National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill
Hi Team, PWDA,
the whole Bill that you sent to me below is built on both Discrimination direct and indirect and unfair practices see below THIS SHOULD NOT BE PASSED BY THE SENATE it will COST LIVES!!!!!! attach this
with my submission and send to parliment please
Relevant Federal Disability Discrimination Laws
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Direct Disability Discrimination
Section 5
A person discriminates directly if a person with disability is treated less favourably because of their (disability) compared with someone without that disability in similar circumstances.
Potentially engaged by:
- stricter eligibility rules applied specifically to disability-related impairments
- single impairment assessment models
- reductions in supports uniquely affecting disabled participants
Indirect Disability Discrimination
Section 6
Indirect discrimination occurs where:
- a condition, requirement or practice is imposed,
- people with disability cannot comply or are disadvantaged,
- and the requirement is not reasonable.
Clauses in Your Submission Most Relevant to Indirect Discrimination
1. Short Consultation Period
Bill Issue
“The consultation period for the Amendment Bill is two weeks”
Potential discrimination type
Indirect disability discrimination
Relevant law
- Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 6
- Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) ss 49B–49D
Why
A uniform 2-week consultation requirement may disproportionately disadvantage:
- people with cognitive disability,
- psychosocial disability,
- communication impairments,
- people requiring support persons or accessible formats.
This may constitute an unreasonable condition impacting disabled people unequally.
2. Requirement to Exhaust Treatment Options
Bill Clauses
3
Schedule 1 Part 8
Potential discrimination type
Indirect disability discrimination
Relevant law
- Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 6
- Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) disability discrimination provisions
Why
The proposed requirement: “must exhaust treatment options” may unfairly disadvantage:
- low-income participants,
- rural participants,
- people unable to tolerate treatment,
- participants with chronic or fluctuating conditions.
The requirement appears neutral but may create unequal access in practice.
3. Single Eligible Impairment Assessment
Bill Clauses
Schedule 1 Part 3
Potential discrimination type
Indirect discrimination
Possible direct discrimination argument
Relevant law
- Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 5–6
- Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Why
Assessing only one impairment may disadvantage people with:
- multiple disabilities,
- psychosocial disabilities,
- fluctuating conditions,
- cumulative impairments.
This could be argued as:
- indirect discrimination because the framework disadvantages certain disabled groups,
- potentially direct discrimination because participants are treated differently based on disability classification.
- Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (I-CAN)
Bill Clauses
Schedule 1 Parts 3, 8 and 9
Potential discrimination type
Indirect disability discrimination
Relevant law
- Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 6
- Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Why
A standardised assessment tool may fail to accommodate:
- episodic disability,
- fluctuating impairments,
- cultural needs,
- psychosocial conditions.
A “point-in-time” assessment may systematically undercount disability impacts.
- Funding Reductions Through Ministerial Instrument
Bill Clauses
Schedule 1 Part 4
Potential discrimination type
Indirect discrimination
Relevant law
- Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 6
Why
Across-the-board cuts to:
- community participation,
- capacity building,
- assistive supports,
may disproportionately affect disabled participants’:
- independence,
- safety,
- equal participation in society.
NSW Disability Discrimination Law
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
6
Key Sections
Section 49A
Defines disability.
Section 49B
Prohibits discrimination against a person on the ground of disability.
Section 49C
Covers direct discrimination.
Section 49D
Covers indirect discrimination:
- imposing requirements or conditions
- with which substantially fewer people with disability can comply
- and which are unreasonable.
Your strongest references are likely:
- s 49B
- s 49D
Human Rights / International Law References
These are not directly enforceable the same way as legislation, but they strengthen submissions.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Relevant Articles
Article 4
-
Consultation with persons with disability.
-
Relevant to:
- \u2022 short consultation periods.
Article 5
Equality and non-discrimination.
Relevant to:
- \u2022 unequal impacts of eligibility rules.
Article 19
Living independently and community inclusion.
Relevant to:
- \u2022 cuts to community participation supports.
Article 26
Habilitation and rehabilitation.
Relevant to:
- \u2022 support reductions and treatment requirements.
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 6:00 PM From: “People with Disability Australia” pwd@pwd.org.au To:
8
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Date: 27/5/26
I Welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the
Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the National Disability
Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill
I am a Ndis Participant with a Disability
I want to outline the harm this Amendment Bill will cause if it passes Parliament.
I am concerned that several provisions of this Bill may result in indirect disability discrimination by imposing requirements, assessment methods and administrative processes that disproportionately disadvantage people with disability compared with people without disability.
