“Restoring Balance to the NDis:

A Rights-Based, Co-Designed Future“

A Submission to The Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Prepared by: Peter Gregory Date: 30.09.2025

The image shows a graphic with various words and phrases arranged around circles.

Governance and Organisational Practices

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 1

A summary table follows.

Abstract: ……………… 5 Introduction: ………….. 5 Part 1: “A Question of Balance” ………. 7 Summary: …….. 7 Introduction …. 8 Summary Table: From Vision to Reality ……. 8 Yin – Individualised Approaches to Support ….. 10 yang - Service Provider-Driven Approaches …… 11 Integrating Yin and Yang … 12 Summary Table .. 12 The Importance of Balance………. 12 When yang (Service Form) Dominates:. 13 There are Risks of Over-Standardisation… 13 When yin (Individual form) dominates:… 13 There are risks of under resourcing, isolation…. 13 Dynamic tensions & false choices….. 14 Toward integration restoring harmony…… 15 Final thought ………………. 15 part 2 implementing a co designed rights based ndis……. 16 summary…….. 16 inroduction…………. 17

Foundational vision & values……….. 17 a. UN convention on the Rights of persons with disabilities(uncrpd)……………. 17 b. Community development ethic ……………… 18
Roadmap for inclusive implementation………… 18 phase one build national local governance framework …….. 18 a create National disability codesign assembly …. 18 b establish community design circles ……. 18 phase two Build capacity communities participate ….. 18 a fund train community facilitators …… 18 b remove barriers participation … 18 Phase three transform how supports funded organised .. 19 a enable collective decision making support resources………. 19 b Phase out inflexible coercive models ………. 19 phase four Establish meaningful oversight accountability… 19 a Create national truth reform commission ………….. 19 b shift outcome measures………….. 19 3 Prioritising inclusion people complex needs….. 20

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 2

Part 3: “Determining NDIS Supports: A Principles-Based Approach”

Summary:

Introduction:

A Principles Based Approach: Alignment with Section 10

1. Reasonableness

2. Necessity

3. Equity and Access

4. Consistency and Transparency

Conclusion

Determining NDIS Supports: The Principles

Introduction

1. Participant-Centred Approach

2. Reasonable and Necessary Supports

3. Equity and Access

4. Transparency and Accountability

5. Flexibility and Adaptability

6. Inclusivity and Non-Discrimination

7. Quality and Safeguarding

Concluding Comments

Part 4: “Impact of NDIS Prescribed Support Lists on People with Complex Support Needs”

Summary:

Introduction:

The Concept of Reasonable and Necessary Supports: Original Legislative Intention

Foundational Principle

Key Intentions and Principles

NDIS Policies and the Shift Towards Prescribed Lists

Legal Challenges and Precedent

How Prescribed Lists Impact People with Complex Needs

Implications for Choice and Control

Conclusion and the Path Forward

Advocating for Change

Formal Policy Statement

Policy Statement: The Section 10 Prescribed Lists Undermine the Intent of the NDIS for all

Participants and Particularly those with Complex Support Needs …………………………………… 42 Part Five: “The NDIS Needs Assessment: Another Broken Promise?” ………………………. 43 The I-CAN Tool ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 44 Some Thoughts About Assessment: ………………………………………………………………….. 45

What is the best approach to gaining a comprehensive understanding of Participant needs? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45
What is the best approach to translating information about Participant needs into a budget? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 46
Will the assessment content, structure, implementation and format be tailored to each individual participant. ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 47
Who will undertake the Needs Assessment? ………………………………………………………… 47
On the I-CAN website is the statement: ……………………………………………………………….. 47 closing Comments: Fitting the Pieces Together ………………………………………………….. 49
- Central Concepts: Social Capital and Circles of Support ……………………………………………………….. 50
- Domain 1: Individualised and Personalised Activities ……………………………………………………………. 50
- Domain 2: Community Building Activities …………………………………………………………………………… 50
- Domain 3: Governance and Organisational Practices ……………………………………………………………. 51
- The Three Stories of Development …………………………………………………………………………………….. 51
- Integrative Meaning: A System of Mutual Reinforcement ………………………………………………………… 51

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 4

Abstract

A brief description: The Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme critically examines the trajectory of the NDis and its divergence from its original rights-based, paticipant-led vision. It argues that current reforms, marked by rigid support lists, prescriptive needs assessments, and bureaucratic control, risk entrenching institutional models of disability support and undermining participant choice, autonomy, and dignity. drawing on Community Development Theory, The UN Convention On Rights Of Persons With Disabilities(UNCRPD), And Tribal Precedents, this paper highlights imbalance Between Individualised Relational Support & Service Driven Systems Framing This Through Metaphor Yin Yang Across Its Sections Submission Advances Three Central Arguments: First That Restoring balance between individuals service Forms Is Essential For Just Sustainable NDIs; Second Co Designed Governance Structures Such As NaBonal Disabiliy Co Design Assembly Community Design Circles Are Required Embed Lived Experience Decision Making Third Principles Based Approach Defining Supports Under Section 10 Ndís Act Offers Transparent Equitable Flexible Alternative List Restrictions Submissions Concludes Calling Legislative Policy Reforms Reaffirm Participant Led decision making Safeguard Human Rights re establish ndis system grounded community wisdom inclusion personal Dignity.

Introduction:

the national disabilty insurance scheme (NDIS) was conceived as landmark reform Australian social policy a right based System designed uphold digni autonom full citizenship people with disbility rooted principles un convention persons disabilities it promised replace fragmented welfare arrangements Scheme centred individual Choice Control Participation many the NDIS stood not only new funding model also profound cultural shift recognition that People Disability are best placed decide supports they need live inclusive meaningful lives. Yet more than decade after its establishment the nDis stands crossroads recent legislative amendments prescriptive support lists proposed needs assessment have accelerated drift away from schemes original intent instead empowering participants reforms Have Increasingly Entrenched bureaucratic processes provider dominance standardised Funding Models These changes most acutely felt by people complex Needs Who Face heightened risks exclusion institutionalisation erosion their fundamental rights. This submission written response this moment crisis opportunity seeks articulate both critique current trajectory of the NDIs constructive vision for renewal drawing on community development theory tribunal precedents disability rights frameworks lived experience proposes alternatives restore balance between systemic safeguards Personal Autonomy argues That Genuine Co Design Principles Based Decision Making Recognition Both Individual Community Forms Support Essential If Ndís meet Its Original Purpose.

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12 The structure of this submission is as follows:

Part One: A Question of Balance: Explores the philosophical and practical tensions within the NDIS, using the metaphors of Yin and Yang and Kelly & Sewell’s “With Head, Heart and Hand” to frame the imbalance between individual and service forms.
Part Two: Implementing a Co-Designed, Rights-Based NDIS: Proposes the creation of a National Disability Co-Design Assembly and Community Design Circles to embed lived experience and community wisdom at the centre of governance and reform.
Part Three: Determining NDIS Supports: A Principles-Based Approach: Responds to the DSS consultation on support rules, advocating for a transparent, flexible, and participant-led alternative to prescriptive lists under Section 10 of the Act.
Part Four: Impact of Prescribed Support Lists on People with Complex Support Needs: Analyses the detrimental effects of list-based supports, particularly for people with high and complex needs, and highlights risks of re-institutionalisation and breaches of UNCRPD obligations.
Part Five: The NDIS Needs Assessment: Another Broken Promise?: Critiques the proposed I-CAN Needs Assessment as a cost-containment tool disguised as reform, warning of its potential to undermine individualisation and choice.

Ultimately, this submission calls for a fundamental reorientation of the scheme: away from cost- containment and standardisation, and toward inclusion, dignity, and ethical action. It urges the Committee to consider reforms that honour the grassroots movement that gave birth to the NDIS, and to ensure that Australia does not return to the institutional practices the scheme was designed to leave behind.

This submission is respectfully presented to the Joint Standing Committee with the hope that it will inform its deliberations, challenge the dominance of bureaucratic and provider-driven narratives, and help restore the NDIS as a genuine vehicle for rights, choice, and inclusion for all Australians with disability.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 6

Part 1: “A Question of Balance“

Summary:

The following text explores the philosophical, policy, and practical tensions within Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), arguing that the scheme has deviated from its original rights-based, participant-led vision toward a rigid, bureaucratic, and market-dominated system. Drawing on community development theory, particularly Tony Kelly and Sandra Sewell’s “With Head, Heart and Hand”, and the Chinese concept of Yin and Yang, the crisis within the NDIS is framed as a loss of balance between two essential forms: the Individual (Yin) and the Service (Yang). The section critiques current NDIS reforms for prioritising standardisation, efficiency, and control (Yang) at the expense of personal agency, relational support, and co-designed innovation (Yin). Through detailed analysis and conceptual metaphors, it advocates for restoring harmony by integrating structure and flexibility, governance and lived experience, and systemic safeguards with relational depth. This section calls for a paradigm shift away from binary choices and toward a dynamic synthesis that honours the full humanity of disabled people and the communities that support them.

