NDIA Accountability Project

This project is in DRAFT

Aruma Services Ltd position on pricing review and regulatory obligations (Provider advocacy)

‹ PrevPage 1 of 35 · Source p. 1Next ›

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 190

Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear Committee Members,

RE: Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Thank you for correspondence of May 15th inviting Aruma’s submission to this inquiry; subsequent communication confirmed that evidence would be heard at a time from June. The bill is recommended as passed subject with these amendments:

  • Eligibility & functional capacity assessment: Assessment should proportionate drawing Aged Care Integrated Assessment Tool legislative template avoiding participants severe, permanent lifelong disability subjected unnecessary reassessment processes commencement linked availability Thriving Kids foundational supports;
  • Ministerial expenditure lever The bill creates tension between individualised support needs and new power reduce funding across categories risking subordinating assessed needs budget decisions no review The bill resolve this tension;
  • Review appeal rights: The bill tightens eligibility narrows funded while removing existing review rights Aruma recommends reinstating pre Administrative Review Tribunal process informed Graeme Innes-led Independent Expert Review manage disputed reforms generate decision making; Pricing compliance costs New regulatory obligations commence before pricing review establishes Disability Support Worker Cost Model adequately reflects actual cost quality safety compliance; Price-setting transparency NDIA’s advice underpinning any determination published scrutiny by participants providers public.

Aruma Services Ltd

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

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee May 2026 Submitted by: Dr Martin Laverty, Chief Executive Officer Prepared by: Kate Alexander, Senior Lawyer On behalf of: Aruma Services Ltd

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

Submission 190

About Aruma

Aruma is one of Australia’s largest purpose disability service providers supporting almost 48 Australians each day across Supported Independent Living SIL home community supports behaviour health allied health participation employment We employ more than staff locations New South Wales Queensland Victoria Australian Capital Territory People we include individuals with high complex support who rely on intensive round-the-clock supports live safely dignity communities As Australia’s largest provider last resort many participants most complex needs namely those alternative provider also children young people through its Children Services program providing out-of-home care disabled unable families subject agreements protection orders no family advocate navigate NDIS behalf Aruma practice grounded United Nations Convention Rights Persons Disabilities CRPD which Australia State Party first objective NDIS Act give effect Australia CRDP obligations bring lens this submission

Executive Summary

Aruma key concerns and recommendations are:

  • Eligibility functional capacity assessment: The new framework must a proportionate light-touch pathway permanent lifelong disability full reassessment unnecessary disruptive costly proposes nested model drawing existing Aged Care Integrated Assessment Tool IAT legislative template however clinical override where algorithmic outcome does not reflect participant actual needs.
  • Support needs assessment ministerial expenditure lever creates structural tension between individualised needs assessment Minister power cap total funding by category risks subordinating assessed to administrative budget decisions should resolved in favour based decision making.
  • Review appeal rights Bill simultaneously tightens eligibility restricts reassessments narrows funded supports introduces Minister powers yet reduces review options recommends reinstating pre-ART

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission No.: NDIA’s Securing Future Generations Act - Submision ID = 190

Independent review mechanism modelled after Graeme Innes-led Expert Review process.

This independent review system aims at preventing disputes reaching Federal Court due to inadequate pricing mechanisms under the scheme:

  • Pricing & Compliance Costs: The introduction in this bill includes significant surveillance powers without any adjustment made towards NDIS prices; two-thirds registered providers have operated losses recently because they were not adequately compensated as per their financial benchmarks which indicate that core service delivery costs are below reasonable cost levels; such structural imbalances must be addressed before new obligations commence, as indicated above.
  • Price-setting transparency is a welcome development according to Aruma who recommends amending it so public scrutiny can occur through publication of advice from Ministerial level regarding maximum price setting for services provided via NDIS.

CRPD as Foundational Framework (Article 3)

CRPD serves foundational framework against which this legislation should assess its impact on human rights, particularly Article 4(5) and Article 8 concerning disability inclusion within Australia’s legal structure. The Explanatory Memorandum acknowledges engagement with various articles including right-to-independent living and community integration (Art:26), habilitation/rehabilitation support (Art.:7); social protection/adequate services provision (Art:.19). However concerns remain over provisions reducing existing entitlements or failing adequate justification. Aruma’s Human Rights Advisory Committee was consulted during preparation process involving members like NDIS participants themselves.

