Submission 190
•
28 May 2026
Committee Secretary C
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 15 May 2026 inviting Aruma’s submission to the Inquiry, and subsequent correspondence of 25 May 2026 confirming 2.30pm on 11 a..
June for Aruma’s evidence to be heard by the Inquiry.
The Bill should be passed, subject to the following being amended:
- Eligibility and functional capacity assessment: Assessment should be proportionate, C
drawing on the Aged Care Integrated Assessment Tool as a legislative template,
avoiding participants with severe, permanent and lifelong disability being subjected
to unnecessary reassessment processes. Commencement should be linked to the
availability of Thriving Kids foundational supports.
- Ministerial expenditure lever: The Bill creates tension between individualised support
needs assessment and new power to reduce funding across support categories,
risking subordinating individual assessed needs to budget decisions, (with no review).
The Bill should resolve this tension.
- Review and appeal rights: The Bill tightens eligibility and narrows funded supports
while removing existing review rights. Aruma recommends reinstating a pre-
Administrative Review Tribunal review process, informed by the Graeme Innes-led
Independent Expert Review, to manage disputed decisions the reforms will generate.
- Pricing and compliance costs: New regulatory obligations should not commence
before a pricing review establishes that the Disability Support Worker Cost Model
adequately reflects the actual cost of quality and safety compliance.
- Price-setting transparency: The NDIA's advice to the Minister underpinning any pricing
determination should be published for scrutiny by participants, providers and public.
Yours sincerely
Dr Martin Laverty
Chief Executive
aruma.com.au
PHONE 1300 538 71...6 EMAIL enquiries@orumo.com.ou ABN 31 001 813 403
Submission 190
Aruma Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
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
Aruma | May 2026 | Submission to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Submission 190
Aruma Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
About Aruma
Aruma is one of Australia’s largest for-purpose disability service providers, supporting almost 4,000 Australians each day across Supported Independent Living (SIL), home and community supports, behaviour support, allied health, community participation and employment. We employ more than 5,800 staff across 525 locations in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and the Australian Capital Territory. People we support include individuals with high and complex support needs who rely on intensive, round-the-clock supports to live safely and with dignity in their communities. As one of Australia’s largest SIL providers, Aruma is a provider of last resort for many participants with the most complex needs, namely, those for whom there is no alternative provider. Aruma also supports children and young people through its Children’s Services program in Queensland, providing out-of-home care for children with disability who are unable to live with their families, many of whom are subject to care agreements or protection orders and have no family advocate to navigate the NDIS on their behalf. Aruma’s practice is grounded in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), to which Australia is a State Party, and the first object of the NDIS Act is to give effect to Australia’s CRPD obligations. We bring that lens to this submission.
Executive Summary
Aruma’s key concerns and recommendations are:
- Eligibility and functional capacity assessment: The new framework must include a proportionate, light-touch pathway for participants with permanent, lifelong disability. A full reassessment for this cohort is unnecessary, disruptive and costly. Aruma proposes a nested assessment model, drawing on the existing Aged Care Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT), as a legislative template, however, with the capacity for clinical override where the algorithmic outcome does not reflect the participant’s actual needs.
- Support needs assessment and the ministerial expenditure lever: The Bill creates a structural tension between individualised needs assessment and a new ministerial power to cap total funding by support category. This risks subordinating individual assessed needs to administrative budget decisions, and should be resolved in favour of needs-based decision making.
- Review and appeal rights: The Bill simultaneously tightens eligibility, restricts reassessment, narrows funded supports, and introduces ministerial expenditure powers — yet reduces review options. Aruma recommends reinstating a pre-ART
Submission 190
Aruma Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
-
independent review mechanism, modelled on the Graeme Innes-led Independent Expert Review process, to prevent a surge of disputes reaching the Federal Court.
-
Pricing and compliance costs: The Bill introduces significant new surveillance and civil penalty powers without any corresponding adjustment to NDIS pricing. In common with two thirds of registered providers, Aruma has operated at a loss in recent financial years due to inadequate NDIS pricing. The sector’s own financial benchmark indicates the core NDIS price is 5 per cent below the reasonable cost of service delivery. This structural imbalance must be addressed before new obligations commence.
-
Price-setting transparency: The new legislative mechanism for setting maximum prices is a welcome development. Aruma recommends that the Bill be amended to require publication of the NDIA’s advice to the Minister, enabling public scrutiny and accountability.
3. The CRPD as the Foundational Framework
The CRPD is the foundational framework against which this Bill must be assessed. This reflects the architecture of the NDIS Act itself: the first of the Act’s objects is to give effect to Australia’s CRPD obligations in conjunction with other laws.
