amendments advance that objective?
The lifetime guarantee issue is perhaps the sharpest example and the strongest tension in the entire legislative scheme. The original Act says: “People with disability and their families and carers should have certainty that people with disability will receive the care and support they need over their lifetime.” That principle is still there in 2026. That was my understanding when I was accepted as a
4 United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol (PDF, 30 March
participant, after two years of trying, an AAT appeal that I withdrew due to the severe impacts on my mental health, and a second successful application.
Yet the Future Generations Bill amendments introduce: mandatory plan end dates; renewal mechanisms; new framework plans; reassessment mechanisms; revised access and support criteria; for both current and future participants.
The obvious question for the Senate committee, and parliament, becomes: “How can participants have certainty that they will receive support over their lifetime if the legal criteria governing eligibility and funding can be fundamentally altered after they have entered the Scheme?”
That question goes directly to the original social contract that Gillard described in 2012. And it also goes to how many times a participant may be required to be reassessed if successive governments keep amending the NDIS Act to conform with their own agendas.
5
The devil is in the details… and the yet to be drafted ‘rules’
This submission opposes multiple provisions of the Future Generations Bill. In fact, it should be torn up in its entirety as it is beyond saving.
The Future Generations Bill is presented by the Albanese Government as a measure designed to restore the National Disability Insurance Scheme (“the NDIS”) to its original purpose and secure its long-term financial sustainability. In his Second Reading Speech, Minister for the NDIS Mark Butler,
6
repeatedly asserted that the amendments are intended to return the Scheme to its original intent and ensure its future viability.5
A detailed examination of the Future Generations Bill demonstrates the opposite. The original NDIS was conceived as a rights-based social insurance scheme founded upon dignity, inclusion, participation, independence and a lifetime commitment to Australians with significant and permanent disability. In introducing the original legislation, Prime Minister Julia Gillard described the NDIS as a transformational reform that would provide certainty, security and support over a person’s lifetime. The NDIS was not presented as a welfare measure. It was presented as a nation-building investment in human potential.6
The Future Generations Bill fundamentally alters that foundation. For the first time, financial sustainability is elevated from a background consideration to a dominant statutory principle influencing access decisions, support determinations, plan funding and the operation of the Scheme itself. The amendments create broad powers for Ministers and the Executive Government to restrict, redefine and remove supports through subordinate legislation that may not be consistent with the objects and principles of the originating NDIS Act. At the same time, the Future Generations Bill expands reassessment mechanisms and introduces new eligibility concepts capable of affecting both prospective applicants and existing participants, who entered the scheme on the basis of supports for life. That includes myself.
The practical effect is that supports which were previously assessed according to an individual’s disability-related needs will increasingly be assessed through the lens of system-wide financial considerations, without also assessing the social and financial benefit of the NDIS. This represents a profound shift away from the original purpose of the NDIS.
The Future Generations Bill also raises serious concerns regarding Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD. The original NDIS Act was expressly founded upon principles derived from it and gave effect to it, which still remain in the objects and principles. The Future Generations Bill weakens those protections by creating mechanisms capable of reducing access to supports necessary for
5 Mark Butler (Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Minister for Health and
Ageing and Deputy Leader of the House), Second Reading Speech, National Disability Insurance Scheme
Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, Proof, 14 May 2026) 6.
6 Julia Gillard (Prime Minister), Second Reading Speech, National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012
(Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 29 November 2012) 13877–80.
7
independent living, community participation, personal autonomy, health, dignity and equality before the law.
The consequences are not theoretical. Across Australia, participants and families are increasingly required to challenge funding reductions through lengthy review processes. Evidence before the ART and formerly the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the AAT”), in addition to appeals to the Federal Court of Australia (“the FCA”), has demonstrated that supports considered essential, and indeed lifesaving, by treating clinicians are frequently contested by the National Disability Insurance Agency (“the NDIA”) as not reasonable and necessary and, more recently rejected because the requested support is on the Transitional Rules Schedule 2 “not generally an NDIS Support” list.
The impact of those rules has been devastating for many people with disabilities, where a reasonable and necessary support was once available and now isn’t. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in review applications to the ART, where the NDIA is losing in approximately 73–78% of cases that go to a final hearing, in addition to around 69% being settled between parties prior to a final hearing.7 This is despite the multi millions of dollars spent by the NDIA on external solicitors, barristers, Special Counsel and Kings Counsel. In 2024/25, the NDIA spent upwards of $60 million on external legal representation.8 Disability advocates are terming it “lawfare”. As one of the participants engaged in litigation with the NDIA, I can attest to this concept, always facing highly experienced solicitors who are experts at obfuscating the proper interpretation of the law, to the point of even lying to judicial officers. Unfortunately, it is hard for a self-represented, severely impaired, disabled litigant to overcome those lies as there is often an inherent bias towards legal representatives and against self-represented litigants. This is my experience over 10 years in litigation in multiple jurisdictions across Australia, largely as a result of my consumer advocacy challenging powerful people.
