NDIA Accountability Project

Impacts of NDIS reforms on remote Northern Territory participants

‹ PrevPage 1 of 36 · Source p. 1Next ›

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs – Legislation Committee

29 May 2026

Submitted jointly by:

  • Disability Advocacy Service Inc. (DAS) - Promoting the rights of people with a disability in Central Australia and the Barkly
  • Integrated Disability Action Inc. (IDA) - Northern Territory peak body for people with disability
  • Darwin Community Legal Service (DCLS) - Community legal, disability advocacy and seniors rights services across the Top End

Lead contact: Scott Richardson, Chief Executive Officer Disability Advocacy Service Inc. 3/11 Railway Terrace, Alice Springs NT 0870 (08) 8953 1422 | admin@das.org.au | das.org.au

Page 1 of 36

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Acknowledgement of Country

We acknowledge the Arrernte people of Mparntwe (Alice Springs), the Larrakia people of Garramilla (Darwin), and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across the lands and waters of the Northern Territory where we live and work. We pay our respects to Elders past and present, and to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, their families and communities.

Sovereignty was never ceded. The voices and self-determined priorities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability must sit at the centre of any reform of the NDIS, consistent with the four Priority Reforms of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.

Executive Summary

This is a joint submission from Disability Advocacy Service Inc. (DAS), Integrated Disability Action Inc. (IDA) and Darwin Community Legal Service (DCLS) on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the Bill).

Between us, we run individual and systemic disability advocacy, disability legal services, and peak body representation across the Northern Territory. Our work reaches Darwin, Palmerston, the Top End rural area and Katherine; Tennant Creek and the Barkly; Alice Springs, the MacDonnell, Central Desert and Tanami areas; and the remote homelands across Central Australia. The combined caseload reflects how the NDIS falls short in practice for participants in one of the most under-serviced and disadvantaged jurisdictions in the country.

We support the Bill’s stated aims of integrity, fraud prevention, and scheme sustainability. NDIS fraud – whether by exploitative providers, organised criminal activity, or unscrupulous plan managers – harms participants, particularly those who are isolated, non-verbal, living in remote communities, or without informal supports. Reform is needed.

However, in its current form, the Bill will cause serious and predictable harm to NDIS participants in the Northern Territory, and to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants in particular. Several provisions assume a metropolitan service market, a literate and digitally connected participant, and mainstream services that simply do not exist in the NT. The Bill also assumes safeguards and replacement systems that, across large parts of the Northern Territory, are theoretical rather than operational in practice.

When these assumptions fail in the NT, the burden of scheme sustainability shifts onto the people least able to carry it. When NDIS supports are reduced, delayed or removed, participants often have nowhere else to go; there is no alternative support system. Rather than transitioning into another functioning support system, they frequently fall through the gaps entirely, increasing the risk of homelessness, hospitalisation, justice and child protection system contact, institutionalisation, suicide, and preventable harm.


Submission 160

Joint DAS  / IDA  / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
This submission sets out 13 areas of concern and makes twenty-three recommendations.
We do not oppose the Bill – we urge the Committee to recommend substantial amendments
before it passes.
We are particularly concerned that the reforms are being progressed ahead of the
establishment of adequate foundational supports, mainstream disability supports, and
culturally safe service systems in the Northern Territory. Without those systems in place, the
practical effect of tightening access and reducing supports will be increased crisis and harm
for vulnerable participants and families.
Participants, families and advocacy organisations have already experienced years of
ongoing reform, reassessment and uncertainty within the NDIS. Reforms of this scale
require careful implementation, meaningful consultation and clear safeguards to avoid
further erosion of trust in the Scheme.

Page 3 of 36

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

About the Submitting Organisations

Disability Advocacy Service Inc. (DAS) DAS is the National Disability Advocacy Program (NDAP) and NDIS Appeals provider for Central Australia and the Barkly. From Alice Springs we provide individual, systemic, citizen and legal advocacy across a service area of around 800,000 square kilometres, including Tennant Creek and remote communities in the MacDonnell, Central Desert, Barkly and Tanami regions. Most clients are Aboriginal people, and for many, English is a second, third or fourth language.

Integrated Disability Action Inc. (IDA) Integrated Disability Action Inc. (IDA) is the Northern Territory’s peak body for people with disability and a Disabled Persons Organisation (DPO) led by and for people with disability. IDA undertakes systemic advocacy, policy development, sector engagement and representation across the Northern Territory, with a strong focus on the rights of people with disability in regional, remote and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. IDA works closely with disability organisations, advocacy services and government stakeholders on disability reform, inclusion and accessibility issues affecting Territorians with disability.

Darwin Community Legal Service (DCLS) DCLS is a multidisciplinary community legal and advocacy service and the National Disability Advocacy Program (NDAP) and NDIS Appeals provider for the Top End of the Northern Territory. From Darwin, we provide individual, systemic and legal advocacy across Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, the rural area and remote Top End communities. DCLS supports people in NDIS access and planning matters, guardianship and substitute decision-making, restrictive practices, discrimination and broader disability rights issues. DCLS also coordinates the NT Adult Safeguarding Network.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

The Northern Territory Context

The Northern Territory is not a smaller version of a metropolitan area. The way disability services operate in the NT is shaped by remoteness, workforce shortages, service availability, language diversity, and a much higher proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people than any other jurisdiction. These factors fundamentally affect how the NDIS works in practice.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up around 30% of the NT population, the highest proportion of any jurisdiction, and in many remote communities the proportion is significantly higher.¹ ² Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are also over-represented among NDIS participants in the NT, making up 51.2% of participants,³ and around 40% of NT participants live in remote areas.⁴ This means cultural safety is fundamental to the operation of the NDIS in the Northern Territory. Many participants engage with services across language, cultural and geographic barriers, and their ability to access, understand and navigate the Scheme is heavily influenced by whether services are culturally safe and responsive. Assessment processes, planning conversations, compliance activities and communication methods that are not culturally safe risk producing poorer outcomes, reducing engagement and creating barriers to accessing supports. At the same time, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander remain under-represented in the NDIS nationally relative to disability prevalence. Research presented to the Disability Royal Commission found Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander were 28% less likely to receive NDIS support than non-Indigenous Australians,⁵ and fewer than 1% of NDIS providers are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations.⁶

How NDIS participants are impacted

Across the NT, thin and failing service markets are the norm. Many communities face ongoing shortages of qualified, culturally safe and reliable providers. Workforce shortages, provider withdrawal, inconsistent service quality and exploitative practices mean participants often have little genuine choice.

