Impacts of the Bill on people with disability in regional, rural, remote and very remote (‘4Rs’) areas (Provider advocacy) | External submission

Submission 378

National Regional, Rural,

Remote and Very Remote

Community Legal Network

https://clcs.org.au/4rs-network/

Committee Secretary

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

E: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

1 June 2026

Dear Chair and Committee Members,

Submission regarding National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Acknowledgement of Country

We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the deep and integral meanings of Country and that sovereignty was never ceded. We reﬂect on the human rights of First Peoples, including all First People with disability. We reﬂect on the approaches of Government parties to Closing the Gap when they take actions which increase disadvantage. In 2022-3 First Nations people were 1.5 times as likely as non Indigenous people to live with disability and 2.0 times as likely to have a profound/severe

core  activity  limitation.1 We acknowledge  that  First Nations  people, and  self-

determination of First Nations people, must be central in policy development and implementation.

1 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & National Indigenous Australians Agency, ’Measure 1.14

Disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework’, AIHW (Webpage, 2026)

https://www.indigenoushpf.gov.au/measures/1-14-disability.

Submission 378

Contents

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 1.1 About the 4Rs Network …………………………………………………………………………………. 3 1.2 Summary of recommendations ………………………………………………………………………. 7
Particular matters …………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 2.1 Assessing geographic impacts and equity …………………………………………………………. 8 2.2 Assessing packaging and sequencing …………………………………………………………….. 13 2.3 DAS/IDA/DCLS submission as a case study …………………………………………………….. 15 2.4 Advocacy and legal needs impact assessment ………………………………………………… 16
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Introduction
Concerns about the Bill expressed by First Peoples Disability Network, People with Disability Australia and Women with Disabilities Australia are endorsed. These concerns, which are reﬂected, echoed and ampliﬁed by so many others, and are underscored by petitioning and advocacy expressing fundamental concerns about the Bill.
This submission mainly focuses on impacts of the Bill on people with disability in regional, rural, remote and very remote (‘4Rs’) areas.
The Bill should not be passed in its current form. The nature and extent of the amendments required indicate that most of the Bill should be rethought.
Subject to the views and leadership of the disability peaks, there may be an option of the Bill being amended to continue only with content relating to fraud control, using the name of the Bill as apt for that and other non-contentious measures which do not reduce access to the NDIS by people with disability, reduce levels of supports or otherwise disadvantage people with disability.
The decisions underpinning the parts of the Bill which are attracting most concern from people with disability and allies, are out of bounds for failing human rights requirements and other key policy parameters. The latter include duties of care towards people with disability, risks, and properly weighing and seeking to develop progressive directions.
Developing alternatives and excellent policy requires checking and assessing options about how issues are framed and giving leadership for beautiful approaches which make us all proud. The contribution of the NDIS to the wellbeing, inclusion, safety and rights of people with disability can not be understated. The same applies to the roles and contributions of people with disability, carers, family members and communities. It also applies to the support workers and all working with purpose, in the many roles in services, businesses, and governments. Funding to the NDIS and for

Submission 378

supports for people with disability, involves major activity within the economy which has major distributive effects. The licence entrusted to the federal government is to enhance and enable the scheme, providing leadership about achieving in full for and with people with disability now, and for future generations.

The concerns about the contentious parts of the Bill, being the content which will disadvantage people with disability alive today and future generations, apply to a greater extent in many 4Rs areas. This is due to regional, place and demographic proﬁle – especially levels of disadvantage - and insufficient safety-nets in response to market failure. Insufficient safety-nets are reﬂected in inadequate disability support infrastructure, inadequate culturally and locationally suited service models and workforce shortages.