Some, if not all, families now face repeated reassessments to retain supports that have already been established as reasonable and necessary. In the most tragic cases, reductions in life-sustaining supports have been associated with preventable deaths. There is a current case reported over the weekend where the NDIA has yet again reduced overnight nursing supports for a child with a
7 National Disability Insurance Agency, ‘Quarterly Reports’ National Disability Insurance Scheme (Web Page)
https://www.ndis.gov.au/publications/quarterly-reports.
8 Kate Lyons, ‘They’ve Engaged a Barrister! Parents of High-Needs Children Say Labor Is Waging Lawfare over
Disability Support’ The Guardian (online, 24 September 2025) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia news/2025/sep/24/federal-government-waging-lawfare-against-disability-support-daunting-process-families represent-themselves>.
8
tracheostomy and ventilator.9 There are at least two known deaths in exactly the same circumstances, Koa Gibson who was 4 when she died of asphyxiation on her own vomit in her breathing mask while in hospital and without 24/7 nursing supervision;10 Her sister pleaded “I don’t want her not to live” when her funding was cut. Sadly, she passed away a day after the asphyxiation. Noah Johnston who died at 22 when his ventilator hose became detached, and his overnight nursing support had been defunded. There are other reports of people with disabilities choosing Voluntary Assisted Dying or suicide when their supports are cut so much that life becomes hopeless. When governments focus exclusively on financial sustainability while disregarding the human consequences of withdrawing support, the result is not sustainability. It is harm.
The central proposition of this submission is therefore simple: When Counting Beans is More
Important Than Human Beings, Lives Are Lost
The financial sustainability of the NDIS cannot be assessed solely by reference to expenditure. It must also be assessed by reference to the benefits the Scheme delivers, the rights it protects, the costs it avoids through the whole of government, and the lives it sustains. In 2021, PerCapita found that for every dollar spent, $2.25 was returned to the economy.11 Financial sustainability does not override human rights. The purpose of the NDIS is not merely financial sustainability in providing disability supports. Its purpose is to sustain ability financially for people with disabilities in accordance with the United Nations treaties the Australian government voluntarily signed.
My story and how the Bill will impact me personally
I have multiple complex interacting co-morbid invisible medical conditions that result in severe impairments. They started with two car accidents when I was 22 (I am now 62), which resulted in whiplash and progressively degenerative spinal disorders. These now include degenerative disc disease with barely any disc matter left in my spine, increasing scoliosis in my entire spine, cervical and lumbar stenosis that puts me at risk of cauda equina syndrome which is a medical emergency, spinal twisting, a tilted pelvis, osteoarthritis, ongoing whiplash effects in my neck and parasthesia in my hands, legs and feet.
9 Kate Lyons, ‘Six-Year-Old Sienna’s Parents Have Fought the NDIS Every Year of Her Life for Funding That
Keeps Her Alive’ The Guardian (online, 31 May 2026) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia news/2026/may/31/ndis-funding-celebral-palsy-parents-of-six-year-old-ntwnfb>. 10 Brielle Burns, ‘Don’t Want Her to Not Live’: Girl’s Harrowing Plea to Save Sister’s Life’ news.com.au (online, 11 May 2024) <https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/dont-want-her-to-not-live-girls harrowing-plea-to-save-sisters-life/news-story/ed8376f092b33acc1349eb231ec57031>.
11 Per Capita, False Economy: The Economic Benefits of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the
Consequences of Government Cost-Cutting (Report, November 2021) <https://percapita.org.au/wp content/uploads/2021/11/NDS_031121_per-capita-report.pdf>.
9
This is in addition to later diagnoses including but not limited to: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; Fibromyalgia; Osteoporosis resulting in two spinal fractures; multiple psychosocial disabilities including complex PTSD, major depressive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (diagnosed after entering the NDIS as a participant); and multiple autoimmune diseases including Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.
I applied to be a participant in the NDIS in 2018, based on both physical and psychosocial impairments. Ironically, in 2020 I was rejected on the basis that I had not tried all known and available treatments for my multiple impairments as per the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 (“the Becoming a Participant Rules”) rule 5.4. As the NDIS Act and the Becoming a Participant Rules currently stand, and as confirmed by the Federal Court of Australia in the decision National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis [2022] FCA 1002 (“the Davis decision”), that was an incorrect interpretation of rule 5.4. The Future Generations Bill is attempting to override that decision.