This section does not seek to detail features of the framework. It promotes a structure to guide an alternative conversation to fundamentally change the current and deeply flawed approach to disability care and social policy development and implementation towards a more balanced approach that recognises both the Service Form and the Community Form in balance.

you HAVE to ACT AS I F IT W[RE POSSI BLE TO RAOIC LLY TRAN FORM THE ORL0. AND YOU HAV E TO DO IT ALL T HE TIME. · ANGE DAVt

The following text appears on page 7: “Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025)

Introduction

Over recent months, I have observed a steady and continued decline in the core intention of the NDIS, marked by the introduction of funds rationing, through plan periods, and the release of the new Pricing Arrangements, whose development lacks the transparency and co-design we have been continuously promised.

despite ongoing criticism of changes to the scheme, which the Minister and the NOIA allege are reforms, they seem to be obsessed with pursuing their agenda and digging themselves deeper and deeper into a morass of confusion, disorganisation and wanton destruction of a scheme that showed so much promise as defining a fresh, exciting approach to disability policy development. rather than reforming the scheme, these changes are “re-forming” it into leaderless, direction less chaos. This is the foundation of that chaos: -. - • • .. -. Theme Original Purpose Current Direction UNCRPD-aligned, empowering choice Bureaucratic, compliance-driven Framework and control system Individualised Tailored to personal goals and needs Benchmarked budgets, plan caps Market markets Support Based on life goals and disability needs List-based restrictions and internal 1–D_e_te_r_m_i_na_ti_·o_n___…._____________…….,Polict.g..u_id_e_s_____ ––1 Planning Approach Human-centred, collaborative planning Impersonal, scripted, planner- constrained process Governance Disability-led co-design and Technocratic, consultant-driven, risk- accountability averse Restrictive Practices Minimise and eliminate Normalised in group homes and support settings Advocacy Independent, participant-driven Undermined, underfunded, retaliated against

The NDIS is out of balance with its original intent. The scheme was envisioned as a revolutionary reform built on rights, participation, and personal empowerment. Over time, cost-containment pressures, bureaucratic logic, and a market-first ideology have reshaped it into a system that increasingly fails those with complex or individualised needs. Reclaiming the original purpose will require:

Reinstating human rights and dignity as the scheme’s foundation.
Strengthening participant voice, co-design, and advocacy.
Replacing rigid support lists with principles-based decision-making.

Investing in innovative, support models that prioritise relationships, inclusion, and autonomy.

 "Restoring Balance to the NDIS" (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025)                                                     Page  8

My community development mentor and teacher, Tony Kelly, often quoted the well-known phrase:

“If you want to change the culture, you have to change the conversation“

The dominant disability care and support culture has not served our disability community well. This has been documented time and time again through endless reports and enquiries. Yet this culture persists and is currently engaged in the wholesale destruction of the NDIS scheme, whose principles were born out of a grassroots movement for reform driven by disabled people. If we want to change this culture, we must change the dominant provider/finance narrative that currently drives the conversations. This section attempts to outline the framing of an alternative discussion.

Tony Kelly and Sandra Sewell’s influential book, With Head, Heart and Hand: Dimensions of Community Building (2005), draws from years of practice-based wisdom. Within the pages of this small tome, we find wisdom that offers a way to bridge the gap between formal disability services and organic community connections, offering a rich framework for community-building practice. This framework describes community building as an act of integration: of thinking, feeling, and doing; of policy, relationships, and lived experience. Kelly argues that sustainable and inclusive communities are created not through top-down programs alone, but through a combination of:

Head: clear thinking, planning, and governance
Heart: compassion, relational depth, and moral vision
Hand: practical action and grounded engagement

This section will not delve deeply into the rich learning offered up by this book. That deserves separate contemplation. This book, through his extensive teaching and mentorship in community development practice, Tony (and Sandra) offer the observation that true community building work is a synergy between the Service Form and the Community Form

The Service Form:
Structured, professional, and formalized ways of providing support.
Often risk-averse, bureaucratic, and driven by outcomes and compliance.
The Community Form:
Informal, relational, and organic networks of support and inclusion.
Built on natural connections, shared lives, and a sense of belonging.
Balance: True community building requires both forms, with careful attention to their dynamic tension and synergy.

Disability care and support are not just technical or administrative tasks. They are deeply human practices grounded in relationships, values, and the kind of society we choose to build.

DDrawing on the ancient Chinese philosophy of Yin and Yang, we can explore the tension between individualised (Yin) and service-driven (Yang) approaches to disability support: Not as competing forces, but as complementary dimensions that must remain in balance for systems to serve people well.

When this balance is lost, when rigid systems overpower individual voice, or when people are left isolated without structural support, both individuals and communities suffer.

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

The Head, Heart and Hand triad mirrors the Yin-Yang dynamic: the Head and Hand echo the structured, visible elements of Yang, while the Heart embodies the responsive, intuitive, and elational qualities of Yin. In disability care, when systems operate with only the Head and Hand, without the Heart, services become transactional. When care operates with Heart but lacks infrastructure/structural support, it becomes emotionally unsustainable.

This teaching tool invites reflection on how we hold this balance in our disability support systems. How do we build systems that uphold both the individual’s right to live a meaningful, self-directed lif eand the collective responsibility to resource, scaffold, and sustain that life? And how do we en sure our communities, as Kelly and Sewell suggest, engage with all three dimensions—thinking, feeling, and doing—in ways that are truly inclusive?

When viewed through the lens of Yin and Yang philosophy, we can draw a rich, symbolic contrast between individualised and service provider-driven approaches to disability care and support. While Yin and Yang are interdependent and complementary rather than oppositional, they can be us edto explore tensions and dynamics in how support is structured.

Yin – Individualised Approaches to Support

Yin is traditionally associated with:

Receptivity
Flexibility
Intuition
Darkness and mystery (things not yet defined or formed)
The feminine principle
Subjectivity, depth, and inner experience

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 10

In the context of disability care, Yin aligns with:

                           Tailored to t he person's strengths, needs, preferences, and
                           evolving life context

Emphasis on relationship Co-designed with the person, family, and community in an ongoing and trust dialogue Decentralised and fluid Flexible funding and creative solutions (e.g. microboards, peer networks, self-managed support s) Valuing the invisible and Recognition of lived experience, personal goals, and dignity of risk intrinsic Emphasis on process, not Focus on inclusion, belonging, and meaning- not just service product outcomes

Yin respects t he “quiet power” of the individual: Their voice, agency, and complexity, even w hen it’s not easily measured.

Yang- Service Provider-Driven Approaches

Yang is associated with:

 •   Structure and control
 •   Logic and rules
 •   Activity and force
 •   Light and visibility
 •  The masculine principle
 •   Objectivity, boundaries, and external measures

In the context of disability care and support, Yang aligns with:

                     Use of pre-approved support categories, staff rosters, and funding

structure silos. Emphasis on efficiency Block funding, group programs, ratio-based staffing models (e.g. 1:3 and scale support ) Centralised authority Professionals, politicians and bureaucrats determining what is “reasonable and necessary” with limited input. Visibility and compliance Focus on KPls, audits, visible documentation, and measurable “outputs” . Active doing rather than Task-focused service delivery rather than relational or experiential being support

Yang reflects the “visible power” of systems- order, governance, and production- but risks becoming rigid, impersonal, or disconnected from lived realities.

   "Restoring Balance to the NDIS" (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025)                                                     Page 11

Integrating Yin and Yang

The page number appears as “Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament Submission 12”.

True harmony in disability care and support systems might come from a dynamic balance between Yin and Yang:

Too much Yin (The Individual Form): risks a lack of structure, unclear roles, and burnout from under-supported care relationships.
Too much Yang (The Service form): leads to mechanised, paternalistic systems where people become service recipients rather than co-creators.

Summary Table

A table summarizing elements with their corresponding Yin and Yang approaches follows:

Element	Yin (Individualized Support)	Yang (Service-Driven Support)
Orientation	person-centered, relational	system-centered, procedural
Hierarchical, rules-based Decision-making Collaborative, emergent Support flexibility Adaptive, evolving with the person Fixed plans, set programs Risk Shared, embraced with safeguards Avoided, minimized at all costs Measures of success Inclusion, empowerment, quality of life Outputs, compliance, efficiency

In the context of our disability care and support, the philosophical balance of Yin (Individual Form) and Yang (Service Form) is essential for a just, empowering, and effective system. When either side dominates, significant risks emerge, undermining the rights, well-being, and autonomy of disabled people.

The Importance of Balance

Yin and Yang are not opposing forces but complementary, interdependent aspects of a unified whole. In disability support:

Yin (Individual Form) represents personalized, relationship-based, community-rooted care that honors each person’s story, agency, and evolving needs.
Yang (Service Form) represents the structure, resources, safeguards, and system coordination needed to ensure consistency, scale, and professional standards.

The aim is to integrate both, to ensure that structure serves individuality, not suppresses it.

P.S., “Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025), Page 12

When Yang (Service Form) Dominates:

There are Risks of Over-Standardisation

This is currently the dominant risk in most disability systems, including within the NDIS.

                                                           Loss of creativity, exclusion of

systematisation rigid categories, ratios, or complex needs that don’t fit the benchmarked costs. mould. Efficiency over Supports are delivered in ways that Person is seen as a “client” to person hood prioritise throughput, rosters, and manage, not a citizen to policies. support. Disempowerment Professionals or algorithms decide Participants lose control, voice, what’s “reasonable,” with limited and confidence in their own collaboration. judgment. Group-based Reliance on shared supports (e.g. 1:3 Social isolation, institutional risk, solutions ratios) and congregated housing (e.g. and erosion of rights. group homes). Data obsession Focus on what can be audited, Loss of attention to human measured, or reported to funders. connection, meaning, and quality of life.

Summary Risk: The person becomes secondary to the system. Human support is reduced to service transactions, often stripping away dignity, flexibility, and community.

When Yin (Individual Form) Dominates:

There are Risks of Under-Resourcing and Isolation

While far less common in system-led environments, unbalanced Yin can emerge in self-managed or grassroots contexts if not supported properly.

                                                          Burnout, fractured care, and

infrastructure coordinate everything alone. unaddressed risks. Over- Every decision is custom, without Inefficiency, lost time, gaps in personalisation guiding structure or shared learning. support. Invisibility to Unique, relationship-based supports Loss of access to resources and systems aren’t recognised or funded. formal entitlements. Emotional Deep relational care without system Family strain, boundary overextension backup can overwhelm natural violations, or unsafe situations. supports.

