NDIA Accountability Project

Submission to the NDIS Access Changes Consultation: Implications for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities

‹ PrevPage 1 of 17 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission to the NDIS Access Changes Consultation: Implications for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities

October 2026

Hardwick House Unit 1, 6 Phipps Close
Deakin, ACT 2600
neda.org.au
policy@neda.org.au

Submission to the NDIS Access Changes Consultation: Implications for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities

Submitted to Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

October 2026

Publishing information:

National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA). Submission to the NDIS Access Changes Consultation: Implications for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities

October 2026

© National Ethnic Disability Alliance, October 2026

© This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced without written permission from the National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA). All possible care has been taken in the preparation of the information contained in this document. NEDA disclaims any liability for the accuracy and sufficiency of the information and under no circumstances shall be liable in negligence or otherwise in or arising out of the preparation or supply of any of the information aforesaid.

Contact for this submission
Lara Kissin
Chief Executive Officer
National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA)
Email: ceo@neda.org.au

About NEDA

The National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA) is Australia’s national peak body representing people with disability from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, their families and carers. NEDA holds Disability Representative Organisation (DRO) status and advocates federally for the human rights, inclusion and equitable access of CALD people with disability across all aspects of Australian life.

Introduction

NEDA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the NDIS access changes consultation paper. NEDA recognises the challenges associated with rising Scheme costs, variation in access and planning decisions, and ongoing administrative complexity. We acknowledge the Government’s stated commitment to improving the consistency, transparency and fairness of access decisions, and to making the application process easier for people with disability, their families and carers to understand and navigate (DHDA, 2026a).

The consultation paper proposes significant changes to the access process, including a more standardised approach to assessing functional capacity, new guidance on the evidence required to support access decisions, and stronger connections with supports and systems outside the NDIS. However, many of the rules, tools and operational details that will determine how these arrangements work in practice are still to be developed (DHDA, 2026a, pp.7).

NEDA’s central concern is that greater standardisation may improve consistency, but consistency alone does not guarantee equitable access. Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities can face intersectional barriers in understanding the NDIS, navigating its processes, communicating their disability-related needs, and having their circumstances adequately understood within disability service processes (Bates et al., 2023, pp.22, 24; Chu et al., 2024, pp.415, 417; Lai et al., 2024, pp.28, 30-31, 35-36; NDIS Review Panel, 2023, pp.82-83; RREALI, 2021, pp.3, 5). A more standardised and evidence-based process will not automatically remove these differences and, if these barriers are not addressed in its design, may reproduce or increase existing disadvantage for the CALD communities.

This is particularly important because the new access arrangements will operate in a system in which CALD communities already experience disadvantage. CALD people with disability have historically been underrepresented in the NDIS (NDIA, 2024, p.6),

while qualitative evidence documents cases of inadequate plan funding and difficulty using funded supports (NEDA et al., 2021, pp.74-76).

However, if CALD accessibility and equity are built into the new arrangements from the outset, the reforms provide an opportunity to address some of the accumulated barriers under the existing system. Deep-seated systemic barriers facing CALD communities, however, need to be clearly recognised and addressed through this process if the reforms are to produce lasting and meaningful improvements for CALD communities.

This submission focuses on three connected areas of concern and their implications for CALD communities: the consultation paper’s emphasis on diagnosis lists as a source of inconsistency in access outcomes; the limited attention given to the systemic barriers that shape access to and navigation of the NDIS; and the unclear role of lived experience and qualitative information within the proposed evidence process. These issues cut across the consultation questions rather than aligning neatly with individual questions. The table below shows how the submission engages with the three consultation areas and the constructive responses it proposes.