I tried to object that r 5.4 didn’t require treatments to be tried, only that there were no treatments that would remedy the impairment. That was rejected. Then I asked for a list of treatments I was supposed to have tried. The NDIA stated that they couldn’t provide a list because it was up to my doctor to identify the treatments and state that I had tried them. My GP had done that already, but it was ignored. I applied for a review of this decision at the AAT in 2019, but due to other litigation that was forced upon me during 2019 and 2020 in my role as a volunteer consumer advocate, I was too overwhelmed to continue with this action and withdrew it. During that year I had two visits to the hospital and one admission, for being suicidal.
Fortunately, one of my former counsellors had become a support coordinator, assisted me in reapplying to the NDIS and I was successful in being accepted into the scheme in December 2020. The plan I got was well considered and properly met my support needs at that time, both psychosocial and physical. I was incredibly grateful to begin to live again, instead of just survive.
This is what my house looked like without support. Just before I got my first NDIS plan. My impairments mean I can’t clean at all, do my laundry, gardening, open jars, cook for very long, wash dishes, stand up for too long, walk very far, drive very far and never when fatigued, no more than a few functional hours a day physically and cognitively and the list goes on and on.
10
11
12
13
And this is what it looks like when my wonderful, sole trader, self-employed, unregistered support worker comes and cleans for me, leaving a lovely note and flowers. She is also a trade qualified chef but not cheffing now. She prepares food so I can keep my independence with cooking, as it is one of my passions and I have done it professionally. She drives me to appointments, helps me with shopping, prepares my daily electrolytes and salt drinks, reminds me about my medications, keeps my art studio tidy so I can create when I want, helps me with my garden growing spray free foods, the list goes on and on.
14
15
Demonising individual support workers and either forcing them to register or cutting their hourly rate punishes participants more than the workers. It protects the large corporate providers by transferring scrutiny to small private operators who are largely doing the right thing. Despite much money being thrown at what is described as rampant ‘fraud’, which we now know also includes ‘integrity leakage’, the number of investigations and prosecutions is quite pathetic. As of 17 October 2025, “up to 99.78% of allegations of fraud go unprosecuted within the NDIS, despite the fact that the NDIA concluded in a 2023 report that an estimated 6 to 10% of NDIS outlays could be “for non compliant, fraudulent or incorrect claims.””12
For my first two years in the scheme, I learnt how to navigate what is an extremely complex piece of legislation, find supports while living in a very small community, and understand how to manage my support budget. However, in May 2023 my world fell apart again as the NDIA used my request to be self-managed to tie up my Capacity Building: Daily Activity budget so I couldn’t use the budget to see my naturopath that I had been seeing for two years at that time. All I had done is apply to be self
12 Tarric Brooker, ‘Up to 99% of Alleged NDIS Fraud Goes Unprosecuted’ MacroBusiness (Web Page, 17 October 2025) <https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/10/up-to-99-of-alleged-ndis-fraud-goes unprosecuted/>.
16
managed. The NDIA improperly treated it as a plan variation without notice. I have since been in litigation in the AAT, the ART and now the Federal Court, with the NDIA fighting me all the way to stop me from using funds in my budget for an evidence based,13 reasonable and necessary, effective and beneficial support, value for money support that puts me back together to function on a weekly basis. The current cost is $180 a week for 1.5 hours of therapy. Far cheaper than any of the combination of other therapies I would have to engage to replace my naturopath. I already have that funding in my budget but locked away. The NDIA is represented. They must have already spent tens of thousands of dollars.
My next challenge is that I am under plan reassessment in the middle of all these legislative changes. And then there is the additional challenge of potentially being reassessed as a participant. Schedule 1, Part 8, clauses 88 to 94 entirely redefines permanence or likely permanence for both future and current participants in same the way that I was originally rejected, but then clarified in the NDIA v Davis decision as being an incorrect interpretation. These amendments are in my opinion a legislative response to the Davis decision. Particularly clause 94 means that current participants could effectively be reassessed under the new permanence criteria, when we were previously assessed, accepted and given an assurance of lifetime support.
These new provisions will have a dramatic impact on me and many other current participants, if the NDIA decides to reassess our eligibility. I am a disability support pensioner. I have no funds for expensive treatment that the NDIA might deem I must undertake, despite the fact that I have undertaken all reasonable treatments that I am prepared to undertake for all of my impairments. The item 25A(2) in particular must be struck out. It states: Treatment may be appropriate treatment for a person’s impairment or impairments regardless of whether the person’s ndividual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment. Note: A person’s individual circumstances include the person’s financial circumstances and geographical location. This is clearly a direct rebuttal of the Davis decision, where affordability of treatment was considered a factor in it being available.
13 Mark Butler, ‘Select Natural Therapies Return to Private Health Insurance’ Mark Butler MP (Media Release,
14 April 2025) <https://www.markbutler.net.au/news/media releases/yf7nvwdw52bzu2sirzmk27pmdmw609>.
17
18
These images represent what the changes to permanency and functional capacity assessments will look like in reality. Only wealthy people or those who are prepared to sell or mortgage the family home will be able to afford the treatments that the Minister and the NDIA determine must be undertaken to prove permanence.