Summary Risk: Without stable Yang, Yin collapses under its own weight. Individual approaches become fragile, dependent on goodwill, and vulnerable to system neglect.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 13

Dynamic Tensions and False Choices

The most dangerous outcome is when systems frame Yin and Yang as mutually exclusive, as if a choice must be made between personalised, flexible support or consistent, regulated services.

This binary fuels:

Arguments that individualised support is too risky or costly
The belief that service-led models are more “realistic” or “accountable”
Policies t hat shift the burden of risk and care to families or informal networks, while enforcing rigid compliance rules on providers.

I contend that the chaos we are seeing in the NDIS at this time arises as a direct consequence of the synergistic relationship between the Service Form and the Individual Form of disability policy and support development and implementation being out of balance. In a desperate pursuit of cost reductions and some arbitrary, ill-defined notion of scheme viability, the bureaucratic Service Form has pushed aside, often callously, and almost completely disregarded the vital counterbalancing Individual Form. At the time of the release of the NDIS Review, I reflected on this tension in the drawing included below. This describes the sense of betrayal we felt, and continue to feel, as these “reforms” rol led out, crushing the lifeforce out of the scheme that was meant to liberate, not push and brutalise.

`Restoring Balance to the NDIS

Toward Integration: Restoring Harmony

I will just put this brief table here to ponder what the principles of an alternative balanced approach to implementing the NDis might look like if we took a more balanced approach.

Principle	Application
Structure shou Id serve peop e	Use f ramewor ks (Yang ) t hat ena bl es persona ise dd esign (Yin), not constrain it.
Systems should co-learn with individuals	Embed feedback and co-design into program governance.
Guardrails, not guard towers	Risk management should be enabling, not disabling.
Build flexible infrastructure	Fund supports that can adapt without bureaucratic penalty.
Recognise relational labour	Value the informal, intuitive, and invisible work that sustains wellbeing.

The solution is not to choose between Yin or Yang, but to harmonise them so that support is both person-led and system-enabled.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ve Page 15

Part 2: “Implementing a Co-Designed,

Rights-Based NDIS“

Summary: The initiative described in this section, based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and community development practices, aims to shift from a bureaucratic system to a community-guided approach. By creating a National Disability Co-Design Assembly and Community Design Circles, the initiative empowers people with disabilities to shape the NDIS design, policy, and evaluation. It focuses on building community capacity, transforming support funding, and establishing oversight and accountability, prioritizing the inclusion and leadership of people with complex needs. The goal is to rebuild the NDIS as a system grounded in community wisdom, personal dignity, and ethical action, where people with disabilities are co-creators of inclusive communities.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025)

Introduction:

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is at a pivotal moment in its evolution. This section outlines a transformative initiative aimed at co-designing and implementing a future direction for the NDIS that is inclusive of all participants, especially those with complex needs. Rooted in the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and traditional community development practices, this initiative seeks to shift from a bureaucratic approach to disability support in Australia.

The foundational vision and values of this initiative emphasise participation and inclusion, autonomy and dignity, equality and non-discrimination, and independent living and community life. By creating a National Disability Co-Design Assembly and establishing Community Design Circles, the initiative aims to build a national and local governance framework that empowers people with disability to shape the NDIS design, policy, and evaluation.

Through phases of building community capacity, transforming support funding and organisation, and establishing meaningful oversight and accountability, this initiative prioritises the inclusion and leadership of people with complex needs, particularly those with judgemental labels such as “challenging”, “non-verbal” and “profoundly disabled”. It redefines the role of the NDIA from a regulator and gatekeeper to a partner and facilitator of community-led change, promoting trust, responsiveness, and well-being. Ultimately, this initiative aspires to rebuild the NDIS as a system grounded in community wisdom, personal dignity, and ethical action, reclaiming the original spirit of the Scheme where people with disabilities are not merely recipients of services but co-creators of just, inclusive, and flourishing communities.

1. Foundational Vision and Values

This initiative would represent a shift from a bureaucratic and market-led system to a community-guided, relationship-centred, and ethically grounded approach to disability support. It would be rooted in two major frameworks:

a. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)

Participation and Inclusion: Every person with disability has the right to be actively involved in decisions affecting their life and the policies that govern them.
Autonomy and Dignity: All supports must enhance, not diminish, the personal agency of individuals with disability.
Equality and Non-Discrimination: Communities must ensure the inclusion of people with complex needs and historically marginalised groups.
Independent Living and Community Life: The focus must be on meaningful belonging, ot managed care or compliance.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 17

b. Community Development Ethic

Locally driven change, built around the needs and aspirations of those directly affected.
Service-oriented leadership, where those with institutional power support, not direct, community action.
Collective care and responsibility, with decisions made for the benefit of all, especially the most excluded.
Respectful dialogue and non-coercive processes, ensuring people are never pressured in arrangements that do not work for them.

2. Roadmap for Inclusive Implementation

Phase 1: Build a National and Local Governance Framework

a. Create a National Disability Co-Design Assembly

A standing body led by disabled people, reflecting diversity across disability type, cultural background, geography, and support needs.
Holds formal power to shape NDIS design, policy, and evaluation.

b. Establish Community Design Circles

Local assemblies of people with disability, families, allies, and community members who meet regularly to discuss needs, evaluate services, and propose locally relevant solutions.
Designed to ensure safe and supported participation of people with complex communication or behavioural needs through multiple modes of access and expression.

Phase 2: Build the Capacity of Communities to Participate

a. Fund and Train Community Facilitators

Skilled individuals who support dialogue, collaboration, and ethical listening within local design circles.
Ensure they reflect community diversity and are trained in communication support, rauma-informed care, and inclusive practices.

b. Remove Barriers to Participation

Provide support for communication access (interpreters, AAC), transport, support workers, respite care, and technology.
Develop accessible information and provide dedicated support to help people prepare for and engage in co-design activities.

Phase 3: Transform How Supports Are Funded and Organised

a. Enable Collective Decision-Making Over Support Resources

Allocate a proportion of NDIS funds to be governed by local communities for their own priorities, such as accessible housing, peer networks, or small-scale support providers.
Replace fixed service contracts with flexible, community-controlled funding models for building community-led capacity-building initiatives.

b. Phase Out Inflexible and Coercive Support Models

Abolish funding structures that force people into shared support or housing they do not choose.
Replace these with supports designed collaboratively with the individual and their community, with a focus on long-term relationships and well-being.

Phase 4: Establish Meaningful Oversight and Accountability

a. Create a National Truth and Reform Commission

Document and acknowledge the harm caused by systemic neglect, exclusion, and paternalistic models of support.
Develop national strategies for reparation, healing, and structural change based on testimony from those with lived experience.

b. Shift Outcome Measures

The cost efficiency metrics will replaced with measures of:

Self-reported dignity and quality of life based on the UNCRPD Principles.
Control over supports and environment.
Participation in community life.
Reduction in restrictive or standardised practices.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 19

Prioritising the Inclusion of People with Complex Needs

Aat every stage, this initiative would actively prioritise the involvement and leadership of people who are most often excluded: Those showing complex behaviours of protest, significant cognitive impairments, psychosocial disabilities, or those who do not communicate in conventional ways. It has been my long-held belief that when we understand what it takes for those who are most complex to experience opportunities for genuine choice and control and social and economic participation, we have found ways to make these a reality for everyone. It is through this collaboration and focus that we will challenge outdated, traditional and institutional mindsets.

Use relational, supported decision-making models instead of standardised consultation processes.
Provide continuous engagement, not one-off events, allowing people time to develop trust and confidence in the process.
Respect the right not to participate in traditional ways and create alternative pathways for people to express their values and preferences.

Redeﬁning the Role of the NDIA

To support this transformation, the NDIA would need to fundamentally change its role and structure:

Move from a regulator and gatekeeper to a partner and facilitator of community-led change.
Shift from prioritising compliance and efficiency to promoting trust, responsiveness, and wellbeing.
Embed a culture of learning, humility, and accountability to people with disability, not just political powerbrokers or providers.

The conclusion reads as follows:

This initiative would rebuild the NDIS as a system grounded in community wisdom, personal dignity, and ethical action. It would not only meet Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD, it would reclaim the original spirit of the scheme, where people with disability are not recipients of services but co-creators of just, inclusive and flourishing communities. To make this vision a reality, it is crucial for policymakers, community leaders, and individuals to actively engage in the co-design process. By participating in the proposed National Disability Co-Design Assembly and Community Design Circles, we can collectively shape a future where the NDIS truly reflects the needs and aspirations of all its participants. Let’s come together to champion this approach to transformation and ensure that every voice is heard in the creation of a more inclusive and empowering NDIS.

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12 A first step towards this approach to the transformation of our NDIS is for the NDIA, the Minister, Service Providers and representative organizations to acknowledge that what is currently promoted as co-design is inadequate and the entire process needs to be reimagined in collaboration with Australia’s disability community.

Now is the time to implement a co-designed, rights-based NDIS.

“YOU HAVE TO ACT AS IF IT WERE POSSIBLE to RADICALLY TRANSFORM THE WORLD AND YOU HAD TO DO IT ALL THE TIME.”

ANGELA DAVIS

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025)

Part 3: “Determining NDIS Supports: A Principles-Based Approach“

Summary:

This section is a response to the Department of Social Services’ 2025 consultation on the NDIS Support Rules, challenging the current use of prescriptive support lists to determine what constitutes a funded NDIS support under Section 10 of the NDIS Act. It argues that the list-based approach is overly rigid, lacks transparency, and undermines participant autonomy, particularly for individuals with complex needs. Instead, this section proposes a principles-based approach grounded in the original intent of the NDIS: Flexibility, individualisation, equity, and self- determination. It outlines how such an approach aligns with the legislative criteria of reasonableness, necessity, equity, consistency, and transparency, and better reflects the diversity of participants’ lived experiences. Drawing on Tribunal precedents, UNCRPD obligations, and ethical considerations, this section presents a detailed framework for replacing the current lists with a transparent, adaptable, and participant-led decision-making process. This approach, it argues, would restore the NDIS’s foundational goals of inclusion and empowerment and resist the creeping institutionalisation embedded in recent reforms.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 22

There is an alternative to The Lists and it’s Principles-Based

Introduction: The Department of Social Services initiated a public consultation process on NDIS Supports, which ran from 16th June to 27th July 2025.

