NDIA Accountability Project

This project is in DRAFT

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

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

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Securing the NDIS for Future Generations - Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission

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

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, Palerston, the Top End rural area and Katherine; Tennant Creek and the Barkly; Alice Springs, the MacDonnell, Central Desert and Tanami areas; an d t he remote homelands ac ro ss Cent ral Au stralia . T h e combined caseload reflects how th e ND IS falls short in practice fo r participants i n one o f thr es under-serviced an d disadvantaged jurisdictions int he country. We support the B ill’s stated aims of integrity , fraud prevention, ana nd scheme sustainability.N D I S fra ud – whether by exploitative providers, organised criminal activity or unscrupulous plan managers– harms partic ipants p articularly those who are isolated non-verbal livingin remo te communitiesor without informal supports Reform is needed However,in its current form,the Bi ll will cause seriousand predictable harm toNDIS participantsi nt hen orth erT erritory,andtoAboriginalan dt ores Strait Islanderpartici pants In particular Several provisions assume a metropolitan service market,a literate anda digita l ly connected participant,anda main stream ser vices that simply do not existinthe NT TheBi ll also assumes safeguardsandreplacem entsystemsthat across large partsofthe Northern Territoryare theoretical rather than operational inp actice When these assumptions failinthent ite burdenoscheme sustainabilit yshiftsontothep people least abletocarryitWhen NDISsupportsarereduceddelayedoremoved, participantsoftenhave nowhere else t og o; thereis no alternative sup portsystem Rather thantransitioningintoanotherfunctioningsupport system they frequently fall throughthegaps entirely increasingtheriskohomelessness hospitalisation justice and child protection systems contact institutionalisation suicide an d preventableharm. Page 2 of36

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

Submission 160

Joint DAS/IDA/DCLS Submission - NDIS Amendment Securing The NDIS For Future Generations Bill 2026

This submission sets out thirteen areas of concern and makes twenty three recommendations. We do not oppose the bill — We urge the committee to recommend substantial amendments beforitpasses. Weareparticularlyconcernedthatthereformsaerebeingprogressedaheadoftheestablishmentofof adequatefoundationalsupports,mainsstreamdisabilitysupportsandculturallysafeservicessystemsintheNorthernTerritory.Withoutthosesystemsinplace,the practicaleffectoftighteningaccessandreducing supportswillbeincreasedcrisisaharmforvulnerableparticipantsandasamilies. Participants,familiesandaladvocacyorganisationshavealreadyexperiencedyearsofonngoing reform,reassessmentandoncertaintywithinthenDis.Reforms oft this scale require careful implementation,meaningfulconsultationandsafeguardsavoid furthererosiontrustinthescheme.

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.

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.

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

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, amuch higher proportion of Aboriginal to Torres Strait Islander people than any other jurisdiction.- These factors fundamentally affect howtheNDS worksinpractice. AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderpeoplemakeuparound%ofthentpopulation,the highestproportionanyjurisdiction,andmanyremotecommunitiesthesoproportionsignificantlyhigher.^^ Aboriginaland Torresstraiislanders are also overrepresented amongNDIS participantsinthetNT, making up %participants., and around40% ntparticipantslive remote areas.. This means cultural safety fundamental to operation NDINNorthernTerritory Many participate engage withservices acrosslanguage,cultural geographic barriers their ability access understand navigateScheme heavily influenced whether service culturally safe responsive Assessment processes planning conversations compliance activities communication methods thatnotculturally safefirst producing poorer outcomes reducing engagement creating barriersto accessing supports At same time AboriginalandTorrestraislans remain under represented INSDS nationally relativedisability prevalence Research presented Disability Royal Commission found AboriginalandTorrestrait islanderswere28less likely receive NDIS supportthan non Indigenous Australians. , fewer1 of providersare Aboriginaland Torres Stratislands organisations .