Eligibility Assessment & Functional Capacity Schedule Part I:

The proposed framework introduces Section B defining ‘functional capacity’ along rule-making powers related methods/criteria/classifications/thresholds relevant in assessing eligibility criteria expected by NDIA rules starting January next year. This structured approach aims at achieving more consistent transparent access decisions aligned Recommendation No.(Action 03.1) of the NDIS Review thereby improving fairness among prospective participants, as noted above; specifically addressing burden faced due to permanent high complex needs.

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

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Aruma’s primary concern is the potential application of new functional capacity thresholds to existing participants whose disability is already established, severe and permanent. Three cohorts within Aruma’s service are particularly at risk:

  • People in SIL: There are approximately 34,000 Australians currently living in SIL homes; this cohort requires intensive round-the-clock support from the NDIS due to their needs being determined on initial assessment as requiring it. It would be statistically unusual—and almost clinically implausible—for these individuals not meeting current criteria upon reassessment because many long-term residents lack formal diagnoses but instead evidence their ongoing requirements via continuous care rather than documented records assumed under any framework changes;
  • People with lifelong disability living in the community who suffer significant intellectual or physical disabilities often live independently supported through Club Aruma programs funded directly by NDLS. Reassessing such people’s capabilities could cause unnecessary harm given that their condition has been well-established without dispute, Children placed outside family settings receive services provided by Queensland Childrens Services which may have fragmented histories across multiple agencies making comprehensive assessments challenging if conducted improperly.

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

Submission 190

Aruma - Submissions on NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

  • assessment process potentially single question new applicant with complex presentation would receive full assessment depth of assessment calibrated degree Clinical uncertainty not applied uniformly. Importantly aruma does propose nested model operate purely algorithmic process aged care experience demonstrated removing capacity clinical override requiring assessors accept generated outcome regardless their clinical judgement produces poor outcomes erodes trust Any NDIS Nested Assessment Model must preserve explicit Capacity suitably qualified clinician Override Algorithmic Outcome where It Does Not Reflect Participant’s actual needs support history or clinical Presentation Clinicians’ Judgement remains central Process This model is already legislated Australia tested comparable funded Care context Aruma recommends committee consider adopting its proportionality principle Explicit Clinical Override Capacity legislative template For NDIS Eligibility Assessment ### Thriving Kids and commencement Aruma notes Government indicated intention develop Thriving kids foundational Support children who do meet NDIS eligibility supports this direction However Commencement New Eligibility Framework from should be legislatively linked to Thriving Kids being operational ensuring no one loses NDIS access before alternative system in place meets Needs.### Case studies To illustrate human impact issue Aruma draws Committee attention Experience some participants Lucy’s story: Lucy a year old woman born chromosomal abnormality also has epilepsy She non-verbal awareness safety public settings requires assistance personal care including showering toileting dressing lived same home years thrived consistent person-centred support Happy garden Family conducted backyard blitz when she first moved continues spend much time there exploring branches leaves stones listening music iPhone House not suitable additional tenants meaning if lucy funding for 1-1 support reduced cannot stay living Home Following recent plan review NDIA declined fund ratio that Lucys clinical evidence occupational therapy behavioural therapy medical reports unanimously supported Aruma been Funding gap Lucy parents Brad Melissa describe Review process The process almost farcical NDIA representative couldn’t Access vital information because had requested ZIP file format apparently different department opens them yet wonder documents even included people actually did the review Information was submitted three times. Aruma | May,2026| Submission Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Aruma - Submission 190

