- by M Santos
- The Guardian
- Issue #2197
A rally calling on the Australian Commonwealth government to implement a National Disability Insurance Scheme in Reddacliff Place, Brisbane, in 2012. Photo: John Robert McPherson – Wikimedia Commons (CC-BY-SA-4.0)
People with disability have gained an eight-week reprieve following a deal between the Greens and Labor to gain support for Labor’s tax changes. The Senate inquiry into the cruel, inhumane cost-cutting NDIS bill will now have until 14 August to report – an extension of eight weeks.
If passed the government’s bill, disingenuously titled Securing the NDIS for Future Generations, would undermine the essence of the NDIS which is to provide personalised support based on individual needs.
The government had initially given the inquiry four weeks in which to report. Submissions closed after two weeks. Despite this there were 4,000 submissions from disabled people, carers, family members, experts, and advocacy groups. Their anger was palpable.
The bill was so rushed that there was not even time to upload all the submissions. The simple English description of the bill was not uploaded until after submissions had closed.
There were only three days for actual hearings, all held in Canberra.
Unusually for an inquiry, all submissions were opposed to the bill. It had been produced without consultation, while seeking to impose massive cuts to existing packages of up to 50% and throw 160,000 disabled off the scheme without the necessary state supports to meet their needs. Hundreds of thousands of disabled would be denied entry to the scheme in coming years.
The Senate committee issued an interim report at the end of the four weeks which only tinkered with the bill. Senator Jordon Steele-John, Greens Senator for Western Australia, issued a dissenting report calling for the bill to be withdrawn.
DEADLY CUTS
The bill is based on cutting costs by $35 billion in just four years, regardless of the needs of the disabled and carers and families.
Submissions highlighted a range of serious concerns including:
- Participants’ funding would be set below assessed needs
- Cuts would lead to an increased reliance on unpaid carers, who in some instances have disabilities, and/or would be forced to leave the workforce
- Assessments based on automated decisions – Robodebt Mark 2 – as if everyone with a particular condition has the same needs regardless of other disabilities and circumstances
- A ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to assessment
- No framework in place for disabled people thrown off the scheme
- It will cost lives and do untold harm to the disabled and carers
- Significantly diminishes the role of the Administrative Review Tribunal and the judiciary, eroding pathways to access justice
- All participants’ plans would be reviewed with the aim of cutting back plans or throwing disabled off the NDIS to cut costs
- Government claims to be addressing fraud but is in fact targeting the disabled.
The bill enables the Minister to enact 50% cuts to funding for social and community participation using broad Ministerial powers, rather than through an assessment of an individual participant’s circumstances, goals, support needs and capacity for community engagement.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Disability Discrimination Commissioner Rosemary Kayess slammed the bill:
“The NDIS was introduced as a human rights-based reform. It was built on the principle that people with disability can live independently and participate in the community with access to supports that enable choice, control and inclusion. This Bill has the potential to be regressive in the protection and realisation of the rights of people with disability, which is contrary to Australia’s obligation regarding the principle of non-retrogression.
“Measures proposed in the Bill as well as the Ministerial discourse about the changes place stronger emphasis on financial considerations in decision-making than on human rights. This reinforces an ableist framing of people with disability as a cost pressure to be managed, rather than as people who have rights and who are entitled to equality and participation.”
Kayess also raised concerns about the considerable powers of the Minister.
REDEFINING PERMANENT
There is a new requirement that a disability would not be considered permanent, a requirement for eligibility, unless a person had undertaken all “appropriate treatments.”
As the Greens point out in their dissenting report, “… concerns were raised that decisions regarding which treatments must be pursued would be determined through the rules made by the Minister, rather than by an individual’s medical professionals.”
Serious concerns were also raised that these new rules fail to adequately account for barriers to accessing treatment, including affordability, geographic location, waiting times, potential risks, costs involved or an individual’s personal circumstances and preferences.
The Occupational Therapy Society for Invisible Disability spoke about the new rules during a public hearing: “Their introduction shifts NDIS eligibility decisions away from the sum of available evidence of the impact of the person’s disability to a single assessment. There is currently no demonstrated assessment tool capable of delivering the type of objective, functional assessment contemplated by the bill while accurately reflecting the complexity of disability.”
Many submissions argued that changes to the definition of permanent disability would create additional obstacles for disabled people accessing the Scheme. This is by design, part of the cost-cutting process forcing disabled people off the Scheme.
“Behind every funding reduction is a person whose life becomes smaller. Behind every delayed support is a family forced to fill the gap. Behind every unmet need is someone whose dignity is compromised,” one submission noted.
Children and Young People with Disability Australia raised concerns that the bill is silent on chemical restraints where somebody is forced to take medication as a way to suppress particular behaviours or conduct.
“That’s what we’re concerned about for children in particular – an early adoption of chemical restraint as a way of satisfying appropriate treatment before non-chemical or medication support is available to them.”
It was reported that women were being coerced into having hysterectomies so they didn’t have to fund menstrual support.
Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) argue that “the reforms risk deepening existing inequalities for women, girls and gender-diverse people with disability. WWDA is deeply concerned by the Bill, and the broad powers it gives the government to tighten access, reduce supports, cap funding and shift people to other systems before new rules, safeguards and tools have been designed.
“Significant cuts to the NDIS and participants’ supports will never be safe policy unless there are strong, accessible and properly funded alternatives in place.”
POLICY
Commissioner Kayless warned: “The NDIS must operate as a human rights-based scheme, ensuring that people with disability have access to individualised supports that enable dignity, autonomy, independence and participation in the community. The proposed reforms raise significant concerns about the extent to which this framework is being preserved.”
The NDIS cost just over $46 billion last year and has been growing at around 10% a year. That is less than is spent on the uncapped, destructive military machine which aims to kill and disable more people.
In the same week as announcing the NDIS cuts the government announced an additional $53 billion in spending on preparations to fight US imperialism’s wars.
The Communist Party of Australia calls on the government to cancel AUKUS, rein in military spending and tackle the NDIS fraud which the government admits is mostly attributable to private providers and parasitic intermediaries.
The bill should be thrown out and the government carry out serious negotiations with the disability community, listen to their needs, and legislate based on these needs, not on cost-cutting.
For more information see Guardian 4 May 2026, #2188 “NDIS cuts: ‘We will fight back’ ”