In many remote communities, “choice and control” does not mean choosing between multiple providers. Participants often accept whichever provider is available, regardless of quality, cultural safety or suitability, or go without support entirely. Changing providers can place existing services at risk. For many Territorians with disability – particularly Aboriginal participants in remote communities – the issue is not simply whether services exist, but whether safe, ethical and reliable supports are available. The language of “choice and control” does not always reflect conditions on the ground.

The systems expected to sit outside the NDIS are also underdeveloped. In many parts of the NT there are limited or no locally available psychosocial supports, behavioural supports, disability-specific community programs or early intervention pathways. The NDIS often functions as the primary support system because there is little else available to absorb unmet need.

Workforce shortages further limit access. Allied health professionals, behaviour support practitioners and specialist disability accommodation remain chronically scarce.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

System waitlists for paediatric developmental assessments in Alice Springs and Darwin are months long and can exceed a year, depending on the discipline.

Language and communication barriers are also significant. Many participants speak English as an additional language, with Tiwi, Yolgŋu Matha, Warlpiri, Arrernte, Pitjantjatjara, Kriol and many other languages spoken across the Territory. Interpreters are limited and written English literacy varies considerably. These barriers are compounded by unreliable internet and phone connectivity in remote areas, with Closing the Gap Target 17 (digital inclusion) remaining off track.

Together, these factors create a real risk that participants – particularly Aboriginal participants in remote communities – fall between disability systems and broader mainstream services, without either system meeting need.

How the proposed amendments will make these problems worse

The 2025 Productivity Commission Annual Data Compilation Report identified the NT as the worst-performing jurisdiction against the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, with progress worsening across eight targets.⁷ Despite this, the Bill introduces reforms built around assumptions that more closely reflect metropolitan service environments:

  • Available specialist services
  • Stable housing
  • Digital access
  • Consistent phone coverage
  • Accessible transport
  • Available interpreters
  • Workforce availability
  • Continuity of clinical care.

These assumptions frequently do not reflect the reality of disability service delivery in the NT.

If ongoing participation in the Scheme depends on a participant being contactable by phone or email, navigating an online portal, providing documentary evidence within strict timeframes, attending assessments, accessing “appropriate treatment”, or obtaining support from mainstream services, many NT participants will face significant barriers.

When these assumptions fail, the consequences are serious. Participants may lose access to the Scheme and essential supports in circumstances where no alternative system exists to respond. This creates foreseeable risks of harm, including abuse, neglect and avoidable adverse outcomes.

The sequencing of reform is a major concern. The Bill tightens access to NDIS supports and increases reliance on mainstream and foundational services before those systems are adequately established in the Northern Territory. Participants should not lose disability supports on the assumption that alternative systems will respond where those systems remain underdeveloped, inaccessible, or absent altogether.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Impact on Remote and Very Remote Communities

  • People with disability living in remote and very remote communities will experience the effects of this Bill differently from participants in metropolitan Australia.
  • Many of the proposed reforms assume participants have access to reliable telecommunications, transport, interpreters, health professionals, disability providers, advocacy services and mainstream supports. These assumptions do not reflect the reality in many parts of the Northern Territory. The consortium supports measures that reduce fraud, improve provider accountability and strengthen safeguards for participants. Fraud, exploitative provider behaviour and misuse of participant funds cause real harm and undermine confidence in the Scheme. In remote communities, stronger oversight and regulatory action may help address predatory provider practices, overservicing, inappropriate claiming, conflicts of interest and the exploitation of vulnerable participants. We support proportionate reforms that improve participant safety and strengthen accountability, provided those reforms do not create additional barriers for people with disability living in remote and very remote areas.

Implementation Challenges

Many remote and very remote communities do not have the service infrastructure required to make the Bill work safely. Participants may face:

  • limited access to specialist health services
  • limited access to allied health professionals
  • workforce shortages
  • limited provider choice
  • poor telecommunications
  • limited interpreter availability
  • high travel costs
  • limited advocacy services
  • housing instability.

Participant Risks

For remote and very remote participants, the risks are significant. The Bill may:

  • increase barriers to accessing the NDIS
  • increase reliance on evidence and assessments that are difficult to obtain
  • reduce access to supports where service markets are already thin or failing

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

  • result in participants losing eligibility because services or treatments are unavailable locally
  • increase the likelihood of participants being deemed “uncontactable”
  • shift responsibility onto families and informal carers who are already under significant pressure
  • increase dependence on mainstream systems that are often unavailable, under-resourced or culturally unsafe.
  • In remote communities, the practical effect of reducing NDIS supports may not be a transfer to another service system. It may simply mean no support at all.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Schedule 1 – Access and planning: 13 concerns

1. Section 9B: “functional capacity” defined without environmental context

Proposed section 9B defines functional capacity as a person’s ability to undertake an activity without assistance from other people, assistive technology, or modifications, while excluding, “as far as possible”, the impact of environmental and personal circumstances. In effect, the Bill attempts to assess a person’s functional capacity separately from the circumstances in which they actually live. Why this is a problem in the NT The impact in the Northern Territory is immediate and significant. For example, an Aboriginal participant with cerebral palsy living in a remote community may demonstrate one level of “self-care” ability during an assessment in a clinical setting in Darwin. That same participant may function very differently at home in a crowded household, in extreme heat, with unreliable power, inaccessible facilities and limited or no ongoing allied health support. The Bill directs assessors to set aside these factors. The risk is that participants appear more capable in an assessment setting than they are in their everyday environment. This can lead to artificially elevated functional capacity assessments and reductions in funded supports. There is also a broader concern that this approach may reinforce existing under-recognition of disability among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and undermine the objectives of the Closing the Gap Disability Sector Strengthening Plan. Additional concerns about future assessment processes We are also concerned that the Bill relies heavily on future standardised assessment processes that have not yet been fully explained, tested or validated in remote and culturally diverse settings. Important details remain unclear, including:

  • Assessor qualifications
  • Interpreter use
  • Cultural safety requirements
  • Assessment approaches for participants with cognitive impairment
  • Psychosocial disability
  • Communication barriers
  • Limited English literacy. This is particularly important because these assessments may ultimately influence not only Scheme access decisions, but also future plan budgets and reassessment outcomes.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Before implementation, assessment tools should be independently validated and shown to be culturally safe and fit for purpose in remote and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander contexts. At present, there is insufficient publicly available evidence that proposed assessment tools have been culturally validated for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants living in remote communities.