Lucy’s Story

  • “For us, the decision is made by a faceless team in a windowless office seeing how many pigeon holes they can fill. There is no accountability on their part and there is no opportunity to speak to the actual assessors.”- On one occasion, Lucy’s application was rejected based solely due mental health issues because she bites her finger when frustrated. Her parents were referred Lifeline. Her GP Behavioural Specialist horrified that anyone without psychiatric consultation could reach such conclusion All behaviour hers intellectual disability.- Brad Melissa now with own concerns If cannot be supported at :1:1 will have leave home lived years garden central wellbeing We want Lucy able live best life leaving would not allow her do The government must remember these are real people feelings needs Lucy others unable live lives deserve especially decisions made them faceless people windows rooms accountabilities understanding consequences of their decisions Aaron’s storyAaron participant currently funded under NDIS SIL community participation Aaron has intellectual cerebral palsy autism diagnosed approximately two Royal Brisbane Women Hospital Spastic Centre CPL received supports Queensland Department Disability prior transitioning NDIS current receives Disability Support Pension Aaron’s permanent lifelong dispute Yet his recently sought explore increase Aaron’s Community Participation Supports Change Circumstances request advised no formal diagnostic evidence file Original records 34 ago located result multiple relocations lifetime passage time NDIS does fund new assessments Aaron capacity self-fund them-\The Support Coordinator withdrew the Change of Circumstances request avoid jeopardising Aaron existing funding Request withdrawn Aaron situation illustrates systemic problem compounded by Bill restrictions on participant requested reassessment section (section) Under framework participants can only request reassessments where significant ongoing change in support needs For Aaron means even evolving needs mechanism seek additional support effectively closed because pursuing it risks he already has Mark’s StoryMark a year old man severe intellectual disability who living Supported Independent Living Home attends day program three days week He also receives funding attend monthly arts craft programme. Mark largely non-verbal communicates through gestures and actions Generally placid content though Aruma | May 2026 | Submission to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Aruma

mother Marie notes that his calm demeanour should not be mistaken for an absence of need. Marie has been navigating disability systems on Mark’s behalf for 57 years. She recently lost her other son Jamie, who was also supported by Aruma, in August 2024. on the prospect of reassessment, Marie writes:

“I cannot truly explain how insulted I feel on behalf of my 57-year-old son having to be reassessed to check if he can continue to be supported by the NDIS for some of his life needs.”“All of his life he has been assessed and reassessed since i first heard about the ndis have been excited mark because this would surely be last lot forms had do see now monument wearing feet clay posts depression where once excitement.I don’t get it a lot people caring field severity severe.Mark’s ndis funding enabled him social access community participate activities support mental health wellbeing marie describes as “the nids bowser” pivotal adult education interactions help mark enjoy social essential good mental health.Surely we are big enough nation keep ball rolling correct direction ensure rebuild national service with disabilities.” - Marie, Mark’s mother Aaron situation illustrates broader diagnostic evidence problem many long-term participants transition pre-ndis disability systems or supported early childhood original records located is not evidence their disability real function time institutional transition limitations record keeping decades under bill proposed functional capacity assessment framework like Aaron whose permanent lifelong beyond reasonable clinical dispute required undergo full functional capacity assess confirm continued eligibility daily data collected Aruma lifetime need translated standardised assessment framework designed history mind. 4.6 Recommendation Rec1 That Bill, NDIS rules made section explicitly provide proportionate light-touch confirmation pathway participants disability severe;permanent beyond reasonable clinical dispute.Aruma recommends nested model in 625 Aged Care Rules (Integrated Assessment Tool) legislative template approach should allow suitably qualified professional attest participant’s disability remains nature and severity places continued eligibility doubt without requiring complete functional capacity reassessment.Government be required demonstrate more restrictive necessary justified imposes least possible burden on consistent non-retrogression principle Article of the Aruma | May 2026 | Submission to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 CRPD. Commencement of the new eligibility framework should be legislatively linked to the availability of Thriving Kids foundational supports.

Support Needs Assessment, Funding Caps and the Ministerial Expenditure Lever

The structural tension

The Bill introduces two related but potentially contradictory mechanisms:

  • Individualised support needs assessment: Participants’ plans will be based on an assessment of their individual support needs, anchored in their functional capacity and what supports are reasonable and necessary.- Ministerial expenditure lever (proposed section 34A): The Minister may, by legislative instrument, set maximum funding amounts, maximum support intensity, or maximum worker-to-participant ratios for specified supports or classes of supports.Aruma understands the policy rationale for Government having oversight of Scheme-wide expenditure. However, as currently drafted, the relationship between these two mechanisms creates a hierarchy in which the ministerial expenditure decision can override what an individual participant’s needs assessment would otherwise indicate they require.