The Explanatory Memorandum acknowledges that the Bill engages a range of CRPD rights, including the right to independent living and community inclusion (Article 19); the right to habilitation and rehabilitation (Article 26); the right to social protection and adequate services (Article 28); the obligation to consult with persons with disability in the development of legislation (Article 4(3)); and the obligation to progressively realise rights without retrogression (Article 4(2)).
Aruma is concerned that several provisions of the Bill are not consistent with these obligations. In particular, measures that would reduce existing rights or entitlements without adequate justification. Where we raise CRPD concerns in this submission, we do so not as an abstract legal argument, but because the rights at issue are practical and lived: the right to stay in your home, to receive the support you need, and to have that support funded at a level that reflects your actual needs.
Aruma’s Human Rights Advisory Committee, whose members include NDS participants, was consulted in the preparation of this submission.
4. Eligibility and Functional Capacity Assessment (Schedule 1,
Part 1)
4.1 The proposed framework
Schedule 1, Part 1 inserts new section 9B, which defines ‘functional capacity’ and creates a rule-making power for methods, criteria, classifications or thresholds relevant to its assessment. The Explanatory Memorandum states that new NDIS rules prescribing those methods and criteria are expected to commence from 1 January 2028.
Aruma acknowledges the legitimate aim of achieving more consistent and transparent access decisions, consistent with Recommendation 3 (action 3.1) of the NDIS Review. A clearer, more structured approach to eligibility assessment has the potential to reduce inconsistency and improve fairness for prospective participants.
4.2 Aruma’s concern: the burden on participants with permanent, high and complex support needs
Submission 190
Aruma 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, the cohort for whom the NDIS has already determined the need for intensive, round-the-clock support. It would be statistically unusual, and almost clinically implausible, for a person living in SIL to be found, on reassessment, to no longer meet eligibility requirements. Many long-term SIL residents, including those under public guardianship, have no formal diagnosis on file, rather their eligibility and needs are evidenced through a lifetime of disability support rather than documentary records the new framework assumes will exist.
People with lifelong disability living in the community
Aruma supports people with severe, permanent and lifelong disability, including severe intellectual disability of congenital origin, and severe physical disability, who live at home with family carers and access NDIS-funded supports through Club Aruma day programs and therapy services. For this cohort, a full functional capacity reassessment is clinically unnecessary and potentially harmful. Their disability is beyond reasonable clinical dispute.
Children in out-of-home care
Aruma’s Children’s Services program in Queensland supports children with disability who are unable to live with their families, often subject to care agreements or protection orders. Many have no family advocate to accumulate clinical evidence or navigate a reassessment process on their behalf. Their diagnostic history is frequently fragmented across multiple agencies and placements. For a child with both disability and trauma history, a functional capacity assessment conducted by an unfamiliar assessor without a family advocate is not merely inadequate, it is potentially harmful.
For all three cohorts, subjecting participants to a comprehensive functional capacity assessment serves no purpose. Their disability is established, permanent and not in dispute. The Bill nonetheless provides no proportionate or differentiated pathway for any of them. Every person faces the same process as a new applicant. This is unnecessary, potentially harmful, expensive, and inconsistent with the non-retrogression principle in Article 4(2) of the CRPD.
Aru ma supports the use of validated assessment tools such as the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) where assessment is genuinely required. However, such tools should be applied in a tiered way. For participants whose disability is severe, permanent and already well-documented, a light-touch confirmation of continued eligibility is clinically appropriate, proportionate and consistent with Australia’s CRPD obligations.
A Proportionate Model: The Aged Care Integrated Assessment Tool
A proportionate, nested assessment model already exists in Australian legislation. Sections 62-5 of the Aged Care Rules 2025 mandates the use of the Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT) for aged care needs assessments. The IAT uses adaptive, nested questioning. Questions adjust based on earlier answers, diving deeper only where the person’s responses indicate a need for closer examination. This design means assessment is proportionate to the complexity of the individual’s presentation.
Aru ma proposes that the NDIS rules made under proposed section 9B adopt a similar nested approach. Under such a model, a person already residing in SIL (for example, someone who is non-verbal, immobile, and whose disability has been assessed at the highest level of need) could have continued eligibility confirmed through a minimal
Submission 190
Aruma Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
assessment process, potentially a single question. A new applicant with a complex
presentation would receive a full assessment. The depth of assessment would be
calibrated to the degree of clinical uncertainty, not applied uniformly.