This formed part of a broader NDIS Rules consultation process DSS has outlined, which includes:

-  May Disability sector engagement on NDIS Supports
-   June: 16 June-27 July: Public consultation on NDIS Supports
-  24 June: Public webinar on NDIS supports
-   July: Disability sector engagement on new framework plans to prepare for public
   consultation in August.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 23

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

The public consultation on NDIS supports provided only one opportunity to have input about the NDIS Support Lists: The “Your experience of the NDis Supports rules (Support lists)” survey. This survey does not include an opportunity to discuss whether the NDIS Support Lists are the only way of meeting the requirements of defining an NDIS Support under Section 10 of the legislation, even though the disability community has overwhelmingly rejected the list approach promoted by DSS and the NDIA.

in the documents that provide background to this “consultation” it is stated:

“Disability peak bodies and others have asked for a principles-based approach to the NDIS Supports rule. The NDIS Act says the rule must state what is, and is not, an NDIS support.

This was based on hearing from the community that they wanted it to be clearer whether a support is funded by the NDIS or not.

A principles-based approach would mean there aren’t clear definitions. People would have to make complex decisions. This is not supported by the intention of the NDIS Supports rule or the changes to the NDIS Act.

This means the NDIS Supports lists need to stay.”

There are many within our disability community who challenge this statement. We do not believe our disability community who challenge this statement. We do not believe or practice.

during the June 24th public webinar conducted by DSS on Ndis supports an unconvincing argument as to why, for the Commonwealth to meet their obligations under the constitution, Section 10 and the lists of items that are in and out in the form they are present now is the only option. The DSS representatives at this webinar also said that they would not release the legal advice they had received to support their case. During the course of the webinar it became apparent that there are other ways of defining what can and cannot be funded without resorting to prescriptive lists. in fact, paradoxically, if it is true that prescriptive lists are the only way to meet the requirements of s "Restoring Balance to the NDis\” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 24

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

making system where evidence and individual circumstances were considered when making a determination. The statistical reality that the majority of the NDIA’s decisions were overturned by the Tribunal is testament to the fact that the NDIA’s determinations about which NDIS Supports are net Reasonable and Necessary do not hold up to scrutiny. In addition, it has become very evident that the lists create an opportunity for vested interests to lobby for items to be included or excluded because of personal bias and without any evidence to support their case. We have already seen this happen, notably in determinations about funding sexual services.

it is unethical and immoral that we are now in a funding environment where the black and white aapplication of support lists is creating circumstances where arguing for the full range of inindividualised supports required by someone with complex needs will be almost impossible to achallenge in the ART, inevitably resulting in the reinstitutionalisation of people who had escaped those facilities.

an associated concern is that it was mentioned during the webinar that DSS has someone mapping the UNCRPD Principles against the legislation and its implementation. I commented in the webinar chat that I had already done this analysis with the original legislation and showed categorically that the legislation and its implementation it did not align and, worse still, there was evidence of selective rewriting of some aspects of the UNCRPD Principles to create the illusion of alignment. They also cherry-picked those aspects of the principles that supported their case, while ignoring large sections of the Convention. The most heinous of these was reinterpreting Article 19 in a way that would allow the justification of shared support.

determining what is reasonable and necessary support can be achieved through a principles-based aproach. This requires a series of Australia-wide co-design forums and opportunities to build the principles-based approach, based on original Reasonable and Necessary criteria, and to publicly unpack how best to meet any constitutional challenges this approach may pose. To continue to do owise contributes to fostering a culture that devalues the original intent of the NDIS and iperpetuates the ableist mindset that sabotages progress towards disabled Australians having agency and control over their own lives, rather than their lives being held captive by the vagaries of political whim and the vested interests of the service provider establishment.

delivering on the original intent of the NDIS does not require these draconian changes that strip aaway individual choice, autonomy and agency. It requires politicians, bureaucrats and serviceproviders to become committed, without reservation, to the ideal that all citizens, irrespective of the complexity of the support they require, can live with real presence, participation and valued rroles as part of a vibrant Australian community that includes rather than segregates. It requires there groups to relinquish their power and build the next iteration of the NDIS in collaboration with the disability community.

this change can be supported by adopting a principles-based approach to determining the most apropriate NDIS Supports for each Participant.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 25

A Principles Based Approach: Alignment with Section 10

A principles-based approach to defining NDIS supports aligns with the criteria set out in Section 10 of the NDIS Act, which outlines the legislative framework for determining whether a support is reasonable and necessary for a participant. This approach emphasizes flexibility, individualisation, and fairness, making it better suited to the diverse needs of people with disability while remaining true to the core principles of the NDIS. Below, I will explore why a principles-based approach meets the criteria of Section 10, which are:

Reasonableness
Necessity
Equity and Access
Consistency and Transparency

1. Reasonableness

Under Section 10 of the NDIS Act, a support is considered reasonable if it is appropriate and suitable for the participant’s needs, goals, and circumstances, considering the costs involved and available alternatives. A principles-based approach provides the flexibility to define supports in a way that recognises the individual context of each participant, making it easier to assess whether a particular support is reasonable.

in a traditional list-based model, supports are often assessed through rigid, predefined categories that do not account for the uniqueness of each participant’s situation. In contrast, a principles-based approach allows decision-makers to assess reasonableness in the context of the participant’s specific needs, goals, and the broader societal factors at play. For instance, a support that might be considered unnecessary or unreasonable for one participant may be deemed necessary for another due to the complexity of their disability or the specific barriers they face in daily life.

The principle of flexibility inherent in a principles-based approach means that the NDIS can consider the most appropriate solution for each individual, rather than strictly adhering to a list of approved supports. For example, the use of assistive technology for a participant with severe mobility impairments may be considered reasonable if it significantly enhances their independence and overall quality of life, even if that particular technology is not widely used by other participants. This adaptability ensures that supports are reasonable in the context of each participant’s personal goals, rather than applying a blanket standard.

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

2. Necessity

The Section 10 of the NDIS Act further defines supports as necessary if they are required to assist the participant to achieve their goals and participate fully in society. The necessity of a support is typically determined by its relationship to the participant’s functional capacity: That is, whether it enables them to engage in activities that other citizens without disability might promote participation in without additional support, such as education, employment, social interaction, or involved living.

A principles-based approach to defining supports allows for a deeper, more individualised uunderstanding of necessity. Rather than relying on predefined lists, which may not adequately capture all the supports an individual needs, this approach considers the complexity and specificity of the participant’s needs. By focusing on the goals and aspirations of the individual, a principles-based approach can ensure that only supports which are genuinely necessary to hhelp the person live an “ordinary life”are included in their plan.

For example, a participant with complex mental health needs may require specialised psychosocial dsupport that is not typically included in a standard list of NDIS supports but is critical to teir well-being and ability to function independently. A principles-based approach would recognise thus necessity, ensuring that supports are tailored to the person’s individual situation, rather than imposing a standardised approach.

The individualisation of necessity in a principles-based model ensures that the NDIS fulfils its obligation to provide supports that truly meet participants’ needs. In doing so, it promotes the empowerment of participants by giving them the tools to live a more independent and fulfillinglife, in line with their personal aspirations.

3. Equity and Access

Equity is a central tenet of the NDIS, as the scheme aims to provide equal access to supports forall people with disability, regardless of their background, location, or the complexity of theirneeds. Section 10 emphasises the need for equitable access to supports that are tailored to inan individual’s requirements, without discrimination.

A principles-based approach directly supports this by allowing for more flexible definitions ofsupports that can be adapted to meet the diverse needs of people with disability. This approacheis particularly important for participants with complex, multiple, or fluctuating disabilities, hwhose needs may not be adequately addressed by the rigid, list-based approach. In such cases, a principles-based framework ensures that supports are provided on an individualised basis, rather than forcing participants to fit into predefined categories.

For example, rural and remote participants often face unique barriers to accessing disabilityservices due to geographical limitations. A principles-based approach can ensure thatparticipants in these areas receive equitable support by considering the specific challenges theyface, such as limited access to service providers or the availability of particular supports. Theframework would allow for more tailored solutions, such as remote support options or funding

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

for travel costs, ensuring that all participants can access the same quality of care, regardless of location.

This flexibility in defining supports also ensures that participants from marginalised backgrounds, such as people with cultural or linguistic diversity or those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, are not excluded from receiving the supports they need. A principles-based approach ensures that the NDIS responds to these disparities by prioritising accessibility and inclusivity in the delivery of services.

4. Consistency and Transparency

The NDIS must maintain consistency and transparency in how supports are defined and delivered for it to be truly effective, ensuring decisions are fair and predictable. This is a key aspect of Section 10, which aims to prevent arbitrary or inconsistent decisions in funding supports.

A principles-based approach supports both consistency and transparency by establishing clear criteria for defining supports applicable across various support scenarios. Instead of using arbitrary lists subject to varying interpretation or application, this framework provides consistent understanding regarding reasonable and necessary types of supports.

While offering assessment flexibility based on individual needs, the principles-based approach does not leave decision making open to subjective judgment; rather, relies upon guiding principles assuring transparent & consistent process when determining what constitutes appropriate assistance - achieved through guidelines promoting accountability guaranteeing adherence throughout entire system.

Additionally, participant involvement within processes promotes openness – encouraging active participation during planning phases so individuals have access information explaining rationale behind choices made concerning required resources fostering trust because participants can observe their requirements addressed according established values.