1.1 About the 4Rs Network

The 4Rs Network consists of about 95 community-based legal assistance services, networks and peaks most of which provide legal and related assistance in or to 4Rs areas. This includes participating Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (‘ACCOs’) and non-Indigenous organisations. The Network is growing, currently involving over 200 individuals.
Members work with and for their communities and regions, their methods and programs often reﬂect deep understanding and long-term efforts to address important community needs. Their programs, services and advocacy often prioritise community issues that have not been addressed by other means, including by local, state, or federal governments.
The Network promotes justice where people live in 4Rs areas – every community – every person – everywhere - against a backdrop of chronically insufficient access to legal assistance across large parts of 4Rs Australia and high rates of disadvantage and unmet legal need.2 Unmet legal needs and justice issues, including systemic and structural, are often inter-related with health determinants and health equity especially in 4Rs areas.3
The services in the 4Rs Network are based in, and/or serve, localities within any of the following classes of remoteness, also shown on the map below:

Inner regional Australia
Outer regional Australia
Remote Australia
Very remote Australia4 2 See previous 4Rs Network submissions at https://clcs.org.au/4rs-network which include links and references to a wide range of substantiating material 3 4Rs Network, ’Submission to the reivew of the Disability Discrimination Act (Cth) ’, 4Rs Network (Submission, 28 November 2025) https://clcs.org.au/4rs-network/.

4 Australian Bureau of Statistics, ’Remoteness Areas, Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) Edition

3, Reference period, July 2021 - June 2026’, ABS (Web page, 21 March 2023)

Submission 378

This corresponds with Modiﬁed Monash Model levels MMM2-75 (chart and map below), and with levels of disadvantage highlighted by SEIFA and Dropping off the Edge (maps below).

<https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/australian-statistical-geography-standard-asgs/edition-3-july 2021-june-2026/remoteness-structure>. 5 Disability and Ageing Department of Health, ‘Modified Monash Model’, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (Web page, 10 April 2025) <https://www.health.gov.au/topics/rural-health workforce/classifications/mmm>.

Submission 378

SEIFA – Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) Quintiles for all LGAs6 - Ranks areas according to their relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage using Census data.

6 Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia’, People and Communities (Web page and interactive map, 27 April 2023) <https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and communities/socio-economic-indexes-areas-seifa-australia/latest-release>.

Submission 378

Areas of disadvantage – Compilation of maps of jurisdictions from Dropping off the Edge 2021: Persistent & multilayered disadvantage in Australia, report 7

The services in 4Rs areas work with and for their communities and regions. Their methods and programs often reﬂect deep understanding and long-term efforts to address important community needs. Their programs, services and advocacy often reﬂect involvement in community issues that have not been addressed by other means, including by local, state, or federal governments.
The 4Rs Network also includes incorporated non-proﬁt legal services with national, state-wide or regional service areas which include 4Rs areas. Many of these services are based in metropolitan areas, with a longstanding history, and are orientated to 4Rs areas within their available resources.
The ability for people and communities in 4Rs areas to access community based legal assistance services is limited by current government funding levels which is vastly insufficient to the size of the service areas, demographics and legal needs. The 4Rs Network has called for a minimum of a doubling of funding because of the extent of the shortfalls. 8
The 4Rs Network has been facilitated from within and supported by Community Legal Centres Australia. It builds on a substantial history of community legal centre

7 Robert Tanton et al, ‘Dropping Off the Edge 2021: Persistent and multilayered disadvantage in Australia’, DOTE2021 (Report, 19 November 2021) https://www.dote.org.au/. 8 Most recently in 4Rs Network, ‘4Rs Network 2026-7 Federal Pre-Budget Submission’, Community Legal Centres Australia (Submission, 30 January 2026) https://clcs.org.au/4rs-network/.

Submission 378

based networking from the mid-1990s which has sought to address the speciﬁc and nuanced legal needs and rights of 4Rs communities to increase the wellbeing of those living within them.

More information about the 4Rs Network is available on the 4Rs Network page on the Community Legal Centres Australia web site which includes links to previous submissions.

1.2 Summary of recommendations

Recommendation 1

That the Committee’s inquiry and reporting include speciﬁc and adequate analysis of the impacts of the Bill on people with disability in 4Rs areas including:

Whether the Bill directly and/or indirectly adversely discriminates against people with disability in 4Rs areas applying intersectional analysis to consider all potentially affected groups, all jurisdictions and locations and relevant attributes of locations including demographics, indicators of ﬁnancial and other disadvantage and access to services.
Whether threshold issues relation to the Bill are satisﬁed regarding treatment of people, and impacts on people, in 4Rs areas including: o Constitutionality o Australia’s compliance with human rights obligations o High policy o Intergovernmental agreements and o Options to enhance social inclusion.