Consultation and scrutiny concerns We are also concerned about the compressed consultation and parliamentary scrutiny process for legislation of this scale. The Bill proposes major structural reforms affecting access, reassessment, planning, regulation, compliance and review rights, while many operational details remain deferred to future Rules, guidelines and administrative processes that have not yet been released. Meaningful consultation in the Northern Territory requires additional time. Remoteness, language diversity, interpreter needs and culturally safe engagement processes all require a different approach. The current timeframe does not support genuine consultation with many of the communities likely to be most affected by these reforms.

Recommendation 1: Amend section 9B

Amend section 9B(1)(b) so that assessments take account of, rather than exclude, the participant’s environmental and personal circumstances. The Rules made under section 9B(2) must require assessors to record the environmental and cultural context in which capacity is being assessed, including remoteness, language and cultural factors specific to the NT.

Section 25A: “appropriate treatment” without regard to access

Section 25A defines “appropriate treatment” as treatment that is evidence-based, expected to materially improve the impairment, and “regularly undertaken or performed in Australia.” Section 25A(2) goes further and states that treatment may still be considered “appropriate” even where a person’s individual circumstances prevent them from accessing it. The explanatory note makes clear this includes financial circumstances and geographical location. This provision operates alongside sections 24(5) and 25(1B), which provide that an impairment may not be considered “permanent” – and a person may therefore fail NDIS access requirements – unless they have undertaken all “appropriate treatment.” We consider this one of the most harmful provisions in the Bill because it disconnects eligibility decisions from the reality of service access in the Northern Territory.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Why this is a problem in the NT

It creates a significant risk that eligibility decisions will be based on whether treatment exists somewhere in Australia, rather than whether it can actually be accessed by the person seeking support.

For example:

  • A child with autism in Yuendumu could be found ineligible because they have not received early-intervention behavioural therapy, despite no equivalent service being available within hundreds of kilometres.
  • An adult in Lajamanu with a degenerative neurological condition could be told they do not meet access requirements because they have not undertaken specialist treatment only available interstate, regardless of travel barriers or cost.
  • A young person in Tennant Creek with complex psychosocial disability could be considered not to have exhausted “appropriate treatment” options because cognitive behavioural therapy is “regularly undertaken in Australia”, even if no psychologist has been available locally for an extended period.

The difficulty is that treatment can theoretically exist while remaining practically inaccessible. In the NT, the concept of “appropriate treatment” becomes disconnected from reality when:

  • No local provider exists
  • No culturally safe provider exists
  • No interpreter is available
  • Waitlists exceed 12 months
  • Outreach services are intermittent
  • Travel costs are prohibitive
  • Participants are experiencing homelessness, trauma, family violence or mental health crisis.

In these circumstances, treatment may exist in theory but remain entirely unavailable in practice.

Who is likely to be most affected

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants are likely to experience a disproportionate share of access denials because they are more likely to live in remote areas where services, interpreters and culturally safe supports are limited. This raises concerns about consistency with the Commonwealth’s commitments under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The provisions are also likely to disproportionately affect participants with:

  • Psychosocial disability
  • Fluctuating conditions
  • Trauma-related disability
  • Cognitive impairment.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

These participants already experience significant barriers engaging with mainstream treatment systems, particularly in remote NT communities where specialist mental health services and workforce availability remain limited.

  • Illustrative case profile (composite, drawn from advocacy practice): A child in a remote community east of Alice Springs has a developmental disability. The closest paediatric occupational therapist with capacity to provide ongoing intervention is in Adelaide. The family is not in a position to travel – no funded transport, family and cultural commitments at home, and a complex set of practical barriers we see repeatedly. Under proposed section 25A, this child could be told the treatment is “appropriate” and the impairment is therefore not yet “permanent.” Access to the NDIS would be refused on that basis.

Recommendation 2: Repeal the access-blind in section 25A(2)

Repeal section 25A(2) and the accompanying note. “Appropriate treatment” must take into account whether the treatment is genuinely accessible to the person in their location and circumstances. Treatment that is not available within a reasonable distance, in a culturally safe and linguistically appropriate form, and without unmet out-of-pocket cost, must not be considered “appropriate treatment” for the purposes of access decisions.

Recommendation 3: Remote and cultural safeguard in section 25A

Before finding that a person has not undertaken “all appropriate treatment,” the CEO must consider the participant’s remoteness classification, language, cultural circumstances, and the genuine availability of culturally safe treatment at that location.

Section 25B: eligibility based on access to other services

Section 25B excludes a person from NDIS eligibility where their impairment results from a motor vehicle accident or work-related injury and another compensation scheme “provides for compensation or other benefits.” The Bill also gives broad powers for other forms of assistance to be declared “alternative supports” through future Rules.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Why this is a problem in the NT

In the NT, systems such as the Motor Accidents Compensation (MAC) Scheme and workers’ compensation can be difficult to navigate and may not consistently deliver the long-term support required by people with serious injuries. For Aboriginal claimants in particular, additional barriers can arise, including:

  • English literacy barriers
  • Documentation requirements
  • Culturally unsafe claims processes
  • Limited access to legal assistance Reduced access to support services across the Northern Territory, including in Darwin, Palmerston, regional and remote communities As a result, a person may technically be eligible for support through another scheme while remaining unable to access meaningful assistance in practice. The risk is that participants are excluded from the NDIS because another pathway exists in theory, rather than because support is genuinely available. Broader concerns about “alternative supports” The concern extends beyond compensation schemes. Section 25B(4) allows the Minister to declare additional “alternative supports.” However, the Bill does not require those supports to be genuinely funded, staffed or available in the Northern Territory before they are relied upon. This creates a risk that mainstream systems may be treated as substitutes for the NDIS even where they lack the capacity, funding, workforce or specialist expertise required to meet participant needs. It also places increased pressure on mainstream providers who may not be funded or equipped to deliver the level of support expected under the Scheme. In remote parts of the NT, mainstream health, mental health and aged-care systems are often already under significant pressure. Services may be rationed, unavailable or difficult to access, and culturally safe options are not always available.