Table 1: How this submission engages with the consultation areas
Consultation area How the submission engages Constructive response
Guiding principles Q1-2 Supports the principles, but questions how they work together in practice. The submission particularly examines the tension between standardisation/objectivity and lived experience, equity and person-centredness. Recommendations 2 and 5: build culturally responsive adjustments into the access process, and give lived experience and qualitative information a clear place in access decision-making.
Access decision-making process design Q3-5 Questions the assumption that greater standardisation and objectivity will necessarily produce fairer access. It shows how structural and intersectional barriers can persist or intensify for CALD communities, including at particular stages of access and at the boundary between the NDIS and other service systems. Recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 6: broaden the understanding of unequal access; build in culturally responsive adjustments; ensure assessment can respond to episodic, degenerative and fluctuating disability; and link alternative-support requirements to accessible referral pathways.

| Evidence requirements Q6 | Argues that evidence and treatment history are shaped by unequal access to treatment, clinicians and systems. It also examines the role of lived experience and qualitative evidence, and how the legislated treatment requirement may entrench disadvantage. | Recommendations 3, 4 and 5: allow additional and qualitative evidence where standardised assessment is incomplete; use the scope in the NDIS Rules to account for structural barriers to accessing treatment; and clarify the evidentiary role of lived experience and qualitative information. |

1. The consultation paper only addresses part of the current access problem

1.1 What is problematised

How the Government frames the current access problem is important because the proposed reforms show what parts of the existing system are being treated as requiring change. Bacchi’s “What’s the Problem Represented to Be?” (WPR) approach is useful here as it examines proposed policy responses to identify how the problem is framed (Bacchi, 2009). The consultation paper places considerable emphasis on the diagnosis lists as contributing to inconsistent and unfair access outcomes. Its proposed response is to move away from reliance on these lists and towards a more standardised assessment process focused on impairment-related functional capacity (DHDA, 2026a, pp.3-4).

However, functional capacity was already part of the disability requirements under section 24 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Act 2013 before the 2026 reforms. Diagnosis-based access lists operated as an additional pathway (NDIS Review Panel, 2023, p.81). NEDA has not identified publicly available NDIA figures showing what proportion of participants received automatic access through Lists A and D. The concern is not that the diagnosis lists played no role in producing different access pathways. Rather, NEDA is concerned that the consultation may attribute too much of the inconsistency in access outcomes to the diagnosis-list approach.

If the problem is framed mainly as a technical design problem associated with diagnosis lists, there is a risk that the solutions will also be framed mainly in technical terms. Removing diagnosis lists, standardising functional assessment and tightening evidence requirements may address some problems in the current system, but these changes do not by themselves address the deep-seated issues that also contribute to unequal access.

1.2 What is less problematised

Bacchi’s WPR approach also asks what is left unproblematised or silent within a particular representation of the policy problem (Bacchi, 2009). For CALD communities, unequal access to the NDIS has been linked to broader systemic barriers, including difficulties navigating health and disability systems, obtaining assessments and evidence, and accessing appropriate communication support (RREALI, 2021, pp.3, 5). The consultation paper later acknowledges difficulties navigating evidence requirements and proposes cultural safety and accessibility principles (DHDA, 2026a, pp.5-7). But these issues receive less emphasis than the diagnosis-list problem and the proposed move towards standardised functional assessment. It also does not yet set out how these principles will be implemented across the access pathway.

The systemic barriers are not separate from the technical features of the access process. They affect who is able to apply, what evidence people can obtain, how their functional impact is understood, and how successfully they can navigate the system. The reform therefore needs to start from a broader understanding of what has produced inconsistent access outcomes. Without recognising systemic barriers alongside the technical problems identified in the consultation, there is a risk that the new system will change the assessment method while carrying forward some of the same unequal outcomes.

2. Unequal access to evidence and assessment remains unresolved

2.1 Standardisation does not remove structural inequalities

As discussed in Section 1, the consultation places significant emphasis on the diagnosis lists as contributing to inconsistent and unequal access outcomes. Its proposed response is largely technical and clinical: replacing the diagnosis-list approach with a more standardised assessment of functional capacity, seeking Technical Advisory Group advice on standardised evidence requirements, and developing guidance on evidence relating to permanence of impairment and treatment (DHDA, 2026a). The proposed changes shift the access process towards greater standardisation, on the rationale that a more standardised process will be more objective and, in turn, produce fairer and more equitable access outcomes.