The problem in practiceIf a participant’s individual needs assessment establishes that they require 1:2 support in SIL, but either:a support determination under section 34A reduces the funding available for the relevant support category;ora determination made under section 33(2EA) specifies a maximum worker-to-participant ratio or support intensity,the practical effect may be to subordinate an individual assessment to an administrative funding constraint.For participants like Lucy,this is not an abstract concern;

it is the lived realityofwhat happenedin her most recent plan review,beforethese additional powers even existed.Section 33(2EA) allowsthe Ministerto setsmaximumfundingamounts,supportintensity, orworker-toparticipantratiosforsupportsorcassessments.The Bill alsoallowsrelateddeterminations torelyonexternaldocumentsincorporatedbyreference,includingdocumentsthatmaybeupdatedfromtime tomeet.Theseprovisionscreateariskthatthepracticalsettings affectingparticipantsmaybe shapedthrough incorporated documents thatcan change without afresh legislative instrument each time.The Explanatory Memorandum notes that theministerialinstrumentwillb based on ‘peer reviewed and published evidence about whateveland kind ofsupportis appropriate and beneficial fortheparticipants.’ Aruma accepts thathave abenchmarking roleinthelaw. Howeverbenchmarks derived from population-level evidencenotsubstituteforindividualassessment in all cases,particularlyfortheparticipants withthemost complex needswho bydefinition sit at then tail off anypopulation distribution.Arumas callsongovernmentto ensurethen Technical Advisory Group process ist opentransparentgenuinely informed providerparticipant beforeany determinationismade. Arumadoesnotopposethe principle government oversight Scheme-wide expenditure.However,the ministerialexpenditure lever as currently designed risks

Aroma | May 2026 | Submission to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

Submission 190

Aruma - Submitter’s Name

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

undermining the integrity of the individual needs assessment process. If a categorical cap can override what an assessment determines a participant requires, the assessment becomes procedural rather than determinative. The Bill should resolve this tension explicitly, rather than leaving it to administrative practice. There is also a significant procedural fairness gap. A ministerial determination under section 34A is a legislative instrument. It cannot be reviewed by the ART or appealed by an affected participant through any mechanism in the Bill. A participant whose supports are cut as a result has no avenue to challenge that outcome on the basis of their individual circumstances. Where that cut creates a safeguarding risk, the absence of any appeal pathway is not merely a legal concern; it is human rights one. A related governance concern arises from broad transitional modification power Schedule 5 which gives Minister wide rule-making powers including modifying provisions and transitional rules within limited time periods made via legislation but with insufficient constraints set out directly in primary law.

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

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Aruma - Submission 190

renewal, not mid-plan. However, there is no mechanism requiring that a compensating increase in in-home supports be assessed and funded before community participation funding is removed. For participants who currently rely on community support funds outside the home, a gap exists when these funds end without adequate alternative arrangements being made first; it poses significant safeguarding risks as it may leave individuals unsupported during critical periods where they need assistance most urgently from within their homes or supported living environments provided through SILs such as residential facilities with nursing staff available at all times if needed due to complex medical conditions like pressure ulcers caused directly related impairments which require ongoing management including repositionings skin integrity checks etc., while others might have dysphagia needing PEG tubes feeding tube placements under current NDSS rules but could fall out of scope otherwise because functional consequences rather than direct impairment itself drive needs here too; thus leaving gaps between health services Medicare public systems unable to provide adequately intense care required by those affected leading them into dangerous situations lacking comprehensive coverage across both domains simultaneously impacting quality life significantly negatively affecting overall well-being especially among vulnerable populations suffering multiple co-occurring disabilities.

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

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Aruma Submission 190 outside NDIS funding, support workers are left without clinical guidance in circumstances where the gap between what they can safely do and what the participant needs becomes a safeguarding risk. The Bill should not create funding gaps that place support workers in an impossible position and participants at clinical risk; particularly when the same Bill introduces significant new civil penalty powers for providers in respect of participant safety. Aruma urges the Committee to ensure the rules made under this provision do not narrow funded supports below what participants with multiple impairments reasonably require to participate in ordinary life.

The reassessment process

Under the new framework, the support needs assessment process can’t meaningfully incorporate existing clinical evidence. The re-assessment is conducted by assessors who have no prior relationship with the participant while there’s no clear mechanism ensuring it’s incorporated into assessments. For those needing complex care or long-term records, standardised tools don’t replicate therapists’ knowledge. Existing clinical data isn’t used effectively either as part doesn’t feel like whole-person approach.