How NDIS Participants Are Impacted

Across the NT thin failing service markets norm many communities face ongoing shortages qualified culturalsafe reliable provider Workforce shortageprovider withdrawal inconsistentservice quality exploitative practices mean participant often have little genuine choice In many remotecommunityschoice control does notmean choosing between multipleproviders Participantsoften accept whichever is available regardlessofquality culturalsecurity or suitability go withoutsupport entirely Changing providers can place existing services at risk Formany Territorianswith disability particularlyAboriginal participantsremotecommunities issue simplywhether servicsexist but whethersafe ethical reliablesupport areavailable The language “Choice and Control”does alwaysreflect conditions on ground Systems expected sit outsideNDS alsounderdeveloped Many partsNT there limited no locally psychosocialsupportsbehavioural supports disabilitiespecific community programs early intervention pathways NNDISoften functions primary support system becauselittle elseabsorb unmetneed. Workforceshortages further limit access Allied health professionals behaviour practitioners specialist disability accommodation remains chronically scarce Public

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

Submission 160 Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 csystem 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 many other languages spoken across the Territory Interpreters are limited written English literacy varies considerably These barriers compounded unreliable internet phone connectivity remote areas Closing Gap Target digital inclusion remaining off track Together these factors create real risk participants particularly Aboriginal participants communities fall between disability mainstream services without either system meeting need How proposed amendments make problems worse The Productivity Commission Annual Data Compilation Report identified NT worst performing jurisdiction against National Agreement Closing Gap progress worsening eight targets Despite this Bill introduces reforms built around assumptions 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 reality disability service delivery NT If ongoing participation Scheme depends participant contactable by phone or email navigating online portal providing documentary evidence within strict timeframes attending assessments accessing appropriate treatment obtaining support from mainstream services will face significant barriers When fail consequences serious Participants may lose to scheme essential supports circumstances alternative systems exist respond creates foreseeable risks harm including abuse neglect avoidable adverse outcomes Sequencing reform major concern Bill tightens NDIS supports increases reliance mainstrea foundational services before adequately established Northern Territory should not loss disability supports assumption that alternative systems response where those underdeveloped inaccessible absent altogether

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

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 telecommunicationns transport interpreters health professionals disability providers advocates services mainstream supports These assumptions do not reflect reality many parts Northern Territory . The consortium supports measures reducing fraud improving provider accountability strengthening safeguards participant Fraud exploitative provider behaviour misuse funds cause real harm undermine confidence scheme In remote communitie stronger oversight regulatory action help address predatory practices overservicing inappropriate claiming conflicts interest exploitation vulnerable We support proportionate reforms improve safety strengthen accountability provided those reforms create additional barriers people disability live remotest areas .

Implementation Challenges

Many remoteveryremotecommunities service infrastructure required make work safely Participants may face:

  • limited access specialist health services
  • limited allied health professional availability
  • workforce shortages
  • limited choice
  • poor telecommunications
  • interpreter availability
  • high travel costs
  • advocacy services housing instability. Participant Risks For remoteandveryreemoteparticipants risks significant The Bill may: increase barriers accessing ndis reliance evidence assessments difficult obtain reduce where thin failing Page #7\of 36

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

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.

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

Submission 160 Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Schedule 1 - Access and planning: 13 concerns

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 their actual living conditions in which they live.

Why this problem exists NT The immediate significant impacts are felt within Northern Territory For example, Aboriginal participants with cerebral palsy residing remotely might demonstrate one level self-care during clinical assessments at Darwin hospitals; however these same individuals may function differently when returning home due overcrowded households extreme heat unreliable power inaccessible facilities limited ongoing allied health support,

The Bill directs assessors not consider such factors leading risk that participants appear more capable assessment setting than everyday environment This can lead artificially elevated functional capacities reductions funded supports Broader concern approach reinforces under-recognition disability among Indigenous peoples undermining Closing Gap Disability Sector Strengthening Plan Additional concerns about future assessment processes We also concerned bill relies heavily on standardised assessment yet fully explained tested validated remote culturally diverse settings Important details remain unclear including Assessor qualifications Interpreter use Cultural safety requirements Assessment approaches for cognitive impairment Psychosocial disability Communication barriers Limited English literacy These particularly important because these assessments ultimately influence Scheme access decisions but also plan budgets reassessment outcomes Page 9 of 36

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

Submission 160 Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission ”NDIS Amendment Securing the NDIS for Future Generations” Bill 2026 Before implementation assessment tools should independently validated shown to culturally safe fit purpose remote Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander contexts At present there is insufficient publicly available evidence proposed assessment tools been culturally validated Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander participants living communities.