This standardisation and technical approach is clearly reflected in the consultation paper’s definition of functional capacity as a person’s ability to undertake an activity in a “standardised environment, designed to minimise the impact of environmental and personal circumstances” (DHDA, 2026a, p.9). The intention is therefore to create a more controlled environment to make the assessment more consistent and objective. However, environmental and personal circumstances are not simply background factors that can be removed from the question of assessment and access more generally.

The issue is that the consultation paper does not yet explain in operational detail how the new process will address the social, cultural, economic, linguistic, institutional and systemic factors that already shape access to the NDIS. These barriers are particularly important for people experiencing multiple and intersecting disadvantages, including CALD communities as discussed above. They shape whether a person is able to recognise that they may be eligible for the NDIS, enter the access process, access health and disability services, obtain evidence, understand what evidence is required, communicate the impact of their disability, and navigate the assessment process.

The underlying causes of inconsistent and unequal outcomes go beyond diagnosis lists and other technical features of access decision-making. They also include unequal access to clinical evidence, unequal access to services, different levels of knowledge about the NDIS and other systems, and unequal capacity to use these resources to support an application (NDIS Review Panel, 2023; RREALI, 2021). NEDA’s member organisations have similarly identified structural, social and cultural barriers affecting CALD communities’ access to the NDIS, including low awareness of government supports, lack of family support in Australia, stigma around disability, and difficulties obtaining the evidence required for an application. 1

Replacing diagnosis lists with a more technically and clinically standardised process does not automatically remove these inequalities. There is a risk that the same disadvantages will be carried into the new process, reinforced through new evidence requirements, or compounded by new barriers created through the new legislation and the design and implementation of the 2026 reforms.

2.2 Structural barriers can disadvantage CALD communities across the access process

1 Feedback from NEDA member organisations at member meetings on 25 August 2026 and 22 September 2026.

While underlying structural issues are not addressed, people who have greater knowledge of the NDIS, better access to clinicians, greater ability to navigate government systems and more ability to collect and present evidence may continue to be better placed to navigate the process successfully (NDIS Review Panel, 2023; RREALI, 2021). In comparison, CALD communities, which are already underrepresented in the Scheme and face multiple and intersecting barriers (Chu et al., 2024, p.417), may be further disadvantage. These issues are not new. Barriers affecting CALD access to the NDIS have been recognised in both research and policy. Research has identified systemic and structural sources of inequity affecting CALD people’s access to disability systems, including the NDIS (Bates et al., 2023, pp.22, 35). The NDIA has acknowledged CALD underrepresentation, while qualitative accounts describe difficulties obtaining adequate plan funding and using funded supports (NDIA, 2024, pp. 6; NEDA et al., 2021, pp. 74-76). Evaluations such as the National Community Connector Program (NCCP) evaluation have identified systemic barriers across the access process (RREALI, 2021), and policies such as the NDIS CALD Strategy have also identified barriers to accessing and using the Scheme and proposed responses (NDIA, 2024)

These barriers can affect CALD people at different points in the access process. Limited awareness of the NDIS may prevent some CALD people from applying in the first place (RREALI, 2021, pp.26-27). Limited English, unfamiliarity with the NDIS and other health and social systems, and lack of knowledge about what evidence is required can affect the ability to gather appropriate evidence (RREALI, 2021, pp.28-29). Language barriers and limited confidence can also affect how a person answers questions (Lai et al., 2024, pp.28, 30-31, 35-36) including in a functional capacity assessment and explains the impact of their disability, even where the assessment itself is intended to be objective.