Recommendation 4: Genuine availability and adequacy test

Section 25B must require the Minister, before declaring a support to be an “alternative support,” to be satisfied that the support is genuinely funded, available, accessible, and culturally safe in all jurisdictions and remoteness areas. The Rules must include an NT- specific access test, developed in partnership with NT Aboriginal community-controlled organisations and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disability peaks.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Recommendation 5: Compensation-scheme carve-out

Section 25B(2) and (3) must include a safeguard that NDIS access cannot be refused on the basis of theoretical entitlement to compensation where the person has been unable, despite reasonable efforts, to access that compensation.

Section 34A: ministerial power to cut funding for groups of supports

Section 34A allows the Minister to reduce funding component amounts in existing plans through a legislative instrument by applying a specified percentage reduction. The only express limitation is that the Minister “must have regard to the safety of participants.” The requirement to merely “have regard to” participant safety sets a relatively low threshold. The Bill does not require:

  • Consultation with participants or representative bodies
  • Assessment of equity impacts
  • Consideration of cumulative reductions over time
  • Specific consideration of remote or NT circumstances. This creates a risk that broad funding reductions could occur without adequate assessment of who will be affected and how. The Bill also expressly allows a situation where a participant’s plan may ultimately provide less funding than the total cost of their assessed and approved reasonable and necessary supports. Why this is a problem in the NT The impact of funding reductions in the Northern Territory is different from metropolitan areas because disability service markets operate very differently. Across much of the NT, thin markets are the norm. Participants often have limited provider options and little flexibility if services are reduced or withdrawn. In larger jurisdictions, a reduction in funding may be absorbed through competition, alternative providers or lower-cost service options. In many remote NT communities, those alternatives simply do not exist. A reduction of 10-20% may appear modest in policy terms, but in remote service markets it can have a very different effect. Rather than producing efficiencies, it can make service delivery financially unviable. The result may not be cheaper supports. It may be fewer supports – or no supports at all.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Participants may face: - Provider withdrawal from remote communities - Reduced service frequency - Loss of specialist supports - Greater reliance on already stretched informal supports - Complete loss of services where no alternative provider exists.

In many remote communities there is no market flexibility and no capacity to “shop around” for lower-cost options. The cost of delivering disability services in these locations is often fixed by geography, workforce shortages and travel requirements.

Impact on Community Participation

The proposed Ministerial power to reduce funding for categories of supports is particularly concerning because the Government has indicated this power may be used to reduce funding for social, civic and community participation supports.

For many participants in the Northern Territory, these supports are not optional extras. They are the supports that allow people to leave their homes, engage with their communities and participate as equal citizens.

NDIS-funded community participation supports assist people with disability to: - attend school, training and employment - participate in community events - engage in sport, recreation and cultural activities - maintain family, kinship and community connections - attend health appointments and access essential services - build independence and reduce social isolation - exercise choice and control over their lives.

Reducing access to participation supports may have unintended consequences, including increased social isolation, reduced education and employment participation, increased reliance on family carers, poorer mental health and increased pressure on health, housing and community services.

For Aboriginal participants in remote and very remote communities, participation often includes cultural obligations, community events, connection to Country, ceremony, family responsibilities and maintaining kinship relationships. These activities are fundamental to wellbeing and social inclusion and should not be treated as non-essential.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Recommendation 6A: Constrain section 34A

Amend section 34A to require: (a) prior consultation with disability representative bodies, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disability peaks; (b) a published statement of reasons that addresses impact on participants in remote and very remote areas; (c) express protection from reduction for participants in MMM6–MMM7 locations and SDA- eligible participants; and (d) a 12-month sunset on any reduction instrument.

Recommendation 6B: Protect community participation supports

Section 34A must require any Ministerial determination affecting social, civic or community participation supports to include a published impact assessment on participants in remote and very remote areas, including impacts on cultural participation, social inclusion, employment, education, family and kinship connection, and access to community life.

Section 50A: automatic plan renewal

Section 50A provides for automatic renewal of an existing plan under the old framework, essentially rolling the plan over with the same wording, subject to any Ministerial alterations. The renewal decision itself is not reviewable. Reassessment dates are effectively converted into plan end dates rather than triggering a reassessment process. The provision also excludes certain one-off funding items from being carried forward into the renewed plan. Why this is a problem in the NT In the Northern Territory, many participants—particularly Aboriginal participants, people in remote communities, and people new to the Scheme—receive plans that do not fully reflect their needs. This can occur for a range of practical reasons, including:

  • Assessments conducted without interpreters
  • Limited cultural support during planning conversations
  • Time constraints in planning processes
  • Lack of family or community involvement in decision-making.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

In these circumstances, the initial plan may not accurately reflect the participant’s real support needs.

At present, reassessment processes—while imperfect—provide an opportunity to review and adjust those plans. Automatic renewal removes that corrective pathway. As a result, inadequate plans risk being carried forward unchanged for extended periods.

This is particularly concerning in the NT, where participants may have limited access to advocacy, limited service options, and significant barriers to initiating plan reviews themselves.

Additional concern: loss of one-off funding items Section 50A(2)(b) also excludes certain one-off funding items from being included in renewed plans. These can include supports such as:

  • Assistive technology replacement
  • Home modifications delivered in stages
  • Training packages and capacity-building items. There is no clear requirement to replace or reallocate funding for these needs within the renewed plan.

Recommendation 7: Safeguards for automatic renewal

Section 50A must include: (a) a right for the participant, plan nominee, or advocate to trigger a needs reassessment within 90 days of renewal where there are reasonable grounds the plan does not meet need; (b) a guarantee that one-off funding for items with a multi-year useful life is not lost; and (c) a positive obligation on the CEO to provide the participant with a plain-English, language-appropriate explanation of the renewal.

  1. Section 48A: limiting unscheduled plan reassessments Section 48A introduces higher thresholds for when a participant can request a reassessment of their plan. A participant must demonstrate:
  • A “significant change” in needs
  • That the change is “significant and ongoing”
  • A “substantial reduction” in ability to perform daily activities In practice, this raises the bar for when participants can trigger a review of their supports. Why this is a problem in the NT In the Northern Territory, many participants live with conditions that do not follow a steady or easily documented pattern. These include:

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

  • Episodic psychosocial disability
  • Fluctuating mental health conditions
  • Acquired brain injury
  • Trauma-related disability
  • Progressive or palliative conditions

For many of these participants, deterioration is not always captured through formal clinical documentation. In some cases, there is limited or no ongoing access to a GP or treating clinician.