Conclusion

in conclusion, a principles-based approach to defining ndis supports meets the criteria of s \section {10} of the ndis act by ensuring that supports are reasonable, necessary, equitable, and povided consistently and transparently. by focusing on underlying principles rather than rigid\ndists, this approach allows for more individualized and flexible support definitions that better
align with the diverse needs of people with disability. it emphasizes participant empowerment,\ns \textsf{self}-determination, and inclusivity, ensuring that the ndis remains a fair, accessible, and\neffective system for all australians with disability.

this approach offers a more adaptive, responsive, and holistic way of delivering disability\n services, ultimately fostering a system that respects the rights and aspirations of people with\ndisability while meeting their real, individual needs.

“restoring balance to the ndis” (ver 1.0_30.09.2025)

Determining NDIS Supports: The Principles

Introduction

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was designed to provide individualised support to people with disabilities in Australia, empowering them to live a more inclusive, autonomous, and fulfilling life. The framework for defining and delivering supports under the NDIS, specifically Section 10 of the NDIS Act, aims to ensure that the needs of participants are met in a way that is fair, reasonable, and necessary. Currently, this process is guided by lists of supports that are either funded or not funded by the NDIS, creating a rigid and prescriptive system that does not always align with the diverse and evolving needs of individuals.

A principles-based approach, in contrast, moves away from these lists and focuses on underlying principles to define supports. This allows for greater flexibility, participant control, and adaptability, ensuring that the NDIS can better meet the individual needs of its participants. A principles-based approach is not only more aligned with human rights but also facilitates a more holistic and inclusive model of disability support, ensuring equity, transparency, and sustainability. In this section, I will explore the key components of a principles-based approach and how it can be applied to NDIS supports in accordance with Section 10 of the NDIS Act.

Participant-Centred Approach

The first key component of a principles-based approach to defining NDIS supports is a participant-centred model. This approach is grounded in the philosophy of person-centered planning, which has been a cornerstone of progressive disability services for decades. Person- centered planning recognises the autonomy of the individual, ensuring that they are at the centre of decisions about their life, goals, and supports. It emphasises self-determination, choice, and control, principles that are fundamental to the dignity and rights of people with disability.

in a person-centred approach, supports are not simply chosen from a pre-determined list; instead, they are developed through consultation and collaboration between the participant, their family or caregivers, and relevant professionals. This co-design process ensures that the supports are tailored to the individual’s specific needs, preferences, and circumstances, rather than being imposed from above. It is essential that the participant’s voice is heard and that their goals and aspirations guide the decision-making process.

Implementing this participant-centred approach within a principles-based framework requires flexibility and responsiveness from the system. Supports must be individualized, not only in terms of the type of services but also in how they are delivered and coordinated. This adaptability allows the NDIS to better serve participants with a wide range of needs, including those with complex or fluctuating disabilities. One of the core strengths of a principles-based approach is that it allows for the recognition of these complexities, ensuring that supports can evolve as the participant’s needs change over time.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 30

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

For example, a participant who experiences a progressive disability may require different supports at various stages of their life. A principles-based framework would ensure that these changes are accounted for, and supports are continuously adjusted to reflect the person’s Current needs and goals. This contrasts with a list-based system, where changes in need might ot always be recognised or accommodated.

2. Reasonable and Necessary Supports

The principles of reasonable and necessary supports, outlined in Section 34 of the NDIS Act, are fundamental to defining the supports that can be funded by the NDIS. Under these principles, supports must be categorised as an NDIS support under Section 10 and must meet the easonable and necessary criteria. These are:

a) the support will assist the parBcipant to pursue the goals, objecBves and aspiraBons included in the parBcipant’s statement of goals and aspirations;
b) the support will assist the parBcipant to undertake acBviBes, so as to facilitate the parBcipant’s social and economic participation;
c) the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relaBve to both the beneﬁts achieved and the cost of alternaBve support;
d) the support will be, or is likely to be, eﬀective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice;
e) the funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide;
f) the support is most appropriately funded or provided through the NaBonal Disability Insurance Scheme, and is not more appropriately funded or provided through other general systems of service delivery or support services oﬀered by a person, agency or body, or systems of service delivery or support services offered: i. as part of a universal service obligaBon; or ii. in accordance with reasonable adjustments required under a law dealing with discriminaBon on the basis of disability. A principles-based approach does not rigidly apply a list of services but instead applies these principles to each individual situation, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of what is required. As we have seen over the years that the NDIS has been in operation, the application and testing of these principles in thousands of individual circumstances, often with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as the independent arbiter, there has emerged greater clarity about what supports are clearly in scope, what supports are out of scope and, most notably, and those supports whose acceptance as an NDIS Support is conditional on individual

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 31

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

The history shows that it is possible to use a principles-based approach and still meet the definitional requirements of Section 10.

Reasonableness, in this context, refers to the expectation that supports should be appropriate for the participant’s needs and goals, while considering the costs and alternatives. The necessity of a support is determined by its relevance to the participant’s functional capacity and their ability to participate fully in society. These definitions, however, should not be viewed as fixed. They must be adaptable to the unique circumstances of each individual. For example, a participant with a rare disability or complex health needs may require supports that are not commonly available or easily categorised. A principles-based approach provides the flexibility to define what is reasonable and necessary for such individuals in a way that is consistent with their rights and needs.

Furthermore, a principles-based approach encourages consideration of the broader context in which supports are provided. For instance, supports should not only address immediate needs but also consider long-term outcomes such as independence, community participation, and personal development. This is a shift from a purely financial or cost-based assessment to one that also prioritises the well-being and aspirations of the individual.

There is also the issue of balancing financial sustainability with participant needs. One of the criticisms of the NDIS under its current framework is the tendency to prioritise budgetary constraints over the lived experiences of participants. A principles-based approach ensures that supports are not only affordable but also aligned with the participant’s goals. While cost-effectiveness remains a concern, it should not come at the expense of the individual’s rights or the quality of their life.

3. Equity and Access

Equity is one of the most crucial aspects of a principles-based approach. The NDIS was established with the goal of providing equitable access to disability support for all Australians, regardless of their background, location, or personal circumstances. However, the current system often fails to achieve this ideal, especially for participants from marginalised or disadvantaged groups.

A principles-based approach to defining supports ensures that all participants have an equal opportunity to access the supports they need. This approach recognises that different participants may face different barriers to accessing services, and it works to remove those barriers by offering tailored solutions. For example, participants from rural and remote areas may experience difficulties accessing the same range of services as those in urban centres. A principles-based system would take these geographic disparities into account, ensuring that funding is allocated in a way that addresses these issues. It could involve measures such as increasing the availability of services in underserved areas or allowing participants to access supports in a more flexible manner.

Moreover, a principles-based approach aligns with the social model of disability, which posits that disability is not an inherent trait of the individual but the result of barriers in society. By focusing on these external barriers, a principles-based system can better address the needs of

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

participants, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds who face compounded barriers due to factors such as race, gender, or socioeconomic status. The approach ensures that support services are designed with inclusivity in mind, providing a level playing field for all participants.

Ultimately, equity in access also requires addressing systemic inequalities that have historically hindered the full inclusion of people with disability in society. A principles-based approach is better equipped to challenge and dismantle these systemic barriers, ensuring that supports are provided to those who need them most.

4. Transparency and Accountability

A principles-based approach must be transparent and accountable. Transparency in decision-making ensures that participants, families, and providers understand how decisions about supports are made. This clarity builds trust in the system and helps prevent misunderstandings or grievances.

Transparency means that criteria used to define supports should be easily accessible and clearly communicated. This allows participants to understand why certain supports are funded and others aren’t based on reasonable necessity and individual needs. Transparency involves clear communication regarding processes through which decisions are made, reviews of supports, and adjustments requested.

Alongside transparency, accountability mechanisms ensure consistent application of the principles-based approach fairly. Decision-makers must be held accountable for their actions and justify decisions according to NDIS principles. This extends to service providers delivering high quality ethical services aligning with NDIS principles.

The approach must allow avenues challenging unjust incorrect decisions involving review process participant feedback ongoing scrutiny refinement.

5. Flexibility and Adaptability

One key advantage a principles-based approach offers flexibility unlike rigid list systems often slow responding changes circumstances allowing adaptability tailoring support unique evolving needs participants.

The concept flexibility applies both types supports provided delivery example: Participant’s needs may change over time whether due progression disability life circumstance shifts personal goals A framework would permit assessments ensuring right assistance every stage life.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 33

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

Moreover, this flexibility empowers participants to take a more active role in managing their supports. It supports the idea of self-management, where participants have the autonomy to make decisions about how and when they receive support. This approach aligns with the broader goals of the NDIS to foster independence and self-determination.

Flexibility in defining supports also helps to reduce rigidity in the system, ensuring that participants are not restricted by predefined categories of support. Instead, they can access a ange of services that are best suited to their individual needs, ensuring that they are not left inadequate but are of the highest standard. This involves meeting both the basic functional needs of participants and promoting their overall well-being, dignity, and independence.

The NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework plays a key role in ensuring that supports meet high standards and that participants are protected from harm. In a principles-based system, safeguarding goes beyond just preventing abuse or neglect; it also involves protecting the broader goals of the NDIS, such as enabling community participation and promoting life opportunities for people with disabilities.

Concluding Comments

prioritising quality and safeguarding within the principles-based framework, the NDIS can ensure that all participants receive the supports they need to live independent, fulfilling lives.

The principles-based approach to defining NDIS supports is a transformative shift that aligns more closely with the values of inclusion, equity, and respect for the rights of people with disability By focusing on the underlying principles that should guide the definition of supports, the NDIS can move away from a rigid, one-size-fits-all model and towards a more flexible, individualised, and participant-centred system.

