All I can say is that I am so thrilled that we have such articulate people with disability now challenging these clear violations of our citizenship rights! First Australians have been wrestling with some of these issues for over two centuries (take the case of the new colony of Qld whose first act was to repeal an agreement with aboriginal peoples north of Brisbane established by the NSW government!)

Like Fran I have faced this problem when I shifted from Queensland to SA and then back to Queensland (also because of executive roles) - though not on the same scale. Like Fran I had to get a doctor to certify (even when returning to Qld) that my permanent disability since birth hadn't miraculously disappeared as I crossed the border. Thankfully I didn't have a waiting list for prosthetics, but I did have some interesting letters. I had the cars, our mail, schools, phone/internet, AEC and bank account details all changed within 6wks of arrival, but my disability related items (except those managed by Centrelink) took almost 6mths.

NDIS has so much support for a reason - it creates fairness for Australians with disability for the first time EVER! if governments are serious about wanting more people in work (including carers), or living more capable, empowered lives - then the NDIS is an obvious solution that will cost a lot less in the years to come than the current broken state and federal programs.

Hear hear Fran, more power to your pen!
It's not a case of over spending, but rather fixing the broken tax system to finally include ALL the avoiders, and in so doing, increase the revenue base by around 100 billion or more per.
A stand alone broad based revenue collection scheme, can actually be smaller in percentage terms, than the tax compliance or avoidance expenditure already outlaid!
If well designed tax act, without exceptions or exclusions, was to replace the dogs breakfast of a tax act we have now!
A sensible scheme would allow the avoiders to pocket their current compliance money, and in real terms, completely remove individual tax liability, and indeed, give we would collect all our revenue, directly from the GNP, rather than individual taxpayers; meaning, we'd also end the destiny of demography.
All that then would be required to increase actual revenue, would be to grow the economy, rather than the population per se!
We could do that and have millions of self funded retirees and high tech manufacture queuing to relocate here, by providing not only the lowest tax liability, [a stand alone 5% expenditure tax;] but the lowest energy costs as well.
This is available via cheaper than coal thorium power and govt ownership!
And yes, why would someone like you have to present biannually or whatever it is, to prove you're still disabled.
I mean, apart from a flamin miracle, what can possibly change?
This sort of intensely humiliating nonsense, that also challenges your integrity, [mostly all that allows you to keep your self esteem,] is caused, I believe, by politicians trying to literally practice medicine?
Rhrosty.

Footnote:
The best reason for wanted to attract virtually millions of foreign self funded retirees, is the fact they're generally past child bearing age and, and we'd expect them to be able to cover their own health insurance costs, and any home help? Visiting rallies would swell tourist numbers!
And retirees' estates would remain here as low cost, (refurbished) housing, once the retirees were deceased! [Refurbishment costs could come out of the resale proceeds?]
This would also mean thousands of new gardening/handyman/housekeeping/driving/translator jobs etc, for people with few if any skills, or agile and fit oldies, looking to supplement their own income streams, with a little extra money?
Even the disabled can learn another language or man a call centre?
All of which, could mean additional substantial economic growth for some of the less well populated or poverty trap regional areas?
Foreign self funded retirees, would increase our population numbers as a temporary demographic, that we could conceivably switch off or reduce at any time, if that ever became necessary, and for any reason?
And given we would have junked our current tax collection methodology in its entirety, there'd be no valid reason why oldies shouldn't supplement their modest incomes; particularly, if we had a base level, means tested universal pension, that allowed all recipients to work a few days/hours a week?
And for a fee per job, rather than an hourly rate.
I mean, we all of us slow down with age!
Rhrosty.