The requirement for a “substantial reduction” in functioning creates a strong reliance on written clinical evidence. In practice, participants without consistent access to medical professionals may be unable to meet this evidentiary threshold, even where their functional needs have clearly increased.

In the NT context, functional change is often:

  • Episodic rather than linear
  • Influenced by unstable housing and social conditions
  • Affected by justice system involvement
  • Linked to family violence, trauma, or substance use
  • Shaped by service availability and withdrawal

These factors make change both real and significant, but difficult to formally document in real time.

Psychosocial disability and fluctuating conditions Participants with psychosocial disability and related fluctuating conditions are particularly affected.

In the NT, these participants often experience:

  • Unstable, overcrowded and sometimes unsuitable housing
  • Justice system contact
  • Trauma exposure
  • Family violence
  • Substance use challenges
  • Inconsistent engagement with mainstream health services
  • Limited access to specialist mental health supports, especially outside Darwin.

The combination of limited services and increased reliance on documentary evidence creates a risk that participants with genuine increases in support needs will be unable to demonstrate eligibility for reassessment.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Recommendation 8: Alternative threshold for remote and thin-market contexts

Section 48A should include an alternative pathway where the participant lives in MMM6–MMM7 or has limited access to clinical evidence. In those cases, advocate, NDAP or peak-body attested evidence should be sufficient to trigger reassessment.

  1. Section 30(1A) and 40A: suspension and revocation of “uncontactable” participants

Section 30(1A) allows the CEO to revoke a person’s participant status if:

  • “Reasonable attempts” have been made to contact them,
  • They are considered “not contactable”, or
  • Their plan has been suspended under section 40A for 90 days. In effect, participant status (and therefore access to the Scheme) can be removed through a failure of contact processes rather than a deliberate decision by the participant. Why this is a problem in the NT

In the Northern Territory, contact assumptions often do not match lived reality. Across the NT, participants may regularly:

  • Not have a working phone (due to loss, damage, sharing, or lack of credit)
  • Live in remote homelands far from mail collection points
  • Be temporarily absent due to hospitalisation, custody, sorry business, or travel with family
  • Not read or write English, limiting response to written or digital contact. In many cases, NDIA contact is primarily attempted through phone numbers and email addresses. In remote NT contexts, this can be insufficient to establish genuine contact. As a result, participants may be deemed “not contactable” despite being present in their communities and still requiring supports. There is also heightened risk for:
  • Children with disability
  • Participants with cognitive impairment
  • Participants relying on informal carers or ageing family members
  • Participants supported by overstretched community organisations. These groups often depend on others to manage communication with the NDIA. If those communication pathways fail, participant status can be revoked.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Consequences of revocation

If participant status is revoked, the pathway back into the Scheme is through a new access process. Under this Bill, that process is more restrictive than existing arrangements, meaning reinstatement may be difficult without:

  • Advocacy support
  • Updated clinical evidence
  • Sustained engagement with the NDIA. For many participants in remote communities, this creates a risk that revocation is not temporary, but becomes a practical exit from the Scheme.

Service impacts in the NT

Loss of participant status can have immediate and serious consequences, including disruption to:

  • Housing stability
  • Behavioural and psychosocial supports
  • Personal care
  • Medication management
  • Transport
  • Safeguarding arrangements. In remote NT contexts, even short interruptions to supports can quickly escalate into safety risks.

Pattern from advocacy practice: We routinely support participants in remote Central Australian and Top End communities whose plans are suspended, or who lose contact with the NDIA, because phone-based contact attempts have failed. The participants haven’t moved. They are at the same homeland or community where they have always lived. A face-to-face visit by an advocate or community-based worker re-establishes contact within days. The participants are not lost. The contact method is unsuited to the population.

Recommendation 9: Strengthen “reasonable attempts” in sections 30(1A) and 40A

Where the participant is in a MMM6–MMM7 area, or has previously identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, or as requiring interpreter support, “reasonable attempts” must include: (a) contact in plain English and in the participant’s preferred language; (b) contact through nominees, advocates, LACs, and community-controlled organisations on record;

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

and (c) at least one attempt at in-person contact via a local community-based service before suspension or revocation, (d) consideration of cultural obligations, temporary mobility between communities, and homelessness before any finding that a participant is ‘uncontactable’

Recommendation 10: Extend the 90-day period and require pre-revocation advocacy referral

Extend the period in sections 30(1A)(b) and 40A(3) from 90 to 180 days for participants in MMM6–MMM7. Before any revocation under section 30(1A), the CEO must refer the matter to the relevant NDAP provider and allow at least 30 days for the advocate to attempt contact.

Section 34(1A)-(1K): reasonable and necessary supports

The amendments to section 34 introduce three key shifts:

  • A hierarchy of evidence that privileges “published, peer-reviewed and generalisable” research.
  • A presumption against funded supports for children where those supports may reduce burdens on parental time below what is considered “reasonably expected of a parent”.
  • A stronger preference for informal supports and community networks over funded supports. Why this is a problem in the NT

Evidence hierarchy and culturally grounded supports

The approach to evidence risks narrowing what is recognised as effective support. The requirement for “published, peer-reviewed and generalisable” evidence risks excluding or devaluing supports that are effective in practice but not studied through conventional research models. This is particularly relevant for:

  • Culturally grounded therapies
  • On-country supports
  • Community-led disability practice These approaches may have strong practical effectiveness for Aboriginal participants but may not meet conventional evidence thresholds, particularly where research has not been conducted at scale in Aboriginal or remote populations.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

As a result, supports that work in practice may struggle to be funded under the proposed framework.

2. Parental responsibility and kinship care

The provisions in sections 34(1G)-(1J) assume a narrow view of parenting responsibility; assumptions about family structure and caregiving. However, in many Aboriginal communities in the NT, child-rearing is not limited to a single parent or nuclear household. Care is often shared across extended family and kinship networks.

The benchmark of what is “reasonably expected of a parent” risks reflecting a metropolitan, nuclear-family model that does not align with kinship-based caregiving structures.

This is compounded by conditions common in remote NT communities, including:

  • Overcrowded housing
  • Ageing primary carers
  • Grandparent-led care arrangements
  • Multiple family members with disability
  • Limited access to respite or replacement care
  • Cumulative caregiver fatigue due to lack of supports.

In these circumstances, informal caregiving is already stretched to its limits.

3. Preference for informal supports

The increased preference for informal supports in section 34(1K)(b) assumes those supports are available and sustainable.