Consultation And Scrutiny Concerns We are also concerned compressed consultation parliamentary scrutiny process legislation scale The Bill proposes major structural reforms affecting access reassessment planning regulation compliance review rights while many operational details remain deferred future Rules guidelines administrative processes not yet released Meaningful consultation northern territory requires additional time remoteness language diversity interpreter needs and culturally safe engagement processes require different approach Current timeframe does support genuine consultation with communities likely most affected these reforms

Recommendation Amend Section 9B

Amend section so that assessments take account rather exclude participant’s environmental personal circumstances rules made under must assessors record environment cultural context capacity being assessed including remoteness, language factors specific NT #Section `

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 behavioura ltherapy 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 consistencywiththe Commonwealth’s commitments under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.The provisionsare also likelysto disproportionately affectparticipants wit h:

  • Psychosocialdisability
  • Fluctuating conditions
  • Trauma-related disabilit y
  • Cognitive impairment.`

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

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; complex set practical barrier we see repeatedly.Under proposed section 25A this could told treatment appropriate impairment therefore permanent Access would refused on that basis.

Recommendation 2: Repeal access-blind Section 25A(2)

Repeal section 25A(2); accompanying note “Appropriate” must take account whether genuine accessible person location circumstances Treatment within reasonable distance culturally safe linguistically appropriate form unmet out-of-pocket cost considered “appropriate” purposes decisions.

Recommendation Remote Cultural Safeguard Inclusion Section 25A

Before finding participant undertaken all appropriate treatment CEO must consider remoteness classification language cultural circumstance genuinely available culturally safe treatment location. 3. Section eligibility based other services Excludes NDIS eligibility if their impairment results motor vehicle accident work-related injury another compensation scheme provides for benefits Bill also gives broad powers alternative supports future Rules. Page 12 of 36

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

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 Darwin Palmerston regional remote communities As result person technically eligible through another scheme while remaining unable meaningful practice.The risk participants excluded from because pathway exists theory rather than genuinely available.

Broader concerns about “alternative supports”

The concern extends beyond compensation schemes.Section allows Minister declare additional “alternative supports.” However does require those supported genuine funded staff or available before relied upon.This creates mainstream treated substitutes even where they lack capacity funding workforce specialist expertise meet participant needs also places increased pressure on providers who may not funded equipped level expected under Scheme.In parts of NT health mental aged-care already significant pressure Services ration unavailable culturally safe options always available.#### Recommendation Genuine availability adequacy testSection must require Minister declaring alternative support satisfied that it truly funded accessible all jurisdictions remoteness areas Rules include specific access test developed partnership NT community controlled organisations Torres Strait Islander disability peaks.Page 13/36

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

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 assessmentof who will be affected and how. The Bill also expressly allows a situationwhereaparticipant’s plan may ultimately provide less funding thanthe total cost of their assessedand approvedreasonable and necessarysupports. **Why thisisaprobleminthenT:**The impact offundingreductionsinth Northern Territory istifferent from metropolitan areas because disability service markets operate very differently.Across much oft heNT , thinmarkets are thenorm.Participants often havelimited provider options anda little flexibility if servicesare reducedor withdrawn.Inlarger jurisdictions,a reductioninfundingmaybeabsorbethrough competition, alternative providers ora lower-costserviceoptions.I nmany remoten T communities,thosealternatives simply do no texist.A reduc tiono f10 -2 0% ma y appearmodest in policy terms,b ut intr emoteservice market s it can hav every different effect.Ratherthanproducingefficiencies,itcanmake servicedelivery financiallyunviable.The resultm aynotb echeaper supports.It m aybefewersupports – orn osuppor ts at all.\Page [4] o f36

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

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 allow people with disabilities leave their homes, engage with their communities as equal citizens.NDIS-funded community participation supports assist people with disability to: • attend school training employment

  • participate in community events engage sport recreation cultural activities maintain family kinship connections attend health appointments access essential services build independence reducing isolation exercise choice control over lives Reducing access support may have unintended consequences including increased social isolation reduced education employement participation increasing reliance carers poorer mental health pressure healthcare housing community services For Aboriginal participants remot very remot communitie includes culture obligations connection Country ceremony responsibilities maintaining kinship relationships These activites fundamental wellbeing inclusion should treated nonessential

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

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 easons 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 sunseton anyreduction instrument.

Recommendation 6B : Protectcommunity participation supports

Section mustrequireanyMinisterial determination affecting social, civicor communityparticipation supportsto include apublishedimpact assessment one participantsin remotelandveryremoteareas ,including impacts onculturalparticip ation,social inclusion employmenteducation,familykinshipconnection,and access communitylife . 5.Section automatic plan renewal Section providesforautomatic renewalsof anexistingplan underthe oldframework essentia llyrollingtheplanoverwiththesamewordingsubjecttoan y Ministerialalteration s.The renewal decision itself is not reviewable. Reassessment dates are effectively converted into plan enddates rather thantriggeringareassess mentprocess The provision also excludes certainone-off funding itemsfrombeing carriedforwardinto the renewedplann Why thisisaprobleminth e NT InthenorthernTerritory manyparticipantsparticularlyAboriginalparticipantspoplei nremotecommunitiesandanewstothescheme receivethat do no t fullyreflect theirneeds This canoccurfarangeofpracticalreasons including:

  • Assessments conducted without interpreters -Limited culturalsupport during planning conversations -Time constraints in pl ann ing processes Lack of family orcomm unity involvement indecisionmaking. Page 16 o f36

Submission

Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment Bill Securing Future Generations 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 result inadequate plans risk being carried forward unchanged extended periods particularly concerning nt where participants limited access advocacy service options significant barriers initiating reviews themselves Additional concern: loss one-off funding items Section (b) also excludes certain from including renewed plans includes such as:

  • Assistive technology replacement Home modifications delivered stages Training packages capacity-building items There clear requirement replace reallocating within renewed plan Recommendation Safeguards automatic Renewal must include right Participant nominee advocate trigger needs assessment days renew guarantee one off multi-year useful life lost positive obligation CEO provide plain English language appropriate explanation renewal

Limiting unscheduled Plan Reassessments

Section introduces higher thresholds when can request reassessment A participant demonstrate a “significant change” in needs That is ongoing substantial reduction ability perform daily activities In practice raises bar for triggering their supports Why this problem NT many live conditions do follow steady easily documented pattern These

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

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.`

Page 18 of 36

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 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.

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, or 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 failure of contact processes rather than deliberate decision by the participant.Why this is a problem in NTIn Northern Territory, assumptions often do match lived reality.Across the NT, participants may regularly:not having working phone due loss damage sharing lack creditLive homelands far from mail collection pointsBe temporarily absent hospitalisation custody sorry business travel familyNot read write English limiting response written digital contact.NDIA primarily attempted via phone numbers email addresses Remote NT context insufficient establish genuine contact.As result participate deemed uncontactable despite being present communities still requiring supports.There also heightened risk children disabilityParticipants cognitive impairmentRelying informal carers ageing family membersSupported overstretched community organisationsThese groups depend others manage communication with NDIA. If thosecommunication pathways fail participation revoked.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment Submission 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 risk not temporary but becomes practical exit from scheme Service impacts NT Loss Participant Status can have immediate serious consequences including disruption to housing stability Behavioural psychosocial supports Personal care Medication management Transport Safeguarding arrangement In Remote contexts even short interruptions safety risks Pattern advocacy practice We routinely support Participants Central Australian Top End whose plans suspended or lose contact phone based contact failed The haven’t moved They are same homeland where they always lived face-to-face visit advocate re-establishes within days Not lost Contact method unsuited population Recommendation Strengthen reasonable attempts sections (1) and A Where participant MMM area Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander requires interpreter must include: plain English preferred language; b) nominees advocates LACs community-controlled organisations on record Page #of36

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

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 local community-based service before suspension or revocation; d: Consideration cultural obligations temporary mobility between communities homelessness prior finding participant ‘uncontactable’

Recommendation 10 Extend period days require pre-revocation advocacy referral

Extend periods sections from to MMM6–MMM7 Before any revocation under section CEO must refer matter NDAP provider allow advocate try contact.

Section reasonable and necessary supports

The amendments introduce three key shifts:

  • A hierarchy that privileges “published peer-reviewed generalisable” research;
  • Presumption against funded children reduce parental time below what is considered “reasonably expected parent”
  • Stronger preference informal supports over funded supports. Why this problem NT?

Evidence hierarchy culturally grounded supports The approach evidence risks narrowing effective support requirement published, peer-reviewed generalisable’ excludes devalues practical but not conventional models. This particularly relevant therapies on-country supports Community-led disability practice These approaches may have strong effectiveness Aboriginal participants meet conventional thresholds conducted scale Aboriginal remote populations.`

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

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.

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.

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 arrangementsand reduce harm to both participants and carers.## Recommendation 11: Cultural competence in the evidence hierarchySection 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 isAboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and mainstream evidence is absent or inapplicable.Page 22 of 36

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

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 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families as well as households sharing caring among multiple members; benchmarking under Section 34(1G), however, cannot assess against a nuclear-family model alone.