2.3 Intersectional barriers can intensify at particular points along the access process

These barriers also interact and create compounded disadvantages at particular intersections and at different points along the access process. The way these barriers interact may also differ by disability type. The intersection of CALD experience with episodic, degenerative and fluctuating disability is a particular area where barriers may compound. The NDIS Act 2013 recognises that episodic or fluctuating impairments may be taken to be permanent, and that in certain circumstances a person with a degenerative condition may meet the early intervention requirements (National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth), ss 24(3), 25(1) note 1, 25(1A)). The consultation paper also recognises that the future access process needs to be

equitable, accessible and proportionate for people with episodic, degenerative and fluctuating disability. However, as the detailed design is still being developed, it does not yet explain how a standardised assessment will account for functional impacts and support needs that change over time (DHDA, 2026a, pp.4, 7).

This can be a particular intersection where different barriers interact and compound disadvantage for CALD applicants. Language barriers, limited confidence and unfamiliarity with formal assessment processes may affect how functional impacts are communicated (Lai et al., 2024). For CALD people with psychosocial disability, stigma and limited engagement with the NDIS and health system may also reduce disclosure, treatment history and access to clinical evidence (RREALI, 2021, pp.26, 28). NEDA member organisations have raised similar concerns, including cases where families conceal psychosocial disability such as schizophrenia because of strong stigma within some communities, leaving people more isolated from formal systems and with less evidence available when access is later assessed.2

The availability of informal support is another site where intersectional barriers can interact and intensify disadvantage. There can be an assumption that CALD participants have access to family, community or other informal support networks to help them navigate complex systems (NEDA, 2026). Yet some CALD people are effectively navigating these systems alone. Migrants may have no extended family in Australia; refugees and asylum seekers may be separated from family through displacement and migration; people may lose family support through family violence or breakdown; and sexuality or gender identity can also lead to rejection by family or community (NEDA et al., 2021, pp.20, 43, 54, 74, 78; Asquith et al., 2019). These are different pathways to being alone or without reliable informal support, but they can leave a person managing language barriers, limited system knowledge and complex disability, cultural and settlement needs without someone available to assist them. From NEDA’s engagement with CALD communities, people experiencing several of these disadvantages at the same time can be particularly vulnerable when dealing with complex administrative systems.

2.4 Legislation can protect against or entrench structural disadvantage

The move towards a more standardised and evidence-focused access process is now partly embedded in legislation. Once requirements are set in legislation, their effects are harder to change through assessment tools or administrative guidance. The treatment and system-interface provisions show how this can operate in different ways.

2 Feedback from NEDA member organisations at member meeting on 22 September 2026.

The 2026 Amendment Act tightens the permanence test from 1 January 2028 by generally requiring people to have undertaken all appropriate treatment. Treatment can still count as “appropriate” even where cost or location prevents a person from accessing it. The Act recognises one exception where a person cannot undertake an appropriate medical treatment for medical reasons. It also allows the NDIS Rules to set out other circumstances where a person can be treated as having met the treatment requirement (National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026 (Cth), s 2, sch 1 pt 8)

For CALD communities, however, access to treatment is already shaped by cost, language barriers, stigma and difficulties navigating health systems (RREALI, 2021). NEDA member organisations have also raised concerns that low trust in authorities may lead some people who have experienced trauma, including refugees, not to disclose mental health issues or seek treatment before receiving permanent residency, leaving little treatment history for a later NDIS application3 . Migratory, social, cultural and systemic barriers can therefore interact with the statutory treatment requirement and compound existing disadvantage. Because the core requirement is set in legislation, that disadvantage may be difficult to address later through assessment tools or administrative practice. The scope provided through the NDIS Rules is therefore important in recognising circumstances where structural barriers have limited access to treatment.

As access requirements and the boundary of the NDIS become more tightly defined, the interface with other service systems also becomes more important. The NDIS Act 2013 already recognises the need for interaction between the NDIS and mainstream services and allows the NDIA to provide coordination and referral support to people who are not participants (National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth), ss 3(3) (d), 13). The 2026 amendments use this interface differently. They make alternative-support requirements part of the access criteria and allow the NDIS Rules to declare supports offered through other service systems as alternative supports. This primarily helps define the boundary between what should be supported through the NDIS and what should be provided through other systems (National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026 (Cth), sch 1 pt 9, items 96-97). Separately, the consultation paper asks how people can be connected with other available supports where the NDIS is not the appropriate system, and how referral pathways can work for people with cultural and other complex needs (DHDA, 2026a, p.7).