19
Cutting Community, Social and Civic Participation (“CCSCP”) funding hours will relegate me mostly to my four walls. I live in a very small regional town with around 1100 residents. The next biggest town is 30kms away and has about 5000 residents. The nearest large towns are about two hours drive, 150kms or so and Perth is 365kms for specialist appointments. I can’t afford accommodation but I
20
also can’t drive up and back in one day, even when a support worker drives me. I need recovery time. So I will be caught in a very real catch-22 if the new permanency tests apply to me. No money, no ability to see specialists, no affordability for treatments the NDIA or Minister may demand I undertake that will lead me back to the state my house was in and potentially becoming so despaired I start having suicidal ideations again.
The timing of the introduction of the new rules is also critical. If I am six months through my plan and have spent 50% of my CCSCP budget, I will have none left for the rest of the budget period.
And cutting Capacity Building Daily Living (“CBDA”)supports is an own goal. These supports assist us with maintaining functional capacity or, in my case, slowing down the rate of degeneration. All that will happen is that the public health system will be even more burdened, as will the education system when children with intellectual and developmental delays can’t get appropriate therapy.
Is this what this Parliament really wants for people with disabilities, who could be happy, productive contributors to society and the economy when properly supported? To their support workers who have developed relationships and businesses and contribute to local economies like my little town? To women especially who can now be paid for their caring work for others? There is so, so much wrong with this Future Generations Bill it needs an entire overhaul, far more scrutiny, a whole of government cost/benefit analysis and input from the States and Territories about the referred costs.
21
And parliament should be very worried that this government is attempting to undermine the heart of democracy, where there is transparency and scrutiny, not Ministerial dictatorship and opacity.
22
Now imagine if Pauline Hanson becomes Prime Minister, which is no longer as far-fetched as it once seemed, given recent polling and media articles citing Ms Hanson herself. Imagine if Barnaby Joyce
23
becomes Minister for the NDIS. The following quote was made by Mr Joyce on Sky News:
24
25
Conclusion: The rhetoric doesn’t match reality
The Second Reading Speech of Julia Gillard on 29 November 2012 espoused a new reality for people with disabilities, dignity, choice and control, human rights, funded supports, participant centred decision making, consultation with people with disabilities and so much more. The Future Generations Bill is stated as “returning the NDIS to its original intent”. It does no such thing. It effectively destroys what people with disabilities fought for before and during the NDIS period as it was before 3 October 2024. The Future Generations Bill doesn’t take up “recommendations on measures to improve delivery of the NDIS that have been made to government by various independent reviews of the NDIS, including the Independent Review into the NDIS, in 2023, and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability” as Minister Butler stated in his Second Reading speech on 14 May 2026. It actually defies and defiles those recommendations.
But who would have thought that a Labor government 13 years later would destroy its own legacy by introducing the very “reforms” that they strenuously objected to while in opposition.14 No wonder voters are so disaffected by the two parties of government and One Nation is in the ascendent. Promises mean nothing and the electorate is tired of it.
The public face of MND, Neale Daniher who sadly passed away recently, should be a reminder to parliament and all of us of what can be achieved when a person with disability is fully supported. What will happen to Jai Arrow as he progressively deteriorates, possibly so quickly that having to continuously try potentially expensive and inaccessible treatments for his growing list of impairments will exclude him from the essential supports he will need over the next few years.
Is this acceptable in a wealthy First World country such as Australia, rich in resources, rich in assets, rich in diversity, and rich in the untapped potential of people with disabilities excluded from support.
14 Luke Henriques-Gomes, ‘Backlash Grows over “Independent Assessments” Plan for Disability Scheme’ The Guardian (online, 7 March 2021) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/07/backlash grows-over-independent-assessments-plan-for-disability-scheme ; Nas Campanella and Evan Young, ‘After
Opposing the Coalition’s “Robo” NDIS Reforms, Labor Accused of Going Down Similar Path’ ABC News (Web
Page, 12 December 2025) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-12/ican-ndis-planning-system-creating deja-vu/106116170>.
26
27
28
There is a very clear alternative that the Albanese government keeps rejecting. It won’t harm anyone. It will only marginally reduce profits to mostly large multinational corporations. It could fund the NDIS and increase expenditure to health, welfare, aged care, public education, Medicare and so much more. Australia has piffled away what could have been a sovereign wealth fund the size of Norway’s or larger because our government is wedded to big business, the 1%, lobbyists and corporate donations. Start thinking about the rest of Australia please and…
TAX THE GAS
29
30
31
32
33