Sections 24/25/25A: tightening permanence

The combined effect of new sections 24(5), 25(1B), & 25A significantly raises access thresholds where an impairment is treatable in theory but problematic given limited mainstream/specialist care availability NT context participants may thus deemed ineligible supports treatment not realistically available despite this being unrealistic assumption these provisions make regarding accessibility. The safeguards set out with respect section 25A are also directly relevant towards other sections such that same “access realism” interpretation applied ensure people excluded from Scheme due system capacity rather than individual circumstances.

Schedule 2 – Fraud measures: position and concerns

We support strong fraud controls. Fraud in the NDIS is real and can be significant, it directly harms participants by diverting funding intended to their supports.“In”the Northern Territory,“we have observed exploitative providerconductincluding:

  • inducementsto change providers
  • overservicingand rapid depletionof plans
  • coerciveor manipulativeproviderbehaviour
  • poor-qualityorsafesupports
  • inappropriateorflatedclaimingpractices
  • misuseparticipantfunding We support proportionate reform that strengthens participant safety,

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

Submission 160 Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 civil-penalty exposure for participants and nominees Sections must include where person is participant, nominee, or acting under sec74. Before pursuing civil-proceedings against such persons CEO must consider disability communication needs language cultural factors access advice.

Recommendation Substantive content determination

The Minister’s setting conditions monitoring investigation powers relation participants — must partnership Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander peaks NT advocacy legal services DPPOs it includes mandatory provisions specific remote-area execution power culture safety.

Record-keeping obligations: Section B requires participants make claim amount three years non-compliance potential debt outcome.

While most do not self-manage those including small number choose self-expression control independence face practical barriers meeting requirement period in practice record keeping difficult maintain many contexts phones lost shared housing overcrowded physical documents easily misplaced unsafe store receipts invoices English may recognised as important documentation time received environment a section due to failure retain records risks disproportionate It fall heavily on who actively engaging good faith lack infrastructure safely storing managing over time. Page of

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

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-MMN7 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.

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 six months where the claim relates to supports provided in an MMM6-MMN7 area by an Aboriginal community-controlled organisation, or under a self-managed plan.

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

Submission 160

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

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.

Recommendation 17: Transition period for plan-management separation in the NT

Extend the transitional period in item 101 to 18 months for participants whose nominated plan management provider is based in or primarily operates in the NT. Before commencement, the Agency must publish a list of NDIA-managed alternatives available to NT participants in each region. Page 27 of 36

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 160 Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission – NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Schedule 3 — Governance: automation

Automating Administrative Action - section 59B

Schedule Part II authorizes the CEO to use computer programs to make decisions involving “evaluative determinations”—decisions requiring discretion or judgment. While sections (\text{59D}~and ~ ext{59E}) provide some safeguarding measures, it is noted there are heightened risks associated with automated decision-making within NT contexts due to concerns raised from disability communities regarding reliance on standardized assessment models, including proposed Independent Assessments reforms introduced earlier this year [in] 2021]. These include misclassification issues related complex disabilities, psychosocial conditions, cultural context differences and environmental factors which may not accurately reflect in administrative processes; these amplified further considering remoteness, language diversity among participants who often face limited service availability and communication barriers. The key practical concerns highlighted:

  • Automated systems trained using aggregated data can lead to incorrect classifications of atypical participant profiles. This includes remote Aboriginal individuals needing specialized support needs as well non-verbal speakers communicating through Indigenous languages; or those whose circumstances do not fit standard categories.
  • Section E4 requires notification when a decision has been made automatically but E5 states failure does not affect its validity thereby creating risk that people living remotely might be affected by such decisions without realizing automation was involved
  • Sections B7–B9 allow the CEO substitute/correct an automatic decision if error identified yet delays detection common in NT areas where advocacy services access & communications pathways are restricted leading disproportionate impact upon residents residing far away. Overall, it’s risky for automated decision making systems fail adequately account diverse participant situations particularly given mismatch between communication methods culture/service accessibility with assumed standards assumptions.

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 rules (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·intheNDISrelative toneed.

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

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 underserved 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, tabled at Senate level before provisions affecting access, suspension, revocation, reductions can 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 must publish independent evidence of cultural validation and remote area testing undertaken by partnerships between Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander disability organisations and community-controlled bodies.