Recommendation 2

The Committee’s inquiry and reporting include speciﬁc and adequate analysis of:

(a) The Government’s claims that the diverse measures in the bill ranging from fraud control to reducing access to the NDIS and reducing supports should proceed as a package rather than being separated with fraud control in a Bill by itself. The Committee should particularly consider how the prominence of ‘fraud control’ impacts fair and full consideration of the suitability of the other measures in the Bill which are not related to fraud control. (b) The Government’s proposals about the sequence of changes, as many of the alternative supports the Government says will be in place, are not yet developed, implemented or validated. Why shouldn’t those steps proceed ﬁrst? Isn’t it premature to attempt to substantiate a policy basis for each of the non-fraud control measures in the Bill?

Submission 378

Recommendation 3

That the joint submission to the current inquiry by the NT Disability Consortium (DAS, IDA and DCLS) be treated as an exemplar of evidence and impacts of the Bill in the NT, including insights into the Bill’s metropolitan assumptions, and the harmful effects which would result in the NT especially for Aboriginal people across the NT, especially in remote and very remote areas.

Recommendation 4

That the NT Disability Consortium submission also be treated as a case study to consider implications of the Bill for the diversity of 4Rs areas around Australia.

Recommendation 5

That the Committee consider the likely advocacy and legal needs impacts and make recommendations to achieve full, effective and transparent assessment.

Recommendation 6

That the Committee recommend that the federal Government provide additional resources to address advocacy and legal needs of people with disability throughout Australia, including in 4Rs areas.

Particular matters 2.1 Assessing geographic impacts and equity
The NDIS Amendment (Security the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 was introduced on 14 May 2026 and was referred to the Committee the same day for ‘inquiry and report’ by 16 June 2026. Although the Committee has not been directed or requested to consider speciﬁc matters, the Committee is not precluded in what it can consider.
To respect, protect and fulﬁl the human rights, inclusion and wellbeing of people with disability, carers and family members in 4Rs areas, it is recommended that the Committee particularly investigate geographic impacts and equity.
This would require:

Consideration of how the Bill expressly discriminates against people with disability on geographic grounds – two examples are Cl 9B and cl 25A.

i. Cl 9B would add a deﬁnition of ‘functional capacity’ which includes the person’s ability to undertake the activity, “in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal

Submission 378

circumstances’ (screen shot below). 9This provision would result in abstract assessments which are biased against people facing speciﬁc and additional needs relating to environmental and/or personal circumstances. It seems that the provision would bracket out, where a person lives – such as in a 4Rs area – and their personal circumstances including cultural considerations, ﬁnancial hardship and others.

9 The Explanatory Memorandum National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing

the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 outlines the following at p. 15:

“Proposed new subsection 9B (1) would deﬁne ‘functional capacity’. A person’s functional capacity will relate to their ability to undertake an activity without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modiﬁcations and in a setting that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances. The requirement to assess functional capacity excluding the environmental and personal circumstances, as much as possible, intends to conﬁne the assessment to the person’s intrinsic ability to undertake an activity. This approach avoids reliance on personal and external factors that may vary between individuals and are not attributable to the impairment, such as ﬁnancial means or living arrangements. This promotes a more objective and consistent assessment of the functional impact of the person’s impairment.”

Submission 378

ii. Cl 25A (screen shot below) which would likely make a person’s ﬁnancial circumstances and geographical location irrelevant. The rule making power in cl 25A (4) would be correspondingly curtailed. This would dramatically disadvantage people who are ﬁnancially disadvantaged and/or face barriers related to their geographic location.

Consideration of how the Bill indirectly discriminates against people with disability on geographic grounds through the unequal and discriminatory

Submission 378

effects of purportedly equal treatment. For example, the Departmental Impact Assessment for the Bill noted that:

i. “..participants residing in remote and very remote Australia … could be disproportionately affected by a limiting of unscheduled reassessments”10

ii. “participants residing in remote locations (MM6) and very remote locations (MM7) will experience a higher dollar value [SCCP] reduction relative to the average”11

iii. Cohorts more affected by resetting SCCP budgets would include “.. women and girls, participants with an undeﬁned gender, participants residing outside major cities (MM1) and regional centres (MM2), and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse participants”12

iv. Resetting capacity building daily activities budgets (CBDA budgets): ‘….may more signiﬁcantly impact participants residing in remote MM6 and very remote MM7 who have higher than average CBDA budgets and will experience a higher dollar value reduction in their budget. Participants in very remote locations also have higher proportions of CBDA as a share of total committed supports.”13

v. Greater impacts from tightening reasonable and necessary supports criteria could disproportionately impact ‘NDIS participants in remote and regional areas where public transport is limited to taxis14