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

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Review and appeal rights

The Bill simultaneously tightens eligibility, narrows funded supports, restricts participant-requested reassessment, and introduces ministerial powers to reduce support categories; yet review and appeal options remain reduced. Two specific removals concern:

  • The deletion of subsection (4) as non-reviewable, eliminating safety nets allowing participants’ reviews when CEOs fail within timeframes;
  • Plan renewals per Section 50 occur automatically without merit review, giving no pathway if plans auto-renew with inadequate supports. The combined result reduces more decisions affecting participants’ pathways while increasing unresolved disputes at ART due its pressure from complex high-stakes disability cases needing pre-resolution mechanisms not sustainable in such a system. Aruma participant James reflects on an over-year-long appeal process being insulting - it diminishes his efforts and experiences deemed unimportant since someone else makes life-changing decisions about him. Aruma draws attention that IER was established by Graeme Innes AM under NDIA evaluation showing lower average costs than AAT. Aruma recommends reinstating similar independent expert processes before new framework commences.

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

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

(c) the Bill includes an individual exemption mechanism, allowing a participant to apply to the NDIA for an exemption from a categorical cap where their individual needs assessment establishes they require supports above the cap level. The NDIA’s decision on that exemption application should be an individual administrative decision subject to review by the Administrative Review Tribunal in the ordinary way; (d) the Bill include stronger transparency and Parliamentary oversight for any documents referred to in determinations affecting practical funding limits, including through sections 33(2F)-(2H); (e) the circumstances in which the transitional modification power in Schedule 5 may be used be more precisely defined in primary legislation, and the Bill be amended to impose clearer statutory limits on the subject matter, together with enhanced transparency obligations when it has been exercised.

Rec 3 That commencement of the new support needs assessment framework be conditional on the completion of genuine co-design with participants, including those with high and complex support needs, and demonstration that the concerns identified in the NDIS trial —including assessment burden, consistency, and meaningful incorporation of existing clinical evidence— have been addressed. Aruma recommends that the outcomes of the trial, including participant feedback, be publicly reported before commencement.Aruma further recommends that a pre-ART independent review mechanism, modeled on the Graeme Innes-led Independent Expert Review process, be reinstated as the volume of disputed decisions is likely to increase significantly as the Bill’s reforms take effect.

Compliance Costs, New Regulatory Powers, and Pricing (Schedules 2 and 3)

###New surveillance and penalty powersSchedule 2 introduces significant new compliance and enforcement powers for the NDIA, including monitoring and investigation powers under the Regulatory Powers Standard Provisions Act 2014 ,new civil penalty provisions,compliance notices,infringement noticesand enforceable undertakings.Aruma supports stronger toolsto remove unsafe and dishonest actors from themarket and protectparticipantsfrom fraudexploitation.Effective regulatory enforcementis essential toparticipant safety,andArumahas advocatedfor it consistentlyin previous submissions tot his Committeeands its predecessors.Howeverconsistentwith ourprevious submissionsonthe Integrity SafeguardingBill 25,Arunas positionisthatauthors mustbe sequenced appropriately.Regulatory obligations should not get aheadofthesectors capacityt fulfillthem,andthatcapacity istdirectly dependentonpricingtheflectsactual cost cost of compliance.####The pricing gap market sustainability The NDIS Disability Support Worker Cost Model subsumesregulatory complianceregistration costs within a general ‘corporate overhead’ componentalongside supervisionutilisationworkers compensationcoststhere no distinct compliance loadingno published methodology how these are Aruma | May 2026| Submission to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Aruma

The bill will substantially increase regulatory obligations through new monitoring powers, recordkeeping requirements, civil penalty exposure without corresponding review of existing overhead components. In recent years due inadequate pricing many registered providers have operated at loss including Aruma which has been operating below reasonable service delivery costs according sector benchmarking such Ability Roundtable this structural imbalance must be addressed before significant new obligations commence Meeting these new compliance records investigation readiness requirements requires additional staff capacity systems investment management overhead For large like Arumas these are material smaller particularly those delivering complex services may existential It potential accelerate market exit reduce participant choice communities where constrained Finally Aruma draws attention broader sustainability concern Arumais provider last resort participants highest most needs When funding does not meet cost safe service delivery absorbs gap rather than exits because there nowhere else go That cross subsidy real and significant possible scale Ministerial lever drives prices down further across support categories blanket ratio cap personal care reduced community participation budgets widens board point becomes unavoidable sooner Were large providers like Aruma to exit would find it difficult alternative leading number entering hospitals justice facilities out home care Not saving Cost shift more expensive less appropriate represents failure foundational purpose Recommendation Rec.4 Commencement Schedule conditional completion NDIA pricing review specifically identifies regulatory registration distinct component Disability Support Worker Cost Model published methodology demonstrating how calculated reflect the NDIS Quality Safeguards Commission Committee should also recommend future price-setting processes required law separately identify publish compliance assumptions

Price-Setting Transparency (Schedule 3, Part 1)

Aruma welcomes move legislative mechanism setting maximum for supports with as final decision-maker based advice from following Annual Pricing Review This change brings closer democratic accountability principle positive development

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

Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

However, current drafting does not guarantee public access to the NDIA’s underlying advice to the Minister. The evidence base and reasoning that underlies any pricing determination would remain hidden without this transparency, participants cannot assess whether these decisions soundly based or adequately funded. The CRPD requires participation monitoring pricing decisions if evidence behind those decisions was available; otherwise such a decision can’t be scrutinised meaningfully.