Implementation: advocacy services in the NT will need

Whatever form the Bill ultimately takes, implementation in the NT will require:

  • Resourcing NDIS Appeals (NDAP) advocacy services proportionate to increases due to revocation/suspension/access denial/reassessment refusals from the Bill; current funding is inadequate. The Bill without resourcing would overwhelm Alice Springs/Darwin’s already overstretched health/housing/justice systems as well as mental health/homelessness/child protection systems if participants lose support or experience care reductions with no equivalent alternative supports established;
  • Resourcing legal services for representation at ART/Federal Court matters under Schedule enforcement framework;
  • Establishing a dedicated NT implementation table involving entities like NDIA/NIDIS Commission/NT Government/DAS/IDA/DCLS/First Peoples Disability Network/NCOTSS/APO NT/Optimisation Guardian;
  • A moratorium on sections 30(1A)/40A revocations over MMMS areas lasting up until safeguards are put into place while implementing these changes;
  • Mandatory cultural-safety and interpreter requirements across all monitoring/investigation/compliance/enforcement powers exercised within the NT per section determination of 73ZSL; -Investment towards remote planning capacity including funded local facilitators and Aboriginal disability liaison roles throughout every NT office; -A Remote & Very Remote Community Impact Assessment before commencement, examining likely effects such access/service continuity/community/cultural participation employment education social inclusion for MMM6/MMM7 locations.

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” 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. b) Protect social, civic and community participation supports by requiring a published impact assessment for any section 34A funding reduction. | | 7b) | Section 50A safeguards: right to trigger reassessment, retention of multi-year one-off funding, accessible explanation. | | 8c) | Lower section 48A threshold in remote and thin-market contexts; allow advocate-attested evidence | | 9d) | Strengthen

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

Submission 160 Joint DAS / IDA / DCLS submission - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 | # | Recommendation | |-| |# Section (E)- culturally-grounded evidence admissible at top tier for Aboriginal participants.

Section G-J- recognise kinship shared family caregiving structures.

Sections ,84,189 reasonable excuse defence for participants,

nominees,,andfamilycarers.

Section ZSL determination developed genuinepartnershipwithAboriginalTorresStraitIslanderpeaksNTservices.

Section B5reasonableexcuseexceptionforremote limitedliteracy selfmanagingparticipants.

Extend claim window beyond days MMM-MM7ACCOsselfmanaged plans. Extend planmanagement transition to months NTbased providerspublish NDIA managed alternatives. Automation safeguards human concurrence highstakes decisions affecting Aboriginalemote participants. publish Closing Gap Impact Statement prepared partnership COAPOFPDN before further passage. PUBLISH independentevidence cultural validation remotearea testing undertaken in partnership with Torres Strait Islander disability organisations and communitycontrolledorganisations. advisory services nt adequate resourcing of advocacy services nthe nt. Undertake publish Remote VeryRemote CommunityImpact Assessment commencement.

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 certainty, and addresses exploitative provider conduct However reforms of this scale must\nbeg developed an implemented n genuine partnership wth communities most affected including Aboriginal nd Torres Strait Islander peopie and their representative organisations In its current form The Bll remains materially incomplete it seeks improve Schemc integrt primarily through tightening access reducing fundng increasing evidentiary thresholds expanding mechanisms for suspension exit of partipants whr deemed uncontactable untreated or unable demonstrate change In metropolitan settings thick service markets stable housing consistent accs to mainstream supports those setings may operate as intended \nin Northern Territory particularly f Aborigina and Torres Strai Isander participants same assumptions do not hold Service market thin absent mainstrem alternatives limited inaccessible digital literacy barriers significant culturally safe services unevenly available in context provisions rely theoretical acss treatment servces communication systems risk translating into loss suppts rather than improved efficiency Participant safet must remain central test any NDIS reorm In Northern Terriorty NDS funded supp often function critical safeguarding infrastructure communit where alternative servc systms limted absen Measures strengthen sustainability by reducss acces essentil suports without ensurin viable alterntve sysmns are place operational create foreseeable preventble risks individuals families communites The Bill therefore requires substantial amendment before can proceed We urge Committee recommend that not passed currnct form Government undertake genuin co design redraft with Aboriginal nndorrs Striat Islnder disability peaks NT disabily advocacy legal sevices disabled people s organisations particularlty relation acess suspensio revocation automation reasonable necessary support\nIn the Norther Trritory consequences getting this balance wrong administrative procedural They direct foreseeabl impacts on housng stability health safety community participation some cases life itself Reform must not procede assumption unsupported partipants will absorbed system yet exist scale For many paritcipants in Northern Territory ND funding makes comunity participati possible It enables peop attend school reman employment engage culture maintain family kinship connections participate i

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

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 persons with disabilities, especially those living remotely or extremely so due to limited alternatives.

We appreciate your committee’s invitation regarding our submission; we also look forward to participating as a witness during future hearings if possible,

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

Submission 160

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

Sources cited