Consideration of threshold issues including: i. Constitutionality including the adverse treatment of people in 4Rs areas.

ii. Compliance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) and Australia’s human rights treaty obligations. These obligations underscore the human rights of all people with disability, wherever located (urban and non-urban):

Human rights are universal and do not dissipate with distance from capital cities or the large metro areas. Human rights are universal, and do not depend on individuals or groups being part

10 Disability and Ageing Department of Health, ’National Disability Insurance Scheme Reforms Impact Analysis

Prepared by the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing’, OIA Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (Impact Analysis and Assessment, 14 May 2026) 54 <https://oia.pmc.gov.au/published-impact analyses-and-reports/national-disability-insurance-scheme-reforms>. 11 Ibid 58. 12 Ibid 57. 13 Ibid 63. 14 Ibid 66.

Submission 378

of a majority. Human rights require duty bearers to ensure the human rights of people and groups whose rights will otherwise be violated.

First Nations people, children, young people, women, men, LGBTQI+, older people, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and all others – must not be adversely discriminated on any grounds including non-urban location. iii. Compliance with high policy including Closing the Gap15 the National

Anti-Racism Framework16

iv. Compliance with commitments and guarantees to regional Australia including regional, rural, remote and very remote areas.

v. Compliance and good faith in relation to intergovernmental agreements and initiatives relating to regional Australia including 4Rs and relating to Local Government and to health, housing, education, transport and services.

vi. Promoting and advancing social inclusion, inclusive democracy and effective problem framing which enlarge – rather than foreclose – prospects for mutually beneﬁcial outcomes.

Recommendation 1

That the Committee’s inquiry and reporting include speciﬁc and adequate analysis of the impacts of the Bill on people with disability in 4Rs areas including:

Whether the Bill directly and/or indirectly adversely discriminates against people with disability in 4Rs areas applying intersectional analysis to consider all potentially affected groups, all jurisdictions and locations and relevant attributes of locations including demographics, indicators of ﬁnancial and other disadvantage and access to services.
Whether threshold issues relation to the Bill are satisﬁed regarding treatment of people, and impacts on people, in 4Rs areas including: o Constitutionality o Australia’s compliance with human rights obligations o High policy o Intergovernmental agreements and o Options to enhance social inclusion.

15 Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations and all Australian Governments, ‘National Agreement on Closing the Gap’, Closing the Gap (National Agreement, 27 July 2020) https://www.closingthegap.gov.au/national-agreement. 16 Australian Human Rights Commission, ‘National Anti-Racism Framework: A roadmap to eliminating racism in Australia’, National Anti-Racism Framework (Report, November 2024) <https://humanrights.gov.au/anti racism-framework>.

Submission 378

2.2 Assessing packaging and sequencing

The Committee’s inquiry and reporting should also focus on the packaging of the Bill and the sequence of proposed reforms.

The packaging includes why the Bill includes (a) as well as (b) to (f) below rather than (a) in one Bill and the rest separated. This question is very important because the Government appears to be using packaging the packaging of (a) (which is largely uncontentious) with (b) to (f) (which are extremely contentious) for momentum and cover for the passage of (b) to (f).
The issue about sequencing, is referred to above, this mainly relates to (b) to (f), which – as outlined above – would be accompanied by various new arrangements for alternatives for people with disability who are adversely affected. Those new arrangements are not yet in place. This indicates the focus should be on establishing new arrangements and validating them ﬁrst.