While there are challenges in implementing such an approach, including the need for clear guidelines and accountability mechanisms, the benefits for participants are significant. This framework allows the NDISto meet the diverse needs of its participants, promote self- determination, and foster an inclusive society. By continuously refining and adapting the system in response to feedback and evolving needs, the NDIS can better fulfil its promise of providing fair and equitable support to all Australians with disabilities.

The approach taken by DSS and the NDIA to implementing Section 10 of the NDIS Act is, essentially, already using a set of principles to categorise and determine what is an NDIS Support. While these principles have not been made public, they clearly exist and are being used to create a regime of NDIS supports that are inflexible in their application and lack the individualisation necessary to reflect the wide range of support scenarios of NDIS participants.

This section presents a detailed framework for replacing the current lists with a transparent, adaptable, and participant-led decision-making process. This approach would restore the NDIS’s foundational goals of inclusion and empowerment and resist the creeping institutionalisation embedded in recent reforms.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) p age 35

Part 4: “Impact of NDIS Prescribed Support Lists on People with Complex Support Needs“

Summary:

The section examines the impact of the increasing reliance on prescribed lists of approved supports within the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), particularly following the *NIDS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024). It argues that these lists fundamentally compromise the ability of people with complex support needs to access truly individualised and flexible support, contradicting the original legislative intent of the NDS. Drawing on the original principles of “reasonable and necessary supports” in Section 34 of the NDJS Act, this section highlights how prescribed lists create rigid decision-making processes, reinforce institutional models, and shift the burden of proof onto participants. Legal challenges and policy concerns, including potential breaches of Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), are explored. The document concludes with a set of summary recommendations, including legislative reforms to limit the legal dominance of prescribed lists, measures to restore co-design and participant rights, and the establishment of robust, independent review mechanisms. A formal policy statement underscores the urgent need to reaffirm participant- lled decision-making as the core principle of the NDIS.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025)

Introduction:

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (NDIS Act) enshrines the principle of funding “reasonable and necessary” supports that are tailored to the unique needs of each participant (s34). However, the move towards prescribed lists of aapproved supports, particularly in the revised operational guidelines and new legislation, such as the NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024, poses significant challenges for people with complex support needs.

it could be argued that the lists themselves are the outward manifestation of political and bureaucratic deal-making, self-interest and hubris, which subjugates Participants, intentionally violets their human rights, deliberately erodes their ability to explore creative support solutions ard ultimately confines them to the provider-dominated institutional support models and attitudes that the NDIS was intended to eradicate.

The Concept of Reasonable and Necessary Supports: Original Legislative Intention

\ Foundational Principle

The concept of “reasonable and necessary supports” is set out in section 34 of the NDIS Act 2013. It was one of the foundational pillars of the NDIS, created to ensure that funded supports would respond to the individual circumstances, goals, and aspirations of each pparticipant, while also reflecting the NDIS’s role as a public insurance scheme.

Key Intentions and Principles

Individualisation The original intention was to ensure that every decision about what supports a p participant could receive was based on an individual assessment of their unique needs, preferences, and life circumstances. It recognised that disability support is not a onesizefitsall approach and must be flexible and adaptive.

equity and Consistency The concept was designed to ensure participants had equitable access to the supports they needed to participate fully in Australian society, regardless of their disability type or location. While funding decisions had to be made fairly and consistently, the aim was always to do so through the lens of the individuals life.

e Participant-Driven Decision-Making Embedded in the Act is the principle of choice and control (ss3 & 4), which recognises that participants themselves (with support where needed) are the best people to determine what supports will help them achieve their goals. The concept of “reasonable and necessary” was never meant to be a rigid checklist but a holistic framework for planners to work in partnership with participants.

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

Flexibility and Innovation The original legislation envisioned that supports could be innovative and creative, innovationparticularly for people with complex needs or in thin markets. It was intended toempowerparticipants to find new ways of meeting their goals, not to limit them toconventionalor pre-approved options.
Balancing Individual Needs with Sustainability The term “reasonable and necessary” also reflected a balance. While the scheme wasmeantto be participant-driven, it also needed toensurethat supports were value formoney(s34(1)(c))and consistentwiththe insurance principles ofthescheme (s34(1)(e)).Thisbalancewasnot meanttobeean excuseto restrict participants’choicesbut rathersto ensurethel ong-term viabilityofthe schemewhile stillmeetingindividualneeds.

Key Takeaway

Theoriginal legislative intentionof“reasonabl eandnecessarysupports”wast osafeguardflexibilityandin dividualisation.Itwasaparticipant-centredsafeguar dtoensurepeople withd disabilityhadthepowerto directtheir ownlivesandan daccesssupportsthatmettheitgoals,rather thanatoolfor governments toc ontrolorr ationwhattheycouldreceive.

NDIS Policies and the Shift Towards Prescribed Lists

Section 10 of the Amended NDIS Act The introductionofSection10inthe2024amendments explicitlyempowers theMinistertocreatelegislativeinstrumentsprescribingthe“generalsupportsand“reas onableandnecessar ysupp orts

Legal Challenges and Precedent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) Disputes: Numerous AAT cases have challenged the NDIA’s refusal to fund supports not listed in pricing arrangements or “typical supports” (e.g., WRMF v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017], NDIS v McGarrigle [2017]). The AAT has frequently ruled that the NDIS Act requires a case-by-case analysis based on individual circumstances, not reliance on lists or general policy statements. However, the introduction of legislative instruments prescribing supports threatens to override this legal precedent by creating an explicit legal basis for lists to dominate planning decisions.
Potential UNCRPD Breaches: Australia has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which underpins the NDIS framework and commits to providing supports enabling people with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in the community (Articles 19, 26). The growing reliance on prescribed lists, particularly where they reinforce group-based or restrictive models, risks breaching these obligations by reducing the scope for participants to choose innovative or community-based options.

How Prescribed Lists Impact People With Complex Needs

For participants with complex needs, such as those requiring 24/7 support, trapped in Supported Independent Living co-tenancies and behavioural support, prescribed lists present several barriers:

Rigidity: They prevent funding of nuanced, adaptive supports that may be more responsive to changing needs.
Institutional Bias: Lists often favour supports that fit neatly into service provider models (like shared living) rather than individualized, participant-driven supports.
Burden of Proof: Participants must now prove why their required supports, which may not be on the list, should still be considered “reasonable and necessary,” a task complicated by NDIA reliance on these lists as de facto rules.
Reduced Co-Design Opportunities: The promise of “co-design” in the NDIS is eroded when supports must be

Implications for Choice and Control

These developments undermine the core NDIS principles outlined in the Act, particularly:

Section 3(1)(a): “People with disability have the same right as others to realise their potential.”
Section 3(1)(d): “People with disability are central to the decision-making processes.”
Section 4(8): “The role of families and carers is to be respected in decision-making.”

By prioritising Ministerial discretion and top-down lists, the NDIS is drifting away from these commitments—especially for people with complex needs whose circumstances require tailored, flexible, and sometimes creative supports.

Conclusion and the Path Forward

the shift towards prescribed lists of supports, particularly in the wake of the 2024 NDIS legislative amendments, threatens to re-entrench an institutional mindset in disability support, undermining the original spirit of the NDIS. For people with complex support needs, this shift risks re-institutionalisation by proxy, narrowing pathways to independence and self- determination.

The lists themselves are an outward manifestation of political and bureaucratic deal making, s \self-interest and hubris which subjugates Participants, intentionally violates their human rights, eliberately erodes their ability to explore creative support solutions and ultimately confines them to the provider dominated institutional support models and attitudes that the NDIS was intended to eradicate. They have nothing to do with fostering self-\determination and everything to do with creating another bureaucratic mechanism to exercise control over the lives of NDIS participants and deny them opportunities to be liberated from the institutional practices of the past.

A rights-based approach demands a reaffirmation of participant-led planning and the principle that supports must always be based on individual circumstances, not predetermined lists. Any future reforms should explicitly prioritise co-design and flexibility, rather than consolidating Ministerial power to dictate what is “reasonable and necessary” for everyone based on their personal opinion or political expediency.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025)

Advocating for Change

Legislative Reform
Advocate for amending the NDIS Act to ensure any lists of supports are advisory only and explicitly subordinate to the principle of reasonable and necessary decision-making based on individual circumstances.
Insert a clause in s10 stating: “Any legislative instrument prescribing general or reasonable and necessary supports shall not limit or override the consideration of a participant’s individual circumstances under s34.”
Restore Co-Design
Establish a formal co-design mechanism to develop any lists, with mandatory representation of people with complex support needs, families, carers, and independent advocates.
Require regular reviews of the lists by participants, not just NDIA or government decision-makers.
Strengthen Participant Rights
Enshrine an explicit participant right in the NDIS Act: “Participants have the right to propose supports outside the suggested list of supports where they are reasonable and necessary in their individual circumstances.”
Establish an independent review body to consider disputes over supports not included in the lists.
Advocate for Broader Accountability
Call for parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance powers to apply to any legislative instruments prescribing supports to prevent executive overreach. Ensure that human rights and disability advocacy organisations (e.g., Australian Human Rights Commission, Disability Discrimination Commissioner) have standing to challenge the impacts of these lists on people with complex needs.

Formal Policy Statement

\Policy Statement: The Section 10 Prescribed Lists Undermine the \Intent of the NDIS for all Participants and Particularly those with Complex Support Needs

The NDIS was created to uphold the rights, choice, and control of people with disability. However, the increasing reliance on prescribed lists of approved supports fundamentally compromises the Scheme’s capacity to respond to the unique and complex needs of its participants.