3 Feedback from NEDA member organisations at member meeting on 25 August 2026.

The consultation paper’s attention to this is encouraging because the interface between NDIS and other systems is also a point where intersectional barriers can intensify. St Guillaume et al. (2021, pp.19) found that some CALD people whose NDIS applications were rejected had difficulty accessing needed supports, stopped attending appointments because of cost, or relied on family members for daily living support. A referral pathway therefore needs to consider whether the person can actually access and navigate the alternative service, rather than only whether another service exists.

These two legislative examples point to an important role for the NDIS Rules and the design work now underway. The Rules should not assume that greater standardisation and tighter evidence requirements will produce equal access on their own. Where the Act leaves room for rule-making, the Rules should account for structural and systemic barriers that affect access to treatment and to services identified as alternative supports, and ensure that applicants are not disadvantaged where those barriers limit their actual access to treatment or alternative services.

3. Lived experience and qualitative perspectives risk being marginalised in the standardised evidence-based process

3.1 Standardised assessment is central while the role of lived experience remains unclear

As discussed in Sections 1 and 2, the consultation paper places strong emphasis on a neutral, controlled, objective and standardised evidence-based process, but provides much less detail on how structural, cultural, social and systemic barriers will actually be addressed in practice. At the same time, it promises that the new access process will be informed by lived experience, person-centredness, cultural safety and accessibility (DHDA, 2026a).

Lived experience and qualitative perspectives are important because standardised assessment may not fully capture the lived experience and circumstances of the person being assessed (Bjorbæ kmo & Engelsrud, 2011). Qualitative lived-experience research can also reveal structural and systemic barriers encountered through interactions with service systems (Hamilton et al., 2024). Together, these perspectives can provide a fuller picture of how disability affects a person’s daily life, how their needs change across different circumstances, and what barriers they face when accessing support.

The role of lived experience and qualitative perspectives in the new process is, however, not fully specified. The consultation paper states that the new access-decision process will be “person-centred and based on functional capacity rather than diagnosis” and “informed by evidence, clinical expertise and lived experience” (DHDA, 2026a, p.4). Lived experience is also explicitly built into the proposed guiding principles, which state that the design, implementation and ongoing refinement of the process should be “informed by the expertise and lived experience of people with disability, families and carers” (DHDA, 2026a, p.5). What remains less clear is how an individual applicant’s lived experience and qualitative information will operate within the assessment itself, including how it will be considered alongside standardised and clinical evidence in making an access decision, particularly given the central role assigned to standardised functional capacity assessment in the proposed process.

As discussed in Section 1, diagnosis-based access lists operated as an additional pathway within the existing access process rather than replacing assessment of functional impact altogether. The current Access Request Form also provides opportunities for qualitative information about functional capacity and the impact of disability on day-to-day life to be described in more detail (NDIA, 2026, pp.18-24). It is not yet clear whether similar opportunities for qualitative information will remain within the new assessment process, given the proposed emphasis on standardised functional capacity assessment.

3.2 How lived experience and qualitative information will be integrated into standardised assessment remains unclear

Given this ambiguity about the role of lived experience and qualitative perspectives, many details remain unspecified about how they will be integrated into the standardised assessment process in the conculation paper. Integration is particularly important for people with complex needs. The NDIS Review itself recommended that functional assessment take account of how disability can fluctuate over time and across different environments, and that the access process “allow evidence from the applicant as experts in their own lives and needs alongside evidence from treating professionals” (NDIS Review Panel, 2023, pp.91-92).