That is, the central features of the Bill would: a) Work to better address fraud – the fraud in question is overwhelmingly fraud against people with disability and the Scheme – not fraud by people with disability.

b) Reduce access to the NDIS by people with disability alive today and future generations.

c) Reduce supports through the NDIS especially for Social, Civic and Community Participation (SCCP), for people with disability alive today and future generations.

d) Increase Ministerial power whereby the Minister could make many other changes which reduce the NDIS, including further limiting supports. These changes would reduce Parliamentary and electoral accountability.

e) Reduce individual assessment through criteria which applies assumptions and formularises.17

17 This contrasts with requirements for individual assessment. For example as expressed by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General comment 5 on Article 19 – the right to live independently and be included in the community, 27 October 2017 CRPD/C/GC/5, expressed requirements for a personalised approach: ‘63. Support for persons with disabilities should be assessed using a personalized approach and tailored to the speciﬁc activities and actual barriers to inclusion in the community that persons with disabilities face. The assessment should acknowledge that persons with disabilities require access to participate in activities that varies over time. States parties should ensure that personalization of support, including cash

Submission 378

f) Reduce due process rights for people with disability in relation to NDIA decisions resulting in reduced transparency, and risks of reduced accountability, including arbitrariness, unfairness or improper considerations. This is likely to create a stress and frustration for people with disability and others impacted in relation to their rights, care and wellbeing. It may well cause moral injury and crisis for many NDIS staff. Fair criteria and good decision-making beneﬁt everyone, including society. Review and appeal rights for people with disability are essential. Strong safeguards must be applied to guard against algorithmic injustice and human oversight and accountability for decision making must be ensured.

The Bill is central to the Government’s plan to achieve $37.8 billion over the next 4 years18 and to reduce the growth and cost of the NDIS which the Government claims is essential to maintain.19 Although the Government has expressed that people with disability who are no longer eligible for the NDIS, or who received reduced supports, would have access to alternative supports – these arrangements are mainly yet to be established, implemented and validated. The Government has not demonstrated that the sequence of changes it proposes are safe for people with disability, their carers of for the credible operation of the NDIS.

Recommendation 2

The Committee’s inquiry and reporting include speciﬁc and adequate analysis of:

transfers/personal budgets, take into account and address the challenges that persons with disabilities face when living in rural and/or urban areas.’

18 Australian Government, ‘Budget Paper No 2: Budget Measures’, Budget 2026-27 (Budget Paper, 12 May

108 https://budget.gov.au/content/bp2/download/bp2_2026-27.pdf. 19 The term ‘social licence’ was used in Budget Paper 1 in relation to stopping fraud and rorts: ‘Fighting fraud and stopping rorts To improve safety and protect participants, the Government will invest $821.2 million over four years to expand the mandatory registration of providers, introduce a new enrolment system to increase oversight of payments, continue the Fraud Fusion Taskforce and strengthen the NDIA’s investigative and enforcement capabilities. Fraud and non-compliance undermines the social licence of the NDIS and has a direct and devastating impact on the lives of participants and their families.’ Australian Government, ‘Budget Paper No 1: Budget Measures’, Budget 2026-27 (Budget Paper No 1: Budget Strategy and Outlook, 12 May 2026) 36 <https://budget.gov.au/content/bp2/download/bp2_2026 27.pdf>. However, as highlighted by Zali Steggall MP in Parliament on 27 May 2026 the Government’s language around ‘social licence’ appears to centre on NDIS fraud control but also expand, using fraud control for unrelated cost cutting.

Submission 378

(b) The Government’s proposals about the sequence of changes as many of the alternative supports the Government says will be in place, are not yet developed, implemented or validated. Why shouldn’t those steps proceed ﬁrst? Isn’t it premature to attempt to substantiate a policy basis for each of the non-fraud control measures in the Bill?

2.3 DAS/IDA/DCLS submission as a case study

The joint submission to the current inquiry by Disability Advocacy Service Inc. (‘DAS’) (Central Australia and the Barkly), Integrated Disability Action Inc. (‘IDA’) (the NT peak for people with disability) and Darwin Community Legal Service (‘DCLS’) (across the Top End), (‘the NT Disability Consortium’) 20 is a major contribution the practical evidence base raises extensive concerns about the impacts of the Bill on:

First Nations people with disability in the NT
People with disability in the NT generally
Safety and availability of supports
Carers, families, communities
Disability support sectors including workforce

The NT Disability Consortium submission highlights how metropolitan assumptions permeate many aspects of the Bill relating to access to the NDIS and NDIS supports and what the effects would look like in the NT.
The evidence and insights in this submission are a guide to considering the impacts and suitability of the Bill in the diversity of 4Rs locations in all jurisdictions.