In particular, the shortened consultation period, the requirement to exhaust treatment options before eligibility, the use of assessment tools that may not adequately capture fluctuating or episodic disability, and reductions to supports without accessible review mechanisms may create systemic barriers to equal participation and access.
These measures may be inconsistent with the principles and protections contained in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), and Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including the rights of people with disability to accessibility, participation, equality before the law, and independent living.
Although these measures may appear neutral on their face, they are likely to have a disproportionate and harmful impact on people with disability, particularly those with complex, psychosocial, fluctuating, episodic or multiple impairments, as well as participants living in rural or low-income circumstances.
I respectfully submit that Parliament should not proceed with reforms that reduce safeguards, restrict review rights, or impose unreasonable barriers to accessing supports without ensuring that people with disability are fully consulted and protected from harm.
This Bill is too far-reaching to pass as it stands. I believe the Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds.
Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency
The consultation period for the Amendment Bill is two weeks, which is insufficient to allow for appropriate consultation, considering accessibility and communication needs.
The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days where possible.
The short timeline impacts me by As a participant, I am concerned that if my supports are reduced or reassessed under narrower criteria, I may lose access to services that help me maintain independence, participate in the community and manage the impact of my disability safely.
Because my disability needs can fluctuate, a point-in-time assessment may not accurately reflect my actual level of impairment or support needs over time.
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 60-120 days.
Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law
The issue: The Bill allows Ministers to change who gets NDIS support (Schedule 1 Parts 8 and 9) and how much funding people receive (Schedule 1 Part 4; Schedule 3) by signing an instrument, without going back to Parliament. The rules that will determine critical eligibility thresholds (Schedule 1 Parts 1, 8 and 9) have not yet been written.
How this affects participants
The decisions that shape the lives of participants, whether they qualify for the NDIS and what supports they can access, could be c Several provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 may give rise to indirect disability discrimination contrary to section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and sections 49B and 49D of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).
In particular, the proposed requirements relating to exhausting treatment options, the use of a single-impairment assessment framework, the reliance on potentially unvalidated functional capacity assessment tools, and shortened consultation processes may impose unreasonable conditions that disproportionately disadvantage people with disability, especially those with psychosocial, fluctuating, episodic, multiple or complex disabilities.
Further, reductions to supports and limitations on review rights may undermine the principles of equality, accessibility and independent participation recognised under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including Articles 4, 5 and 19. hanged without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny. Participants may not know
How this affects participants
This does not protect participants already on the NDIS, who could be reassessed under stricter rules. If someone’s funding is reduced or their plan renewed automatically, they may have limited or no ability to challenge that decision. This could make it harder for people to get extra support when their circumstances or disability change.
right to appeal. Participants who save unspent funds across plan periods for high-
cost items will lose that ability entirely.
How this affects me as a participant: If funding can be reduced across support categories without independent review or appeal rights, I may lose access to supports that allow me to participate safely in the community, manage my disability and maintain independence. Preventing participants from carrying over unspent funds may also unfairly disadvantage people who need to save for high-cost assistive technology, equipment or disability-related supports.
These measures may create a disproportionate impact on people with disability by limiting access to essential supports without procedural safeguards or meaningful review rights. This raises concerns regarding indirect disability discrimination under section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and sections 49B and 49D of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), as well as consistency with Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly Articles 5, 19 and 26.
Recommendation: Require that unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for
participants saving for high-cost items and require independent review rights before
any funding reduction takes effect.
Requirement to exhaust treatment options before eligibility
The issue: A person with disability will need to exhaust treatment options before they can be eligible for the Scheme (Schedule 1 Part 8). There will also be a removal of whole-of- person assessment, replaced by single eligible impairment consideration (Schedule 1 Part 3). The note that previously acknowledged environmental factors and other ineligible impairments could affect support needs will be removed (Sch Potential indirect discrimination
The proposed requirement to:
- “prove impairment cannot be treated”
- before accessing supports
could impose an unreasonable condition on people with disability that:
- poorer participants may not be able to satisfy financially,
- rural participants may not be able to access geographically,
- participants with psychosocial or fluctuating disabilities may never be able to conclusively “prove,”,
- participants may be forced into unsuitable or harmful treatment attempts.
This aligns closely with:
- Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) section 6 (indirect discrimination)
- Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) section 49D (indirect discrimination)
because the requirement appears neutral but may disproportionately burden people with disability
edule 1 Part 3).