In many remote NT communities and across the nation, informal supports are already carrying the full burden of care due to limited formal services.

In this context, informal supports are not an optional supplement—they are often the only system in place. Reducing or limiting funded supports on the assumption that informal care can fill the gap risks placing further strain on families and communities.

For many participants, funded supports are what prevent breakdown of care arrangements and reduce harm to both participants and carers.

Recommendation 11: Cultural competence in the evidence hierarchy

Section 34(1E) must expressly recognise that practice-based, culturally-grounded evidence — including evidence developed by Aboriginal community-controlled organisations — is admissible at the same tier as published peer-reviewed research where the participant is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and mainstream evidence is absent or inapplicable.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Recommendation 12: Kinship-aware parental responsibility

Section 34(1G)-(1J) must be amended to recognise extended family and kinship caregiving structures, including in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and in households where caring is shared among multiple family members. The benchmark in section 34(1G) cannot be assessed against a nuclear-family model alone.

  1. Sections 24/25/25A: tightening permanence The combined effect of new sections 24(5), 25(1B) and 25A is to significantly raise the threshold for access where an impairment is, in theory, treatable. As outlined earlier, this is particularly problematic in the NT, where access to mainstream and specialist treatment is already limited. In practice, these provisions assume treatment is available and accessible in ways that often do not exist in the NT context. As a result, participants may be deemed ineligible for supports on the basis that treatment has not been undertaken, even where that treatment is not realistically available. The safeguards and recommendations set out in relation to section 25A are therefore also directly relevant to sections 24(5) and 25(1B). These provisions need to be interpreted and applied with the same “access realism” to ensure people are not excluded from the Scheme due to treatment gaps that reflect system capacity rather than individual circumstances.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Schedule 2 – Fraud measures: position and concerns We support strong fraud controls. Fraud in the NDIS is real and can be significant, and it directly harms participants by diverting funding intended for their supports. In the Northern Territory, we have observed exploitative provider conduct including:

  • inducements to change providers
  • overservicing and rapid depletion of plans
  • coercive or manipulative provider behaviour
  • poor-quality or unsafe supports
  • inappropriate or inflated claiming practices
  • misuse of participant funding We support proportionate reform that strengthens participant safety, improves provider accountability, and targets genuine misconduct without undermining legitimate supports or ethical providers. We also acknowledge broad support across the sector for stronger regulation, improved oversight, and sensible registration reform. These measures should not disadvantage good providers or participants in thin or remote markets where service options are already limited. We raise the following concerns:

10. Civil penalties on participants, nominees, and family members

Several new civil penalty provisions in Schedule 2 Part 2 apply directly to participants, plan nominees, and persons acting for children under section 74 — including section 53(3) (failure to provide information), section 84(8A) (failure of a plan nominee to provide a statement), and section 189(2A) (non-compliance with information requirements). While section 73ZSH(2) excludes participants and nominees from infringement notices, and section 73ZSI(2) excludes them from compliance notices, the underlying civil penalty exposure under section 73ZSG(1) remains available through court processes. This is a significant enforcement power when applied to participants and informal supporters. In NT practice, “information failure” can arise for reasons that are not related to non- compliance or refusal, including where:

  • the participant does not understand the notice
  • a nominee does not receive or comprehend the notice
  • notices are issued in English to first-language speakers of Aboriginal languages such as Yolŋu Matha
  • a participant is in hospital, custody, or on Sorry Business
  • families are temporarily mobile between communities or homelands
  • mail or digital communication does not reach remote households In these circumstances, civil penalty exposure can be disproportionate to the conduct involved. Cultural obligations, ceremonial responsibilities, and mobility between communities

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

are a normal part of life for many Aboriginal participants in the NT and should not be interpreted as disengagement from the Scheme or failure to comply.

Recommendation 13: Limit civil-penalty exposure for participants and nominees

Sections 53(3), 84(8A) and 189(2A) must include an express reasonable-excuse defence where the person is a participant, nominee, or person acting for a child under section 74. Before pursuing civil-penalty proceedings against any such person, the CEO must consider the person’s disability, communication needs, language, cultural factors, and access to advice.

Recommendation 14: Substantive content for the section 73ZSL determination

The Minister’s determination under section 73ZSL — setting conditions for the exercise of monitoring and investigation powers in relation to participants — must be developed in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disability peaks, NT advocacy and legal services, and DPOs. It must include mandatory NT-specific provisions on language, remote-area execution of powers, and cultural safety.

11. Record-keeping obligations on participants: section 45B(5)

Section 45B(5) requires participants who make a claim for an NDIS amount to retain records for three years. Section 182(4) links non-compliance with this requirement to a potential debt outcome. While most NT participants do not self-manage, those who do — including a small number of Aboriginal participants who deliberately choose self-management as an expression of control and independence — face practical barriers to meeting this requirement over a three-year period. In practice, record-keeping is difficult to maintain in many NT contexts. Phones are lost or shared, housing is overcrowded, physical documents are easily misplaced or unsafe to store, and receipts or invoices in English may not be recognised as important documentation at the time they are received. In this environment, a debt arising from section 182(4) due to failure to retain records risks being disproportionate. It may fall most heavily on participants who are actively engaging with self-management in good faith but lack the infrastructure to safely store and manage documentation over time.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Recommendation 15: Participant record-keeping safeguards

Section 45B(5) and the consequent debt provision in section 182(4) must include a reasonable-excuse exception for participants in MMM6–MMM7 areas, participants not provided with accessible information on record-keeping in their preferred language, and participants whose disability affects their capacity to retain records. The NDIA must be required to provide accessible record-keeping tools, including non-written formats, before relying on this provision.

12. Reducing the claim window to 90 days: section 45A(5)

Section 45A(5) reduces the claim window for NDIS payments from two years to 90 days. While the fraud prevention intent is understood, the practical effect in the NT is likely to be significantly different.

In thin and remote markets, legitimate delays in invoicing and claims processing are common and reflect service conditions rather than misconduct. For example:

  • sole trader allied health providers travelling into remote communities may batch invoices quarterly
  • small Aboriginal community-controlled organisations often have limited administrative capacity and delayed processing cycles
  • self-managing participants may receive invoices late from regional providers or visiting services None of these scenarios reflect fraud. However, under a 90-day claim window, all are at risk of becoming unrecoverable. This would disproportionately affect remote service delivery models that already operate with limited workforce and administrative capacity.