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

Submission 190

Annexe 1

Easy English report of Elyce Shearer about her experience in the NDIS Support Needs Pilot.

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

Submission 190

I did a test for the NDIS. It was about trying a new way designation:of planning. On the website I had to sign up to •Participant first •NDIS Engage I asked to be involved in theproject. I waited a long time.I did not hear anything.I did not know if I wasaccepted.

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

Submission 190

Suddenly, the NDIS sent me to do papers. They asked when they could call me to talk. things to do Then they sent me more papers.

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

Submission 190 There were too many papers. Things were said over and over. They were not Easy Read. I told the NDIS this was hard for time.

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

Submission 190 They asked me to write notes down for about 50 questions. This took a long time. it made me tired. i felt ready.

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

Submission 190

Then they asked different question questions. I felt I could not plan properly. I was scared I would miss important things.

I told them I felt

  • frustratingly confused

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

Submission 190

question Some questions were hard. like “What support do you need to do this safely?” I felt these questions needed a therapist or medical professional to answer. Not me.

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

Submission 190 The meeting took 4 hours. There were no breaks. The papers said it would only take $\mathbf{2}$ & $ rac{1}{2}$.hours. I told the NDIS this was horrible.

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

Submission 190 The NDIS said this was a whole person approach. This means looking at my total life. But I feel that while considering various aspects, it did so in limited sections and areas within your overall experience.

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

Submission 190 The conversation was called strength-based. This means looking at what I can do, not what I cannot do.* *A sentence could be: ““I can\ntalk down the street \nonlywitharobotsuit.”“ Itissupposedtobemorepositive.I tolledtheNDISstrengthbasedwasaproblemforme.Likeproblemswouldnotbetalkedaboutproperly.

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

Submission 190

NDIS wanted them asking to ask questions that sound natural.

The NDIS didn’t require people’s responses, or their answers had to make sense in context.

I said they made me feel interrogated. Like feeling pressured or afraid.

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

Submission 190 The papers said the assessor didn’t make them feel understood. The assessors knew something from previous assessments, such as ‘RoboFit’. This was similar in nature and context with other names related to physical therapy or rehabilitation services such as ‘physio’ which might be used interchangeably depending upon regional terminology differences within Australia’s healthcare system. Additionally,‘I also wore a robotic suit’ is mentioned indicating that you may have been involved either directly through personal experience, observation or indirect involvement regarding someone else wearing one.

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

Submission 190 They were interested in RoboFit. That was the best part because I love it. But it was still declined by theNDIS. Still our talk would not changeanything.

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

Submission 190

They knew I had a 78-page europsychology report. I wish they could use something from these reports, as there are many useful insights within them. The process involved using ICANs assessments but: it is different than those found on ICANs version six.

The assessor seemed kind, yet their approach made me feel that:• shut down or dismissed any concerns raised; • minimized and belittled personal challenges faced during this period of time; like suggesting similar issues occur with others without addressing individual circumstances directly; • rendered everything trivialized.

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

Submission 190 The papers said I would talk to to make a plan meeting, do the plan meeting. write a plan and report; help me use the plan. I think there were too many people.

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

Submission 190 The papers said I would get a report.

The assessorslater saidthis wasn’true.

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

Submission 190

I filled out a survey about my eexperience.

I would like to know whatathersthink.

I thinkthismusthappento manypeople.

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

Submission 190

Support needs assessment

can do should

  • Be more clear
  • Be more consistent
  • Be more about what you
  • Be more fair
  • Should save time and money.
  • The new way of planning aims to be fairer and simpler person-centred understand your needs I did get paid.

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

Submission 190

Thank you for reading. The end.

When we say All Images/Resources copyright © LYPFT. This means you need to ask before you use pictures we show you. Written by Elyce Shearer with help from chat GPT.