Recommendation 3

Recommendation 4

That the NT Disability Consortium submission also be treated as a case study to consider implications of the Bill for the diversity of 4Rs areas around Australia.

20 Disability Advocacy Service Inc., Integrated Disability Action Inc. and Darwin Community Legal Service, ’Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026) - Senate

Standing Committee on Community Affairs Legislation Committee’, Australian Parliament House (Submission,

29 May 2026) <https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ba4d1d34-f5ce-45ba-ad84 61b5a2a2c5fe&subId=791090>.

Submission 378

2.4 Advocacy and legal needs impact assessment

The impact of the Bill on the advocacy and legal needs of people with disability throughout Australia is of great concern, considering the underlying unmet needs, levels of distress which are likely to result from provisions in the Bill, and the potential for people’s rights, wellbeing and inclusion to be adversely impacted. Access to advocacy support and legal assistance will be essential. A range of previous submissions by the 4Rs Network relate to legal needs in 4Rs areas.21
The Committee should consider the likely advocacy and legal needs impacts and make recommendations to achieve full, effective and transparent assessment.
The federal Government should provide additional resources to address advocacy and legal needs of people with disability throughout Australia, including in 4Rs areas.

Recommendation 5

That the Committee consider the likely advocacy and legal needs impacts and make recommendations to achieve full, effective and transparent assessment.

Recommendation 6

That the Committee recommend that the federal Government provide additional resources to address advocacy and legal needs of people with disability throughout Australia, including in 4Rs areas.

21 See for example: 4Rs Network, ‘Submission to the Joint Standing Commitee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Inquiry into NDIS partcipant experience in rural, regional and remote Australia’, Submissions (Submission, 8 March 2024) <https://clcs.org.au/4rs-network/ and https://clcs.org.au/wp content/uploads/2024/05/8-March-24-4Rs-with-endorsements-included-16-April-24-Network-NDIS-RRRR submission-combined.pdf>; 4Rs Network, ‘Submission to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability, Inquiry into the thriving kids initiative’, Submissions (Web page, 3 October 2025) https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ec05dfb9-371e-4490-8c6c-6ce66e3f67e0&subId=779195; 4Rs Network, ‘Submission to the inquiry into Northern Australia Workforce Development’, Submissions (Submission, 8 November 2024) <https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8c40cf55-7d4a-4a6c 8418-921937165edd&subId=769503>; 4Rs Network, ‘Letter to Commonwealth, State and Territory Attorneys General in response to the report of the independent review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership Agreement with backgrounder and attachment’, 4Rs Network (Submission, 2 September 2024) <https://clcs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2-Sept-24-4Rs-Network-letter-to-AGs-with-Report-Card and-Backgrounder.pdf and https://clcs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2-Sept-24-Att-1-to Backgrounder-to-4Rs-Report-Card.pdf>; 4Rs Network, ’Submission to the reivew of the Disability Discrimination Act (Cth) ’ (n 3)

Submission 378

Conclusion
During his Second Reading Speech in relation to the NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Bill 2024, Minister Shorten said that prior to the NDIS:

“Depending on your postcode, you might be lucky enough to get some funding to help you and your family, or otherwise you might live a life of uncertainty and, quite often, disadvantage and poverty”22

He also noted that “rural areas were highlighted by the NDIS review as critical for improvement.”23
The current Bill is likely to put the rights of many people with disability into reverse and adversely impact carers, families and communities especially in many 4Rs areas. Provisions in the Bill assume metropolitan conditions across the country even though Australia is the sixth largest country in the world by landmass and one of the most urbanised.
The stewardship of the NDIS should must maintain the vision expressed in the words below in the Disability Royal Commission’s terms of reference.24

22 Minister Shorten, House of Representatives Proof Bills (Hansard), National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, Second Reading Speech Wednesday, 27 March 2024, 19. 23 Ibid, 24. 24 Abuse Royal Commission into Violence, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability,, ‘Final Report Executive Summary, Our vision for an inclusive Australia and Recommendations’, Final Report - Complete Volume - formats (Report, 29 September 2023) ix https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report-complete-volume-formats.