EASE Access Consulting

18/08/2026

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1bS1nobgAb/?mibextid=wwXIfr

MEDIA RELEASE
Disability group files Federal Court proceedings as Labor and Coalition move to pass NDIS Bill
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |

6.54pm, Tuesday, 18 August 2026

The Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association (ANPA) has moved to file proceedings in the Federal Court this evening concerning the consultation process associated with the Government’s NDIS reforms as a matter of public importance under the Australian Human Rights Comission Act 1986, as Labor and the Coalition move towards passing the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

ANPA says the significance of the proceeding is not that it asks the Court to stop Parliament or determine the validity of the Bill. It does not.

Rather, the proceeding raises legal questions about the consultation process that ANPA says has been relied upon as part of the development and justification of reforms now reflected in the Bill.

ANPA says that, if serious questions exist about whether that consultation was lawful, accessible and meaningful, Parliament should not simply assume that the reform process has been adequately informed by the people whose rights and supports will be affected.

The filing comes as the Government and Coalition have reached an agreement facilitating passage of the Bill, with a further 33 Senate amendments negotiated after 30 amendments were agreed in the House.

ANPA is calling on Senators to defer the final vote until the consequences of the legislation, particularly for disabled children and families, have been independently, meaningfully and substantively considered.

ANPA President Sarah Langston said:

“The Government has repeatedly pointed to consultation as part of the process behind these reforms. This evening, we have asked the Federal Court to consider serious legal concerns arising from that consultation process.”

“We are not asking the Court to interfere with Parliament, and the proceeding does not itself determine the validity of this Bill. The issue is different but directly relevant. If the consultation process relied upon to help justify these reforms is under legal challenge, Senators should not simply assume that affected disabled people were meaningfully and lawfully included in the process. We say: we were not.”

“That matters because consultation is not a procedural decoration. Where government relies on consultation to support major reforms, the integrity of that process matters to the legitimacy of the decisions said to flow from it.”

Leading Disability Rights activist Samantha Connor OAM said:
“Disabled Australians, veterans and older people have the right to be safe, supported and free from surveillance and sweeping government powers. Most Australians expect accountability and transparency from our leaders. We should be directly involved in changes to laws that will change our lives. Consultation on these amendments is not optional, and the consultation underpinning this bill is in question.”

ANPA remains deeply concerned that the legislation gives government broad powers affecting how NDIS supports are determined, funded and reviewed, while enabling expanded use of participant information and automated systems without the safeguards disabled people have sought.

ANPA is particularly concerned about provisions affecting parental responsibility and supports for children.

“When support is taken away from a disabled child, the child’s needs do not disappear,” Ms Langston said.

“Where are the safeguards for children? What happened to the principle that the best interests of the child should be paramount?”

ANPA Board member and disability advocate Heidi La Paglia said the consequences would also be gendered.

“When individual support is removed from disabled children, their needs do not disappear. The responsibility is pushed back onto families, and overwhelmingly onto women. That means more unpaid care, less paid work, reduced financial security and greater dependence on partners or family.”

“That dependence matters. For disabled women, NDIS support can provide the practical independence needed to stay safe or leave violence. Where is the gender impact assessment?”

ANPA is also concerned that the Bill creates pathways for people to be moved towards alternative or foundational supports without an enforceable guarantee that the services they need actually exist, are accessible to them, and will be available before their NDIS support changes.

The amendments negotiated today include additional integrity measures and a pathway for participants at high risk to seek an urgent plan variation. Those safeguards are welcome, but ANPA has not seen evidence that they resolve the fundamental concerns raised about children, parental responsibility, alternative supports, review rights and automated decision-making.

“An emergency pathway after somebody is placed at risk is not a substitute for designing a system that prevents the harm in the first place,” Ms Langston said.

“If governments intend to move disabled people away from individual NDIS supports, there must be an enforceable guarantee that the alternative support exists before the NDIS support disappears. Disabled people and families cannot be expected to fall through the gap while governments work out what comes next.”

ANPA says Parliament should also demand clear safeguards around the use of participant data and automated decision-making.

“Parliament should not give the green light to sweeping powers affecting how disabled Australians are assessed, monitored and how our data may be used, while critical details about how those powers will operate remain unresolved,” Ms Langston said.

“These decisions can determine whether somebody can get out of bed, communicate, attend school, work, parent, participate in their community or live safely in their own home. Review rights and meaningful human oversight are not administrative luxuries. They are safeguards against harm.”