Recommendation 16: Extend or carve out the 90-day claim window

Retain a 12-month claim window, or provide in section 45A or the Rules for a longer claim window of at least 6 months where the claim relates to supports provided in an MMM6–MMM7 area, by an Aboriginal community-controlled organisation, or under a self-managed plan.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

13. Plan management provider separation: section 73E and 73EA

We support the policy intent of separating plan management from other supports and addressing conflicts of interest under sections 73E(2B) and 73F(2)(k). These issues have caused real harm in the NT and warrant reform. However, the implementation timeframe in item 101 — particularly the six-month transition period — is too short for NT market conditions. The disability service system in the NT is already fragile, with a very limited number of standalone plan managers and significant pressure on existing providers. A number of organisations will need to restructure to comply with the new requirements. If a participant is unable to secure a compliant plan manager within the transition period, the practical outcome under section 73EB is a shift to either agency management or self-management. In many cases, neither option is appropriate or workable for participants, particularly in remote communities or where literacy, language, or service access barriers are present. Without adequate transition support and timeframes, there is a risk that the reform will unintentionally reduce service continuity in regions where plan management options are already limited.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Schedule 3 — Governance: automation

14. Automation of administrative action: section 59B

Schedule 3 Part 2 authorises the CEO to use computer programs to make administrative decisions, including decisions involving “evaluative determinations” — meaning decisions that require discretion, judgement, or assessment of a person’s state of mind. While the safeguards in sections 59D and 59E are noted, the use of automated decision-making in the NT context carries heightened risk. The disability community has previously expressed strong concerns about attempts to rely on standardised assessment and decision-making models, including the proposed Independent Assessments reforms in 2021. Those concerns included the risk that complex disability, psychosocial disability, cultural context, communication differences and environmental factors would not be accurately reflected in administrative processes. These risks are amplified in the Northern Territory, where participant circumstances are often shaped by remoteness, language diversity, cultural considerations and limited service availability.In practical terms, key concerns include:

  • Automated systems trained on aggregated data are likely to misclassify atypical or less statistically common participant profiles. This includes remote Aboriginal participants with complex support needs, participants who are non-verbal or communicate in Aboriginal languages, and participants whose cultural or living circumstances do not fit standard administrative categories.
  • Section 59E(4) requires that participants be notified when a decision is automated, however section 59E(5) provides that failure to provide that notice does not affect the validity of the decision. This creates a risk that participants in remote communities may be affected by automated decisions without ever being aware that automation was involved.
  • While sections 59B(7)-(9) allow the CEO to substitute or correct an automated decision, this relies on the error being identified. In the NT context, errors are often only detected after delays, by which time supports may already have been reduced or discontinued. This delay disproportionately affects participants in remote areas where advocacy, service access, and communication pathways are limited. Overall, there is a risk that automated decision-making systems will not adequately account for the diversity of participant circumstances in the NT, particularly where communication methods, cultural context, and service access do not align with standardised administrative assumptions.

Recommendation 18: Automation safeguards

Section 59E must require: (a) notice of automation in accessible format and in the participant’s preferred language; (b) that automation must not be used for any access,

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

  • eligibility, revocation, suspension, or plan-reduction decision in respect of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander participant, a participant in MMM6–MMM7, or a participant flagged as requiring interpreter or communication support — except with human concurrence; and (c) annual public reporting disaggregated by remoteness and Indigenous status.

Closing the Gap: how this Bill engages the National Agreement

In its current form, this Bill is not consistent with the Commonwealth’s obligations under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap and is likely to undermine progress across several key outcome areas.

Priority Reform 1: Formal partnerships and shared decision-making

There is no clear evidence that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disability peaks or Aboriginal community-controlled organisations were engaged in formal partnership in the development of this Bill. The reforms proposed are significant, particularly in relation to access, planning, and compliance. These changes will disproportionately affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants. However, they do not appear to have been developed in line with the partnership requirements set out in clause 32 of the National Agreement.

Priority Reform 2: Building the community-controlled sector

Reforms relating to plan management separation and provider integrity may have unintended impacts on the already small but growing Aboriginal community-controlled disability sector in the NT. Without targeted implementation support, there is a risk these changes will place additional pressure on Aboriginal community-controlled organisations operating in an already constrained service environment. Transition support will be required to ensure these organisations are not disproportionately affected.

Priority Reform 3: Transforming mainstream institutions

This Priority Reform is most directly engaged by the Bill. The NDIS is a mainstream system, and the Bill significantly reshapes how that system operates. However, several design features raise concern in the NT context, including tighter access ules (sections 25A and 25B), assumptions that alternative mainstream supports are available (including section 34(1)(g)), and an enforcement-focused approach to compliance. In combination, these changes risk strengthening a system that is already not functioning effectively for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants in the NT, rather than transforming it. There is a risk that the cumulative effect will reduce rather than improve access to disability supports in the NT, despite longstanding evidence that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander are underrepresented in the NDIS relative to need.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Priority Reform 4: Shared access to data and information

The Bill includes extensive powers relating to information gathering and the use of protected information. However, it does not establish a corresponding obligation to share relevant data with Aboriginal community-controlled organisations or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disability peaks. This limits opportunities for external accountability and shared monitoring of outcomes under the National Agreement. Closing the Gap outcomes specifically engaged

  • Outcome 14 (social and emotional wellbeing): Provisions relating to suspension and revocation of participants who are “not contactable” may contribute to distress and increased risk in an already vulnerable population.
  • Outcome 17 (digital inclusion): Increased reliance on digital systems and electronic processes risks deepening exclusion in a jurisdiction where digital access remains uneven and not on track.
  • Disability Sector Strengthening Plan: The Bill’s tighter access settings and increased reliance on informal supports are not aligned with the objectives of strengthening disability systems, particularly in remote and under-served regions

Recommendation 19: Closing the Gap Impact Statement

Before further passage of this Bill, the Government should publish a Closing the Gap Impact Statement, prepared in partnership with the Coalition of Aboriginal Peak Organisations and First Peoples Disability Network, and table it in the Senate. Provisions affecting access, suspension, revocation, or reductions should not commence until that statement has been published and considered.