For CALD communities, qualitative information can be particularly important. As discussed in Section 2, some CALD applicants may experience language barriers, limited confidence, unfamiliarity with the NDIS and other systems, or difficulty explaining their circumstances and support needs (Lai et al., 2024). A qualitative route can provide another way for these circumstances to be heard and considered. However, simply providing a space for people to explain themselves is not enough.

Some CALD applicants may also need interpreters, culturally responsive support, more time, alternative ways of communicating, or support from family members or carers, with the person’s agreement, to provide this information properly.

For an effective integration in this process, the following questions need to be clearly addressed.

  • what role lived experience and qualitative information will have in the access process; 13
  • where and how this information can enter the assessment;
  • whether it will be treated as evidence;
  • how much weight it will have compared with standardised or clinical evidence;
  • what happens where lived experience or qualitative information is not captured by the standardised assessment, or points to a different conclusion;
  • whether this information can affect decisions about functional capacity and access;
  • how CALD applicants will be supported to provide this information;
  • how family members and carers can contribute, with the person’s agreement; and
  • how decision-makers will show that this information has actually been considered.

Overall, the Government needs to explain how lived experience and qualitative information will be incorporated alongside standardised assessment, and how this information can affect access decisions. Otherwise, while lived experience is clearly recognised in the guiding principles, its role in individual assessment and access decision-making will remain uncertain.

Conclusion

The consultation paper starts from a largely technical understanding of the problems underpinning unequal and inconsistent access and proposes a set of solutions centred on greater standardisation and objectivity. While these changes are presented as a way to improve fairness and consistency, it is not yet clear how structural barriers facing communities will be addressed in the operational design of the new access process. The role of lived experience and qualitative perspectives within individual assessment and access decision-making also remains unclear. These gaps raise particular concerns for CALD communities, who already experience structural and intersecting barriers to accessing and navigating the NDIS.

These CALD-related concerns also need to be considered in the broader context of the Government’s aim to slow Scheme expenditure growth and announced reductions to budget allocations for social, economic and community participation supports, subject

to specified exclusions and safeguards (DHDA, 2026a, 2026b). If the new access process becomes more standardised and evidence-focused without addressing these structural barriers and giving lived experience a clear role in decision-making, there is a risk that existing CALD underrepresentation and inequalities in access will persist or be further compounded.

Recommendations

The consultation paper sets out the broad direction of the new access process while many detailed rules, tools and guidance are still to be developed. NEDA recommends that the Government:

1. Broaden the understanding of what has caused inconsistent and unequal access outcomes.

Recognise structural and systemic factors alongside diagnosis lists and technical assessment when developing the new rules, guidance and assessment arrangements.

2. Assess the impact of the new access process on CALD communities and build culturally responsive adjustments into the process.

Consider language, cultural, economic and intersectional barriers across the access pathway, with appropriate interpreting, translating, communication support and accessible ways of providing evidence.

3. Ensure standardised assessment can respond to complex, episodic, degenerative and fluctuating disability.

Allow additional evidence and qualitative information where standardised assessment does not provide a complete picture of functional impact, particularly where disability changes over time or across different circumstances.

4. Use the scope provided by the NDIS Rules to address structural barriers affecting access to treatment.

Where the Act leaves room for rule-making, the Rules should account for circumstances where affordability, location, language, stigma, service availability or difficulty navigating health systems have limited a person’s access to appropriate treatment, so that these barriers do not create further disadvantage in access decisions.

5. Give lived experience and qualitative information a clear place in access decision-making.

Clarify where qualitative information can enter the process, its evidentiary status and weight, and preserve accessible ways for applicants, and family members or carers with the person’s agreement, to explain individual circumstances and support needs.

6. Ensure that alternative-support requirements are linked to realistic and accessible referral pathways.

Where supports outside the NDIS are identified as alternative supports, consider whether the person can actually access and navigate those services, rather than only whether another service exists. For people who are found ineligible for the NDIS, referral arrangements should provide active support to connect with the receiving service or system, particularly where language, cultural or system-navigation barriers are present.