ANPA is calling for the Senate to defer the final vote, publish and scrutinise the complete negotiated amendment package with enough time for the Disability community to meaningfully participate, and ensure that the legislation contains enforceable protections for disabled people and children before it becomes law.

“This is not an argument against reform,” Ms Langston said.

“It is an argument against asking disabled Australians and our children to carry risks that governments have not resolved.”

“If Parliament passes this legislation without adequate safeguards, disabled people will use every lawful accountability and review mechanism available to us to protect our rights. The Australian government is on notice tonight: The ANPA does not back down and will not run from the most important fight for our rights in decades.'

ENDS

Media contact:
Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association (ANPA)

Sarah Langston (she/her)

President

30/07/2026

Showing up for Disability Pride month. Thanks to Moonee Valley City Council https://www.instagram.com/mooneevalleycitycouncil/
for enabling us to share our experience and purpose with staff

11K Followers, 195 Following, 3,971 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Moonee Valley City Council ()

19/05/2026

We must ensure disabled individuals and carer’s get the support they need. Please write to your local MP and make a submission to the Senate Inquiry. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Making_a_submission

The disabled community must not be used as scapegoats for government’s fiscal objectives. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18wMbLCCm2/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Funding Cuts and Ministerial Powers

The proposed NDIS Bill grants the Minister extraordinarily broad powers to reduce funding for specified groups through support determinations.

OTSi is extremely concerned that:
• there are minimal legislative safeguards;
• reductions can apply across broad participant categories;
• cuts may reduce funding below actual support costs; and
• the legislation provides limited transparency, appeal and accountability mechanisms.

This creates the possibility of substantial cuts targeting particular cohorts, impairments, ages, or support categories.
Proposed section 34A would create an extraordinary power permitting across-the-board percentage reductions to funding components in “old framework plans” for reasons of “financial sustainability”, without any requirement for:
• individual reassessment of reasonable and necessary supports;
• consideration of participant safety;
• assessment of functional impact; or
• analysis of risks arising from funding reduction.

This represents a significant departure from the foundational principles of the NDIS, which are intended to be based on individualised assessment of disability support needs rather than arbitrary fiscal measures.

A blanket percentage reduction mechanism risks undermining continuity of essential supports, including therapy; community participation; assistive technology; and home modifications.
The consequences for participant wellbeing, independence, safeguarding, and long-term outcomes may be severe.

OTSi is particularly concerned that broad percentage reduction powers could disproportionately impact:
• First Nations participants;
• rural and remote participants;
• women carers;
• people with psychosocial disability;
• participants requiring high levels of informal support; and
• children requiring early intervention.

The explanatory materials themselves acknowledge risks relating to:
• gender equity;
• Closing the Gap outcomes;
• increased reliance on unpaid female carers; and
• safeguarding risks associated with reduced supports.

OTSi submits that proposed section 34A should be withdrawn from the Bill.

If Parliament nevertheless proceeds with section 34A, the Bill must explicitly amend section 209(8) of the NDIS Act to classify any determination made under section 34A as a Category A NDIS Rule, ensuring states and territories must agree before such a reduction instrument can take effect.

OTSi further submits that any powers allowing:
• changes to permanence definitions;
• changes to functional capacity thresholds;
• reductions to funding categories; or
• support determination percentages
should be designated as Category A Rules requiring agreement from states and territories.

This is an extract from the OTSi discussion paper on the proposed NDIS legislation.
You can make a submission to the senate until may 29th re these proposed changes.

07/11/2025

Pathways to Inclusion event Join us in celebrating International Day for People with a Disability at the Djerring Flemington Hub. Event information Join

19/10/2025

It’s Invisible Disabilities Week (19–25 October)! 🌻

Around 80–85% of people with a disability have one that isn’t visible. These include neurological, cognitive, sensory, mental health, and chronic conditions that aren’t always immediately apparent.

Not all disabilities are visible — but a little understanding and kindness can go a long way in making everyone feel seen and supported.

Image description: A green graphic with sunflower design promoting Invisible Disabilities Week, 19th–25th October. It features a Sunflower lanyard, a person icon with a sunflower, and the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower logo.

12/09/2025

DDA Review Blog 3 – Positive Duty

In my first blog, I briefly mentioned the positive duty now enshrined under the S*x Discrimination Act. The current DDA review is seeking comment s on introducing a positive e duty into the DDA as recommended by the Disability Royal Commission.

The positive duty under the SDA is limited to employers and persons conducting a business or undertaking (making it similar to the positive duty under work health and safety laws). The DRC recommended the positive duty under the DDA be modelled on this.