Prescribed lists risk replacing participant led decision-making with top-down administrative convenience, reinforcing institutional models of care and denying the flexibility essential for people with complex support needs to live safely, autonomously, and with dignity in the community.

to address this undermining of the core principles of the NDIS the Australian Government should:

Amend the NDIS Act to ensure prescribed support lists are advisory only and cannot override the reasonable and necessary principle based on individual circumstances.
Establish transparent, participant led co-design processes for any lists of supports.
Recognise and enshrine the right of participants to propose supports outside of lists where these meet their needs.
Embed robust, independent review mechanisms to ensure prescribed lists do not become barriers to genuine choice and control.
Uphold Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD to ensure people with complex support needs can live and participate fully in their communities.

the future of the NDIS must be grounded in genuine flexibility, participant-led planning, and the human rights of people with disability, not in the imposition of standardised lists that cannot meet the realities of complex and high-needs lives.

The NDIS was meant to liberate, not institutionalise, it’s Participants. \“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 42

Part Five: “The NDIS Needs Assessment:

Another Broken Promise?”

The proposed NDIS Needs Assessment is a framework being developed by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to streamline and standardise the way participant needs are identified, assessed, and supported. We were promised, like so many other aspects of these alleged reforms, that the Needs Assessment would be co-designed with the disability community. With the timer ticking to meet the artificial “reform” timeline, it is clear that this promise was also an elusive smokescreen. Given that we continue to be kept in the dark about the form that this Needs Assessment will take, save for general public announcements about using I-CAN as the foundation of the Participant Assessment Mechanism, all that we have left to us is speculation.

Firstly, I think that we can dispense with the pretence that this tool intends to benefit Participants by making decisions about funding and support that are consistent, transparent, and evidence- based. Given that these lofty ideals have eluded NDIA decision-making to date, we can’t assume that the leopard will change its spots on this one significant occasion. Evidence of recent “reform”? strategies implemented by DSS and the NDIA has been that they are focused on cutting costs not on the well-being of Participants. Phase 1 of the cost-cutting agenda saw the implementation of policies to make as many people as possible ineligible for the scheme and to exit as many people from the scheme as possible and without any of the promised Foundational Supports in place. The callous disregard for due process, procedural fairness and ignoring the NDIAs responsibility to act as a model litigant provides a template for what we can expect in Phase 2 of the cost-cutting: Targeting participants remaining on the scheme to reduce the value of their plan. Right from the first big reveal of the NDIS Amendments Bill, it has been clear that the Needs Assessment, in an unholy alliance with the Budget Setting tool, is the mechanism by which Participants’ plans could be cut utilising a secret algorithm-driven process that, once a decision has been made, would be almost impossible to challenge in the Administrative Review Tribunal.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025)

The I-CAN Tool

Awaiting further information regarding Needs Assessment tools. The shroud of secrecy surrounding them has been comprehensive so all we are left with is speculation. Recent announcements from the Minister and the NDIA reveal that one such item of specification has proved correct; namely, the needs assessment will be based upon Centre for Disability Studies’s ‘I-Can’ tool - this was not unexpected as CDS had already contracted a modified version of ‘the I-can’ tool for disabled people receiving funding through DSOA program.

The Centre for Disability studies states on their website: “The I-CAN stands for The Instrument For Classification And Assessment Of Support Needs.”

They say it is holistic support need assessments designed specifically for individuals aged sixteen years or over who have disabilities – these can only ever be used via trained assessors certified in using said instrument.

The site says “‘The I-CAN’ was developed at centre disability study [CDS], following extensive research into innovative rigorous robust systems identifying classifying supports needed—this funded Australian Research Council Linkage Grant first iteration launched back then during year two thousand two prior known under title SCAN updated regularly latest revision six released twenty twenty–two”.

According to CDS conceptual basis World Health Organisation International classification functioning health maps individual person’s requirements twelve domains:

The ICF Activity Participation supplemented three areas relating wellbeing resulting total comprising twelve categories listed below:

Mobility
Domestic Life
Self Care
Community, Social & Civic Life
Communication
Learning and Applying Knowledge
General Tasks and Demands
Lifelong learning
Interpersonal Interactions Relationships
Behaviours of Concern
Mental Emotional Health
Physical Health

“Restoring Balance To The NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 44

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

each domain is then broken into four sub-domains, for example, Mobility includes:

transfers & Positioning Carrying, Moving & Handling Objects Walking & Moving Transport

The only domain that is not broken into four sub-domains is Physical Health, which has 10 sub- domains in order to ensure that complex health needs can be accurately captured.

So who can become an I-CAN Assessor?

The I-CAN training is available to following people:

Allied health clinicians with a tertiary qualification, such as: Occupational Therapist, Physiotherapist, Speech Pathologist, Social Worker, Dietitian, Psychologist, Exercise Physiologist, Rehabilitation Counsellor, Counsellor, Psychotherapist
Registered nurses (RN)
Enrolled nurses (EN)
Clinicians with an Education degree
NDIS Behaviour Support Practitioner

A link to a sample I-CAN Version 6 Report:

https://cds.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/I-CAN-v6-Sample-Report-2025.pdf

given we are forced into speculation due to the failure of current NDIS decision makers to honour their promise of co-design, using the I-CAN as a reference point to raise questions about the Needs Assessment is useful.

Some Thoughts About Assessment:

1. What is the best approach to gaining a comprehensive understanding

of Participant needs?

Strip away the fluff and tinsel from the I-CAN assessment, and we see in the sample report nothing more unique and enlightening than any of the functional capacity assessments that have been produced for decades now. These assessments have proved inadequate for describing the full range of support a person requires to be present in the community, to participate in the community, to exercise choice, to make their contribution and to have valued roles.

We have known for decades now that to truly understand the full range of funded supports a person with complex needs requires it is necessary to move beyond these narrow and simplistic evaluations of what a person can and cannot do. These only lead to the development of a series of disconnected adhoc programs, provided you can get services and support workers to implement them, that have very little impact on the person’s opportunities for social and economic participation. These assessments don’t question the status quo. They maintain and perpetuate it.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 45

Annual Report No. 1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

We have known for decades that real change comes about when we collaborate with the person and those who know them well to articulate a “vision” for their future that explores the life they want to lead and aligns that with broad principles like the UNCRPD. We then know that having done that work we have to go back and look at:

The actions that need to be undertaken to achieve that vision, including the support that will be necessary.
We have to understand the full range of funded and unfunded supports that are necessary to make the vision happen. A tool like I-CAN only assists us in completing part of this story.
We have to identify the people who will be necessary to support that vision coming to fruition.
We have to identify the barriers that are likely to inhibit achieving that vision.
Having undertaken those tasks, we can then develop a comprehensive service design that puts the person’s vision into motion with a short, medium-term and long-term plans.
With these details at hand, we can then develop a comprehensive budget of funded supports.

This process can take several months of careful planning and discussion. Given we have an NDIA that is engaging in the practice of funding people requiring 24/7 support based on the assumption of shared support and telling them they should be moving into group homes, do we really believe they are going to undertake a comprehensive planning process like the one outlined above? Of course, they are not. The purpose of the so-called “assessment” is to categorise people into groups so they can be assigned their predetermined funding allocation. Under these circumstances, tools like the I-CAN can be weaponised to aid and abet this process, not challenge it. Without a firm commitment to upholding principles such as those outlined by the UNCRPD, the “needs assessment” is likely to be used to add faux legitimacy to what we can already see is a predetermined outcome.

What is the best approach to translating information about Participant needs into a budget?

Tools like I-CAN were never designed to set funding amounts. At best, they are a very poor indicator of the range of support a Participant may require. Like the WHODAS 2.0, these tools provide insights into the range of people who fit into their very limited support domains, which may be a useful adjunct to the development of social policy, but they do not provide anywhere near enough information to set an individual support budget. This can only happen on a person by person basis using a framework such as the one I have mentioned above. Under this framework each budget is tailored to the unique circumstances of each individual.

Rather than this personalised approach it is clear that what is being promoted by DSS and the NDIA is not an assessment, as we understand that term, but rather a categorisation and cataloguing system that aims to slot people into predetermined groups for the purpose of allocating a predetermined funding amount. This cataloguing system will make it easier to automate the whole offensive process. To gloss over the reality that the individual needs of

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

Participants are being ignored; the term “flexible budget” has been coined to describe the funding allocation. We already know that this budget will be far from flexible.

As many have said before me, this is Independent Assessments rebranded.

3. Will the assessment content, structure, implementation and format be tailored to each individual participant?

The answer to that question is “highly unlikely.” Individualisation doesn’t fit with the assessment standardisation agenda adopted by DSS and the NDIA.

4. Who will undertake the Needs Assessment?

The reality is that DSS and the NDIA have not been upfront about this question, but it is clear that whoever the assessors are, they will be handpicked by the NDIA and required to implement the “assessment” according to guidelines developed by the Agency and DSS with no option for personalisation.

5. On the I-CAN website is the statement:

“CDS has been contracted by the Commonwealth Department of Health to provide support needs assessments for the Disability Supports for Older Australians (DSOA) cohort, using a customised version of the I-CAN tool.“

The customized tool provides a breakdown of support required based on the client’s support needs, which is used to guide service provision under the DSOA Program. The tool can also be used to assess a client’s change of needs.

The Commonwealth Department of Health manage the referral process for these assessments. CDS is unable to accept direct assessment requests that have not followed the correct pathway.

Once CDS receives a referral, the assessment is completed by one of their pool of contracted Assessors, made up of predominantly allied health professionals. Assessors receive training in the use of the customised assessment tool and ongoing clinical and administrative support through CDS.”

This statement raises further interesting and concerning questions for us:

Does the NDIA intend to dictate that their Needs Assessment conducted by their handpicked Assessors will be the only mechanism for establishing the support a Participant requires?
Does the NDIA intend to dictate the assessment pathway and reject all other options for Participants to contribute to gaining a comprehensive understanding of their needs?