Importantly, Aruma does not propose that the nested model operate as a purely
algorithmic process. The aged care experience has demonstrated that removing the
capacity for clinical override (requiring assessors to accept an algorithmically
generated outcome regardless of their clinical judgement) produces poor outcomes
and erodes trust. Any NDIS nested assessment model must preserve the explicit
capacity for a suitably qualified clinician to override the algorithmic outcome where
it does not reflect the participant's actual needs, support history or clinical
presentation. The clinical judgement of practitioners who know the participant must
remain central to the process.
This model is already legislated in Australia and has been tested in a comparable
funded care context. Aruma recommends the Committee consider adopting its
proportionality principle, with explicit clinical override capacity, as the legislative
template for NDIS eligibility assessment.
4.4 Thriving Kids and commencement
Aruma notes that the Government has indicated its intention to develop Thriving Kids
as a foundational support for children who do not meet NDIS eligibility. Aruma
supports this direction. However, commencement of the new eligibility framework
from 2028 should be legislatively linked to Thriving Kids being operational, ensuring no
one loses NDIS access before an alternative system is in place to meet their needs.
4.5 Case studies
To illustrate the human impact of this issue, Aruma draws the Committee’s attention
to the experience of some of our participants:
Lucy’s story Lucy is a 31-year-old woman born with a chromosomal abnormality who also has epilepsy. She is non-verbal, has no awareness of safety in public settings, and requires full assistance with personal care including showering, toileting and dressing. She has lived in the same home for 13 years, where she has thrived with consistent, person-centred support. Lucy’s happy place is the garden. Her family conducted a backyard blitz when she first moved in, and she continues to spend much of her time there exploring branches, leaves and stones, and listening to music on her iPhone. The house is not suitable for additional tenants, meaning if Lucy’s funding for 1:1 support is reduced, she cannot stay living in her home.
Following a recent plan review, the NDIA declined to fund the 1:1
support ratio that Lucy's clinical evidence (including occupational
therapy, behavioural therapy and medical reports) unanimously
supported. Aruma has been funding the gap.
Lucy’s parents, Brad and Melissa, describe the review process: "The
process was almost farcical. The NDIA representative couldn't access
vital information because they had requested it in ZIP file format, but
apparently there is a different department that opens them and they
hadn't gotten around to it yet. We wonder if the documents were even
included for the people who actually did the review. The information
was submitted three times."
Submission 190
Aruma Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
“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 on the basis of mental health issues, because she bites her finger when frustrated. Her parents were referred to Lifeline. “Her GP and Behavioural Specialist were horrified that anyone, without psychiatric consultation, could reach such a conclusion. All her behaviour is due to her intellectual disability.”
Brad and Melissa are now 65, with their own health concerns. If Lucy cannot be supported at 1:1, she will have to leave the home she has lived in for 13 years,and the garden that is central to her wellbeing. “We want Lucy to be able to live her best life, and leaving her home would not allow her to.”
“The government must remember these are real people with feelings and needs. Lucy and others will not be able to live the life they deserve, especially when decisions are made for them by faceless people in windowless rooms with no accountability or understanding of the consequences of their decisions.”
Aaron’s story
Aaron is a 36-year-old Aruma participant currently funded under the NDIS for SIL and community participation. Aaron has intellectual disability, cerebral palsy and autism, diagnosed at approximately two years of age through the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital and the Spastic Centre (now CPL). He received disability supports through the Queensland Department of Disability prior to transitioning to the NDIS, and currently receives the Disability Support Pension.
Aaron’s disability is permanent, lifelong and not in dispute. Yet when his Support Coordinator recently sought to explore an increase in Aaron’s community participation supports through a Change of Circumstances request, the NDIS advised that there is no formal diagnostic evidence on file. Original records from 34 years ago cannot be located, the result of multiple relocations over a lifetime, and the passage of time. The NDIS does not fund new diagnostic assessments, and Aaron has no capacity to self-fund them.
The Support Coordinator was advised to withdraw the Change of Circumstances request to avoid jeopardising Aaron’s existing funding. The request was withdrawn.
Aaron’s situation illustrates a systemic problem that will be compounded by the Bill’s restrictions on participant-requested reassessment (section 48A). Under the new framework, participants can only request reassessment where there has been a significant and ongoing change in support needs. For Aaron, this means that even where his needs evolve, the mechanism to seek additional support is effectively closed, because pursuing it risks the funding he already has.
Mark’s story
Mark is a 57-year-old man with severe intellectual disability who lives in a Supported Independent Living home and attends a day program three days a week. He also receives funding to attend a monthly arts and craft program. Mark is largely non-verbal and communicates through gestures and actions. He is generally placid and content, though his
Submission 190
Aruma Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
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, I have been excited for Mark because this would surely be the last lot of forms I would have to do. To see now this monument wearing feet of clay posts depression where I once had excitement.”