7. Monitor whether the new access process is producing equitable outcomes for CALD communities.

Collect and publicly report CALD access outcomes and use qualitative feedback to identify barriers that quantitative data may not reveal.

These recommendations seek to ensure that greater standardisation and tighter access requirements do not carry existing structural inequalities into the new access process.

References

Asquith, N. L., Collison, A., Lewis, L., Noonan, K., Layard, E., Kaur, G., Bellei, F., & Yigiter, E. (2019). Home is where our story begins: CALD LGBTIQ+ people’s relationships to family. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 31(3), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2019.1642837

Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Pearson Education.

Bates, S., Kayess, R., Giuntoli, G., Rengel-Gonçalves, A., Li, B., Fisher, K. R., Golding, D., Ramirez, B., & Katz, I. (2023). Towards best-practice access to services for culturally and linguistically diverse people with a disability. Royal Commission into Violence,

Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/28570

Bjorbæ kmo, W. S., & Engelsrud, G. H. (2011). Experiences of being tested: A critical discussion of the knowledge involved and produced in the practice of testing in children’s rehabilitation. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 14(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-010-9254-3

Chu, N., Pho, J., Dark, L., Tan, A., Alford, S., Tang, C. Y., Ellison, C., & Lim, D. (2024). A scoping review into the service needs of people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds living with disability to engage in meaningful occupations. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 71(3), 408–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12938

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (DHDA). (2026a). Consultation paper on NDIS access changes. https://consultations.health.gov.au/disability-and-carers-group/ndis-access-changes-consultation/

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (DHDA). (2026b). About the changes to the NDIS. https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/ndis-legislation-changes/amendments/ndis-ame ndment-securing-the-ndis-for-future-generations-bill-2026/about-the-changes-to-the-ndis

Hamilton, D., Hancock, N., & Scanlan, J. N. (2024). Impeded choice and control within the NDIS: Experiences of people living with psychosocial disability. Disability & Society, 39(12), 3312–3333. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2023.2263629

Lai, C.-H. M., García-Caro Alcázar, O., & Zhang, E. (2024). Perceptions of interlingual communication challenges in NDIS service settings with CALD clients: A study of interpreting/translating practitioners. RMIT University. https://doi.org/10.25439/rmt.30170641

National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). (2024). Cultural and linguistic diversity strategy 2024–2028. https://www.ndis.gov.au/media/6944/download

National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). (2026, May 29). What is an access request form. https://www.ndis.gov.au/applying/application-process/what-access-request-form

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth). https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2013A00020/2026-09-19/text

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026 (Cth). https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2026A00066/asmade/text

National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA). (2026). NEDA’s response to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment, ‘Securing the NDIS for Future Generations’ Bill 2026. https://neda.org.au/nedas-response-to-the-national-disability-insurance-scheme-amendment-securing-the-ndis-for-future-generations-bill-2026/

National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA), People with Disability Australia (PWDA), & Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA). (2021). The experiences and perspectives of people with disability from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: Joint submission to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. https://neda.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/NEDA-CALDReport211102-Low-Res.pdf

NDIS Review Panel. (2023). Working together to deliver the NDIS: Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme final report. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/resources/reports/working-together-deliver-ndis

Realist Research Evaluation and Learning Initiative (RREALI). (2021). Evaluation of the culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) component of the National Community Connector Program. Charles Darwin University. https://neda.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/NCCP-Evaluation-Report-FINAL.pdf

St Guillaume, L., Coe, G., & Murray, M. (2021). An evaluation of NDIS appeals and review: Experiences of culturally and linguistically diverse people with disability, their families and carers. Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association of NSW & The University of Notre Dame Australia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359120961_An_Evaluation_of_NDIS_Appeal s_and_Review_Experiences_of_Culturally_and_Linguistically_Diverse_People_with_Dis ability_their_Families_and_Carers_Prepared_for_The_Multicultural_Disability_Advocac y_Organi