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 47

Submission 12

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Does the NDIA intend to follow universally accepted guidelines for undertaking individual assessments, or do they intend to corrupt the tool to reflect their purpose of categorisation and labelling? (Sounds like a game of NDIS Monopoly. “Congratulations, you are a 24/7er. Pack up your belongings. Ask no questions. Your appeal rights are exhausted. Go straight to the group home.” )

in summary, The secrecy surrounding the “Needs Assessment” and the haste with which it is being progressed without co-design leads us to reasonably speculate that the assessment approach and the associated budget tool have already been largely developed and are being built into the new upgraded data management system. We can also expect therefore, that any “consultation” about the needs assessment will be superficial and designed to perpetuate the illusion of consultation.

If we want to save the remnants of our shattered NDIS and protect Participants from further cuts to their plans and compromises to the choice and control we must challenge the way the NDIA and DSS currently do business, demand they enter into genuine co-design with our disability community and help them understand that the current systematic destruction of the NDIS is a hot political issue that is not going away.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 48

Closing Comments: Fitting the Pieces Together

The visual representation on the attached image depicts interconnected concepts related to disability services.

On the first page of this submission is an image. I included this without comment or reference. With these closing remarks, I would like to present a practice framework that is my attempt at articulating how the various elements of the NDIS puzzle could fit together. The framework presents a relational and developmental model of inclusion, depicting how individual, community, and organizational systems interconnect to generate social capital and enable genuine participation of people with disabilities in everyday life. It illustrates a dynamic ecosystem where personal, community, and governance domains are interdependent, each contributing to the growth of the others. At its conceptual core, the model emphasizes social capital and circles of support as the essential mediators through which sustainable inclusion and empowerment are achieved.

economic Participation Social Participation inclusion Community Story Individualised Circles Community building and personalised activities Support Activities Choice and Control Isolation Development Personal story Self Managed Individual Capacity Social Capital Building Governance & Organisational Practices Service Centric service managed capacity building development Mediation Mediators

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

At the centre of the framework lie two interrelated constructs: social capital and circles of support.

Social capital refers to the network of relationships, trust, reciprocity, and shared norms that exist within communities and between individuals. In the context of disability support, social capital functions as the connective tissue that enables individuals to participate, contribute, and belong.

The concept of ‘Circles of support’ represents the personal and relational networks surrounding an individual, comprising family, friends, allies, and community members who collaboratively sustain a person’s vision for a good life. This relational infrastructure is crucial when translating formal supports into genuine opportunities for participation and belonging. The placement of these concepts at the center of this document symbolizes their integrative role in linking personal agency, community inclusion, and governance practices.

2. Domain 1: Individualised and Personalised Activities

The first domain, Individualized and Personalized Activities, reflects contemporary disability policy—including the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)—and its paradigm of self-determination and people centered practice. It emphasizes choice and control; supporting those with disabilities to design, direct, manage services aligned with preferences, goals, identity.

A key process here involves building capacity through developing skills, confidence, decision making ability, managing resources engaging meaningfully with one’s own community. The framework situates development based on lived experience recognizing empowerment emerges from relationships rather than service prescription.

3. Domain 2: Community Building Activities

The second area focuses upon strengthening communities so they are inclusive welcoming participatory. Its goal isn’t just integrating individuals but co creating diverse mutually beneficial environments.

This relies heavily on fostering collective capability via education collaboration shared leadership accessibility initiatives enabling all residents as active participants. Inclusion extends beyond connectedness encompassing meaningful contribution within work volunteering learning civic life.

“Restoring Balance to the NDIS” (Ver 1.0_30.09.2025) Page 50

Domain 3: Governance and Organisational Practices

The third domain, Governance and Organisational Practices, acknowledges that individual and community empowerment cannot be sustained without equitable and responsive organisational structures. This domain encompasses quality standards, workforce and organizational capacity, and accountable governance.

The emphasis is on ensuring that governance structures and systems, in their many and varied forms, operate according to values of transparency, co-design, and responsiveness, rather than service-centric efficiency. It reflects a shift towards enabling governance, in which the role of these structures is to support self-determination, nurture community capacity, and facilitate collaborative networks rather than impose standardised service models. This approach to Governance encourages a move away from the traditional service provider models to practices that embrace self-direction, individual and family-governed strategies.

The Three Stories of Development

Surrounding the three domains are three developmental narratives: Personal Story, Community Story, and Governance Story, each representing a continuum of transformation.

-. The Personal Story traces a journey from service-managed to self-managed supports, reflecting increasing autonomy, self-determination, and personhood.-. The Community Story depicts a transition from isolation to inclusion, illustrating how community development occurs when people with disabilities are recognised as active citizens and co-creators of community life.-. The Governance Story represents the organisational journey from service-centric to community-centred and person-led governance, where policy, practice, and accountability mechanisms are aligned with rights-based and participatory principles.

These narratives are interlinked through continuous developmental cycles, suggesting that progress in one sphere, such as individual empowerment, both depends upon and contributes to advancements in the others.

Integrative Meaning: A System of Mutual Reinforcement

Collectively, the framework conveys a systems approach to inclusion, where sustainable change is achieved through the mutual reinforcement of personal, community, and organizational development. The placement of social capital at the centre underscores that meaningful inclusion is relationally produced; it arises through trust, reciprocity, and collective effort rather than through isolated programmatic interventions.

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 12

This model thus challenges reductionist and service-centric paradigms, advocating instead for a whole-of-community approach grounded in co-design, participation, and ethical governance. It resonates strongly with contemporary disability rights frameworks, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), particularly Article 19, which enshrines the right to live independently and be included in the community, and with broader social theories of capability, participation, and empowerment.

This integrated development framework provides a conceptual roadmap for aligning personal, community, and organisational transformation. By embedding circles of support and social capital at its centre, it positions inclusion not merely as a service outcome but as a collective social achievement. It reinforces that sustainable progress in disability inclusion requires coordinated development across all levels of the ecosystem, empowered individuals, inclusive communities, and ethically governed organisations, each contributing to and drawing strength from the others.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme was never intended to become a vehicle for bureaucratic convenience or cost containment. It was born from a grassroots movement led by people with disability and their allies, who demanded a system that would honour dignity, autonomy, and inclusion. Over time, however, the balance has shifted. Prescriptive lists, technocratic assessments, and ministerial discretion have come to dominate the Scheme, distancing it from its original purpose and threatening the rights of those it was designed to serve.

This submission has outlined both the risks of the current trajectory and the opportunities for reform. It has been argued that the future of the NDIS depends on restoring balance between individual and service forms of support, embedding genuine co-design at every level of governance, and replacing rigid lists with a transparent, principles-based framework for decision-making. These shifts are not abstract ideals but practical necessities if the Scheme is to remain viable, just, and true to its founding vision.

The voices of people with disability, particularly those with complex needs who are most at risk of exclusion and institutionalisation, must be at the heart of every decision. Without this, the NDIS risks betraying its promise and perpetuating the very injustices it was created to end. With it, the Scheme has the potential to become once again a global model of rights-based reform and community inclusion.

This is a critical moment. The choices made now by government, parliament, and the NDIA will determine whether the NDIS becomes a mechanism of liberation or control. The reforms proposed here are grounded in law, ethics, and lived experience. They provide a clear path forward: one that honours the UNCRPD, restores trust, and places people with disability at the centre of their own lives.

I respectfully urge the Committee to take these recommendations seriously and to use its influence to ensure that the NDIS does not lose sight of its heart, people, relationships, and the right of every person with disability to live a life of dignity, choice, and belonging in their community.

Restoring Balance to the NDIS: A Rights-Based, Co-Designed Future

“Restoring Balance to the NDis:

Table of Contents

Part 3: “Determining NDIS Supports: A Principles-Based Approach”

Summary:

Introduction:

A Principles Based Approach: Alignment with Section 10

1. Reasonableness

2. Necessity

3. Equity and Access

4. Consistency and Transparency

Conclusion

Determining NDIS Supports: The Principles

Introduction

1. Participant-Centred Approach

2. Reasonable and Necessary Supports

3. Equity and Access

4. Transparency and Accountability

5. Flexibility and Adaptability

6. Inclusivity and Non-Discrimination

7. Quality and Safeguarding

Concluding Comments

Part 4: “Impact of NDIS Prescribed Support Lists on People with Complex Support Needs”

Summary:

Introduction:

The Concept of Reasonable and Necessary Supports: Original Legislative Intention

Foundational Principle

Key Intentions and Principles

NDIS Policies and the Shift Towards Prescribed Lists

Legal Challenges and Precedent

How Prescribed Lists Impact People with Complex Needs

Implications for Choice and Control

Conclusion and the Path Forward

Advocating for Change

Formal Policy Statement

Policy Statement: The Section 10 Prescribed Lists Undermine the Intent of the NDIS for all

Abstract

Introduction:

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Part 1: “A Question of Balance“

Introduction

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Integrating Yin and Yang

Summary Table

The Importance of Balance

When Yang (Service Form) Dominates:

Dynamic Tensions and False Choices

Toward Integration: Restoring Harmony

Part 2: “Implementing a Co-Designed,

Introduction:

1. Foundational Vision and Values

b. Community Development Ethic

2. Roadmap for Inclusive Implementation

Phase 1: Build a National and Local Governance Framework

Phase 2: Build the Capacity of Communities to Participate

Phase 3: Transform How Supports Are Funded and Organised

Phase 4: Establish Meaningful Oversight and Accountability

Prioritising the Inclusion of People with Complex Needs

Redeﬁning the Role of the NDIA

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Part 3: “Determining NDIS Supports: A Principles-Based Approach“

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

A Principles Based Approach: Alignment with Section 10

1. Reasonableness

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

2. Necessity

3. Equity and Access

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

4. Consistency and Transparency

Conclusion

Determining NDIS Supports: The Principles

Introduction

Participant-Centred Approach

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

2. Reasonable and Necessary Supports

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

3. Equity and Access

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

4. Transparency and Accountability