However, the duty should extend to all duty holders under the DDA, not just employers and persons conducting a business or undertaking

The positive duty will require a duty holder to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against people with disability. This shifts the law from a complaints-based model to a prevention-based model.
A positive duty already exists in some State and Territory discrimination and equal opportunities legislation.

A question always arises about the regulatory burden of a positive duty. I however argue that a positive duty already exists for specific harm prevention legislation already, as outlined above and extending this duty to disability discrimination would only be incremental.

Work health and safety laws already require prevention of psychological harm by eliminate psychosocial risks, or if that is not reasonably practicable, minimise them so far as is reasonably practicable.

So, how would a positive duty work in practice?
Guidance prepared by the Australian Human Rights Commission on the positive duty under the SDA, would be the basis upon which guidance for the DDA is likely to be developed, and could include:
• Ensuring recruitment and induction policies do not discriminate based on a person’s disability
• Disability awareness and inclusion education and training
• Fostering a culture of inclusion and diversity of lived experience
• Establishing lived experience consultation opportunities
• Identifying and providing a suite of adjustments that can be made across in the workplace/community/education settings e.g. physical, sensory, task or activity design, modified schedules etc.
• Providing supports to ensure inclusion and wellbeing

04/09/2025

Blog 2 – DDA Review – Definitions
In this second blog I would like to explore who the DDA protects.

The current definition of disability, in relation to a person, means:
(a) total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental functions; or
(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or
(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or
(d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or
(e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person’s body; or
(f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction; or
(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour;

and includes a disability that:
(h) presently exists; or
(i) previously existed but no longer exists; or
(j) may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that disability); or
(k) is imputed to a person.

To avoid doubt, a disability that is otherwise covered by this definition includes behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of the disability.

There is a lot to unpack here:
1. It uses deficit-based language, where the disability lies with the individual and that the disabled person needs to ‘adapt or be cured’ to fit the environment and society.
2. This is not aligned to the social model and human rights model of disability; where it is affirms that the physical and social ‘environment’ that is disabling.
3. It does not acknowledge that a person can experience more than one of the defined disabilities
4. It does not acknowledge that a person can face discrimination based on a number of personal attributes
5. Consistent with point 3., a person may face discrimination under all Federal Discrimination Acts and need to raise a complaint against each, creating significant burden

It is important that the definition of disability is reframed as a social construct.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) external defines a disability as any long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder the full and effective participation of disabled people in society on an equal basis with others.

Of particular interest to myself and my family is how neurodivergence is described. It largely relates to definition (f) but can also include (g)
I have a number of concerns here:
1. Neurodivergence is cast as a ‘disorder or malfunction’ and interpreted as not ‘normal’.
2. It doesn’t reflect that being neurodivergent is part of human diversity, often bringing unique strengths like creativity, pattern recognition, and focused attention.
3. It focuses on learning only, not how we experience and interact with the world.
4. It has often been interpreted as a deficit in ‘cognitive ability’.
5. definition (g) references ‘disturbing behaviour’ which is subjective and can be an ableist concept. Reframing to ‘unsafe behaviours’ (to self and others) would be preferable.

There is also an ongoing debate over the use of the term ‘disability’ versus ‘impairment’. Impairment is considered to better reflect the social model in that it is society and the environment that impairs someone. I am on the fence over the best descriptor for legislation, because I am also conscious that the word ‘disability’ brings with it enormous stigma that needs to be eliminated.

I am interested in your thoughts on how we can ensure these outdated definitions reflect lived experience and lead to a truly inclusive society.

26/08/2025

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7365949276641771520

My Thoughts On The DDA Review I recently attended an in person workshop kicking off the review of the Disability Discrimination Act. Having worked in the mining industry for over 2 decades, primarily on safety, health and human rights, my personal focus has been on reducing harm. I stepped away from...

22/08/2025

⚠️ BREAKING

MEDIA RELEASE
22 August 2025

ANPA Lodges Notice of Concern: Minister Given 30 Days to Act

The Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association (ANPA) has lodged a formal Notice of Concern with Minister Mark Butler. The notice gives the Minister 30 days to address urgent harms caused by his government’s policies, including breaches of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

The Notice cites:

the growing number of people being moved off the NDIS into no support at all, and

mounting evidence of harm from NDIS cuts and policy changes, documented through ANPA’s Harm Tracker.