Recommendation: Do not proceed with a requirement to exhaust “appropriate” treatment options – there are no safeguarding measures around participant harm due to side effects or complications, a participant’s financial ability to pay, or their geographic capacity to access treatments.
Unvalidated functional capacity assessment tool risks misidentifying need
The issue: The Bill shifts assessment from whole-of-person consideration to a single eligible impairment (Schedule 1 Part 3). Read together with the eligibility thresholds in Parts 8 and 9, the tool used to conduct functional capacity assessments must be capable of sufficiently identifying whether a person meets the threshold for that single impairment.
The named assessment tool is the Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN). I-CAN requires validation to ensure it will sufficiently identify
the needs of all people with disability, including those whose needs may be
collating or episodic and may not be captured through a point-in-time assessment, and to ensure it is culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
How this affects participants: If the assessment tool does not accurately capture the full extent of a person’s disability, including needs that fluctuate or vary over time, a participant may be found ineligible or have their supports undercounted, with no guarantee the result reflects their actual experience.
The concern is that a standardised assessment tool may:
- fail to properly assess fluctuating or episodic disability,
- undercount support needs,
- rely on “snapshot” assessments,
- disadvantage participants whose disabilities vary day-to-day.
That may create an unreasonable condition or requirement that disproportionately disadvantages certain disabled groups.
This is particularly relevant to:
- psychosocial disability,
- autism,
- chronic illness,
- neurological conditions,
- ME/CFS,
- multiple sclerosis,
- chronic pain conditions,
- episodic impairments.
Relevant legal provisions
Federal
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
- Section 6 — indirect disability discrimination
A process may be discriminatory if:
- a requirement or condition is imposed,
- people with disability are disadvantaged,
- and the requirement is not reasonable.
NSW
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
- Sections 49B and 49D
These provisions concern:
- discrimination on the ground of disability,
- indirect discrimination through unreasonable requirements or practi
“: “including needs that fluctuate or vary over time”
That is important because fluctuating disability is frequently under-recognised in rigid assessment systems.
How this affects me as a participant: Appropriate and accurate assessment is critical because my support needs may fluctuate over time and cannot always be properly understood through a single assessment or point-in-time observation. If an assessment tool fails to capture the full impact of my disability and daily functional limitations, I may be found ineligible for supports or receive inadequate funding that does not reflect my actual circumstances or needs.
I am concerned that reliance on an assessment model that does not adequately account for fluctuating, episodic or complex disabilities may disproportionately disadvantage people with disability and create barriers to fair access to supports. In my view, this raises concerns regarding indirect disability discrimination under section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and sections 49B and 49D of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), especially where participants are assessed through rigid or incomplete criteria that fail to reflect their lived experience.
Recommendation: Do not proceed with I-CAN as the functional capacity
assessment tool unless it has been demonstrably validated to identify the needs of
all people with disability, including those with episodic or fluctuating disability, and
demonstrated to be culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.
Supports cut before replacement system is ready
The issue: From 1 October 2026, the government has announced funding for social, civic and community participation supports will be cut by 50 per cent and capacity building daily activities by 10 per cent for all participants, reductions that will be implemented through the ministerial instrument power in Schedule 1 Part 4. The Foundational Supports system intended to fill that gap has no confirmed implementation date and is not yet operational.
How this affects participants: Supports that help participants connect with their community, build skills and maintain independence may be cut before anything exists to replace them, leaving carers and families with greater responsibilities and no additional support. These supports are often what help people stay visible, connected and safe.
How this affects me as a participant: These supports are not optional extras — they are essential for helping me participate in the community, maintain independence, develop daily living skills and avoid social isolation. If these supports are reduced before the Foundational Supports system is operational, I may lose access to services that help keep me safe, connected and able to participate equally in society.
Cutting supports before replacement systems are fully established may place people with disability at a significant disadvantage and increase reliance on unpaid carers and family members without adequate safeguards or alternatives. In my view, these proposed reductions raise concerns regarding indirect disability discrimination under section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and sections 49B and 49D of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), as well as consistency with Australia’s obligations under Articles 5 and 19 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities concerning equality, community participation and independent living.
Recommendation: Require that no reductions to community participation or capacity building supports take effect until Foundational Supports are fully
operational, adequately funded and demonstrably able to meet the needs of those
who will lose NDIS supports.
MY ADVICE TO THE BILL IS PERSECUTE THE FRAUDULENT PROVIDERS AND
support workers DON’T PUNISH THE DISABLED PEOPLE WHO THIS SYSTEM
WAS BUILT FOR.
18