Recommendation 20: Independent evidence of cultural validation and remote-area testing

Before implementation of any standardised assessment framework, the Government should publish independent evidence of cultural validation and remote-area testing undertaken in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disability organisations and Aboriginal community-controlled organisations.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Implementation: advocacy services in the NT will need Whatever form the Bill ultimately takes, implementation in the NT will require:

  • Resourcing of NDIS Appeals (NDAP) advocacy services in the NT proportionate to the increase in revocations, suspensions, access denials and reassessment refusals the Bill will generate. Current funding is already inadequate; the Bill, without resourcing, will overwhelm advocacy capacity in Alice Springs and Darwin. The Bill is also likely to increase pressure on already overstretched NT health, housing, justice, m mental health, homelessness and child protection systems as participants lose access to supports or experience reductions in funded care without equivalent alternative systems being established.
  • Resourcing of community legal services and disability legal services to provide representation in ART and Federal Court matters arising under Schedule 2’s enforcement framework.
  • A dedicated NT implementation table including NDIA, NDIS Commission, NT Government, DAS, IDA, DCLS, First Peoples Disability Network, NTCOSS, APO NT, and the Office of the Public Guardian.
  • A 24-month moratorium on revocations under sections 30(1A) and 40A in MMM6–MMM7 areas while implementation safeguards are put in place.
  • Mandatory cultural-safety and interpreter requirements for all NDIA monitoring, investigation, compliance and enforcement powers exercised in the NT, under the section 73ZSL determination.
  • Investment in remote planning capacity, including funded local planning facilitators and Aboriginal disability liaison roles in every NT NDIA office.
  • A Remote and Very Remote Community Impact Assessment before commencement, examining the likely effects of the Bill on access, service continuity, community participation, cultural participation, employment, education and social inclusion for participants living in MMM6 and MMM7 locations.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Summary of Recommendations

# Recommendation
1 Amend section 9B so assessments take environmental and cultural context into account; record NT-specific factors.
2 Repeal section 25A(2): “appropriate treatment” must consider genuine access – geography, cost, culture, language.
3 Insert remote and cultural safeguard in section 25A before any “failed to undertake treatment” finding.
4 Require genuine availability test before any “alternative support” declaration under section 25B.
5 Compensation-scheme carve-out in section 25B where the person cannot in practice access compensation.
6a Constrain section 34A – consultation, equity impact, MMM6–MMM7 protection, sunset on reduction instruments.
6b Protect social, civic and community participation supports by requiring a published impact assessment for any section 34A funding reduction.
7 Section 50A safeguards: right to trigger reassessment, retention of multi-year one-off funding, accessible explanation.
8 Lower section 48A threshold in remote and thin-market contexts; allow advocate-attested evidence.
9 Strengthen “reasonable attempts” in sections 30(1A) and 40A – multi-channel and in-person contact in MMM6–MMM7.
10 Extend 90-day period to 180 days in remote NT; mandatory advocacy referral before revocation.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Recommendation

  • Section 34(1E) – culturally-grounded evidence admissible at top tier for Aboriginal participants.

  • Section 34(1G)–(1J) – recognise kinship and shared family caregiving structures.

  • Sections 53(3), 84(8A), 189(2A) – reasonable-excuse defence for participants, nominees, and family carers.

  • Section 73ZSL determination developed in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peaks and NT services.

  • Section 45B(5) – reasonable-excuse exception for remote and limited-literacy self-managing participants.

  • Extend claim window beyond 90 days for MMM6–MMM7, ACCOs, and self-managed plans.

  • Extend plan-management transition to 18 months for NT-based providers; publish NDIA-managed alternatives.

  • Automation safeguards – human concurrence for high-stakes decisions affecting Aboriginal and remote participants.

  • Publish Closing the Gap Impact Statement prepared in partnership with COAPO and FPDN before further passage.

  • Publish independent evidence of cultural validation and remote-area testing undertaken in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disability organisations and Aboriginal community-controlled organisations.

  • Adequate resourcing of advocacy services in the NT.

  • Undertake and publish a Remote and Very Remote Community Impact Assessment before commencement.

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Conclusion

We support the integrity objectives of this Bill. Fraud against the Scheme and exploitative provider conduct cause direct harm to people with disability, particularly those who are most vulnerable. A serious and proportionate response is necessary.

We also support genuine reform that strengthens participant safety, improves system integrity, and addresses exploitative provider conduct. However, reforms of this scale must be developed and implemented in genuine partnership with the communities most affected, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their representative organisations.

In its current form, the Bill remains materially incomplete. It seeks to improve Scheme integrity primarily through tightening access, reducing funding, increasing evidentiary thresholds, and expanding mechanisms for suspension and exit of participants who are deemed uncontactable, untreated, or unable to demonstrate change. In metropolitan settings with thick service markets, stable housing, and consistent access to mainstream supports, those settings may operate as intended.

In the Northern Territory, and particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants, the same assumptions do not hold. Service markets are thin or absent, mainstream alternatives are limited or inaccessible, digital and literacy barriers are significant, and culturally safe services are unevenly available. In that context, provisions that rely on theoretical access to treatment, services, or communication systems risk translating into loss of supports rather than improved efficiency.

Participant safety must remain the central test of any NDIS reform. In the Northern Territory, NDIS-funded supports often function as critical safeguarding infrastructure in communities where alternative service systems are limited or absent. Measures that strengthen sustainability by reducing access to essential supports, without ensuring that viable alternative systems are in place and operational, create foreseeable and preventable risks for individuals, families, and communities.

The Bill therefore requires substantial amendment before it can proceed. We urge the Committee to recommend that it not be passed in its current form, and that the Government undertake genuine co-design and redrafting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disability peaks, NT disability advocacy and legal services, and disabled people’s organisations, particularly in relation to access, suspension, revocation, automation, and reasonable and necessary supports.

In the Northern Territory, the consequences of getting this balance wrong are not administrative or procedural. They are direct and foreseeable impacts on housing stability, health, safety, community participation, and, in some cases, life itself. Reform must not proceed on the assumption that unsupported participants will be absorbed by systems that do not yet exist at scale.For many participants in the Northern Territory, NDIS funding is what makes community participation possible. It enables people to attend school, remain in employment, engage in culture, maintain family and kinship connections, participate in

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

community life and avoid isolation. Any reform that reduces access to these supports must be assessed against its impact on social inclusion, community participation and the rights of people with disability, particularly in remote and very remote communities where alternative supports are often absent.

We thank the Committee for the opportunity to make this submission and would welcome the opportunity to appear at any public hearing.

Page 35 of 36

Submission 160

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Sources cited