If the Minister fails to act, ANPA will escalate to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, seeking their advocacy to refer Australia’s breaches to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

“We have had enough,” said Sarah Langston, President of ANPA.

“Australia signed and ratified the UNCRPD. That means our government is bound by international law. Breaching Disabled people’s rights is not just bad policy — it’s unlawful.”

ANPA notes that Minister Butler’s National Press Club announcements came as a complete surprise to Australia’s Disabled People’s Representative Organisations (DPROs), who were not consulted in advance.

This is a direct contravention of Article 4(3) of the UNCRPD, which requires governments to work in partnership with DPROs.

“These so-called reforms risk displacing evidence-based supports, wasting public money, harming children during critical developmental windows, and deepening inequality. We cannot and will not accept this,” Langston said.

ANPA is clear: unless the Minister reverses course and commits to genuine consultation with Disabled people, international accountability will follow.

The complete Notice of Concern follows.

ENDS
Contact: Sarah Langston — [email protected]

Notice of Concern – Breach of the UNCRPD

Attn To:
Hon. Mark Butler MP
Minister for Health and Aged Care
Minister for Disability and Ageing

From:
Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association (ANPA)
A recognised Disabled People’s Representative Organisation (DPRO)
Date: August 21, 2025.

Subject: Notice of Concern – Breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Dear Minister Butler,

As a DPRO representing Neurodivergent parents and families, we issue this formal Notice of Concern regarding recent government conduct that we believe places Australia in breach of its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and its Optional Protocol (OP-CRPD).

1. Specific Concerns

1. Failure to Consult (Art. 4(3))

Significant reforms affecting Autistic children have been announced without consultation with ANPA or other DPROs, contrary to the requirement for close consultation and active involvement.

2. Discriminatory Segregation (Arts. 5 & 19)

Autistic people have been singled out for differential treatment pathways solely due to population size. This constitutes disability-based discrimination and segregation, prohibited under the UNCRPD.

3. Use of Non-Clinical and Rejected Terminology

The repeated use of terms such as “mild/moderate autism” has no clinical basis, is rejected by Autistic people and their representative organisations, and reflects discredited frameworks linked to harmful ideologies.

4. Unsafe Program Implementation (Arts. 7, 24, 25 & 26)

The proposed national rollout of the Inklings program lacks independent safety data, long-term adverse event monitoring, or transparency in protocols.

Publicly available materials indicate the program may promote masking of Autistic traits — a practice associated with long-term harms including anxiety, depression, and suicidality.
Despite repeated requests, DPROs have been denied access to full therapy manuals and protocols for independent review.

5. Documented Widespread Harm

Evidence gathered through the Harm Tracker, an independent grassroots monitoring project led by Disabled people and allied health workers, shows systemic harm already occurring as a result of recent NDIS pricing and policy changes:

Scale of impact: over 6,300 individuals (participants, carers, and providers) have reported harm across every state and territory.

Mental health decline: more than 80% reported anxiety and/or depression following NDIS cuts or changes.

Service access collapse: nearly 70% lost access to essential supports, with providers withdrawing due to pricing freezes and travel cuts.

Regional inequity: rural and regional participants disproportionately affected by travel funding cuts, leaving many with no viable service options.

Market distortion: small and medium providers are withdrawing from the market, forcing participants to rely on larger providers — often with less personalised, less safe, and less responsive practices.

This evidence demonstrates that reforms are causing widespread, measurable, and escalating harm.

2. Required Action

We formally advise that the Government must:

Cease the use of non-clinical and offensive terminology such as “mild/moderate autism.”

Immediately halt plans to implement the Inklings program pending independent safety review and full consultation with DPROs.

Reverse harmful pricing freezes and travel cuts that have destabilised service provision and directly harmed participants.

Reinstate essential supports lost to NDIS participants as a result of recent pricing and policy changes.

Establish an independent, transparent harm-monitoring mechanism (such as integration of the Harm Tracker into NDIA quarterly reporting).

Commit to genuine co-design with Disabled people and their representative organisations before implementing any further reforms.

3. Notice of Escalation

If corrective steps are not taken within 30 days, The ANPA reserves the right to:

Submit a communication under Article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the UNCRPD;

Provide evidence to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;

and

Raise this matter with the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and request advocacy to escalate the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to seek intervention on behalf of the Disabled community of Australia.

This Notice serves to place the Government on record that Australia has been formally advised of these breaches by a recognised DPRO.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Langston (she/her)

President
Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association

“Nothing About Us Without Us”
[email protected] • https://www.thisisanpa.org

20/08/2025