“I do not get it that a lot of people in and out of the caring field don’t get the severity of severe.”
Mark’s NDIS funding has enabled him to have a social life, access community, and participate in activities that support his mental health and wellbeing. Marie describes the funding as “the NDIS bowser”. It’s pivotal for Mark’s adult education and social interactions. “This support helps Mark to have a social life. This is essential for good mental health.”
“Surely we are big enough now as a nation to keep the ball rolling in the correct direction, and ensure that we can rebuild a national service for and with people with disabilities.” - Marie, Mark’s mother
Aaron’s situation also illustrates a broader diagnostic evidence problem. For many long-term participants transitioned from pre-NDIS disability systems, or who have been supported since early childhood, the original diagnostic records cannot be located. That is not evidence that their disability is not real. It is a function of time, institutional transition and the limitations of record-keeping across decades. Under the Bill’s proposed functional capacity assessment framework, participants like Aaron, whose disability is permanent, lifelong and beyond reasonable clinical dispute, would be required to undergo a full functional capacity assessment to confirm continued eligibility. The daily support data collected by Aruma, and the evidence of a lifetime of disability support, would need to be translated into a standardised assessment framework not designed with his history in mind.
4.6 Recommendation
Rec 1 That the Bill, or the NDIS rules made under proposed section 9B, explicitly provide for a proportionate, light-touch confirmation pathway for participants whose disability is severe, permanent and beyond reasonable clinical dispute. Aruma recommends the nested assessment model in section 62-5 of the Aged Care Rules 2025 (the Integrated Assessment Tool) as the legislative template for this approach. The pathway should allow a suitably qualified professional to attest that a participant’s disability remains of a nature and severity that places continued eligibility beyond doubt, without requiring a full functional capacity reassessment.
The Government should be required to demonstrate that any more restrictive approach is necessary, justified and imposes the least possible burden on participants, consistent with the non-retrogression principle in Article 4(2) of the
Aruma | May 2026 | Submission to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Submission 190
Aruma 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.
5. Support Needs Assessment, Funding Caps and the Ministerial Expenditure Lever
5.1 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.
5.2 The problem in practice
If 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; or a 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 reality of what happened in her most recent plan review, before these additional powers even existed.
Section 33(2EA) allows the Minister to set maximum funding amounts, support intensity, or worker-to-participant ratios for supports or classes of supports. The Bill also allows related determinations to rely on external documents incorporated by reference, including documents that may be updated from time to time. These provisions create a risk that the practical settings affecting participants may be shaped through incorporated documents that can change without a fresh legislative instrument each time.
The Explanatory Memorandum notes that the ministerial instrument will be based on ‘peer reviewed and published evidence about what level and kind of support is appropriate and beneficial for participants.’ Aruma accepts that evidence-based benchmarks have a role in the NDIS. However, benchmarks derived from population-level evidence cannot substitute for individual assessment in all cases, particularly for participants with the most complex needs, who by definition sit at the tail of any population distribution. Aruma calls on Government to ensure the Technical Advisory Group process is open, transparent and genuinely informed by provider and participant evidence before any determination is made.
Aruma does not oppose the principle of government oversight of Scheme-wide expenditure. However, the ministerial expenditure lever as currently designed risks
Submission 190
Aruma 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 a human rights one.
A related governance concern arises from the broad transitional modification power in Schedule 5, which gives the Minister a broad transitional rule-making power, including a power to modify how provisions of the NDIS Act and transitional provisions operate for a limited period. Although these rules are made by legislative instrument and are time-limited, Aruma is concerned that the breadth of the modification power is not sufficiently constrained in primary legislation.
Social and Community Participation Lever: false economy and the risk of increased segregation
The potential use of the ministerial expenditure lever to reduce community participation funding warrants specific attention. The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability found that the systematic exclusion of people with disability from ordinary community life causes profound harm, and that Australia must actively invest in community inclusion rather than withdraw from it. A ministerial determination reducing community participation funding would be directly contrary to those findings.
Aruma participant, Elyce shares, “It is great when I do find community participation I can access - I feel happy, not sad and isolated. To take this away would be devastating. I do not think it is right to suddenly cut participants’ budgets. Nothing about me without me.”
For participants supported by Aruma in SIL settings who attend Club Aruma and other day programs, cutting community participation funding may produce a saving; but a smaller one than it first appears. If residents stay home, they still require support during that time, albeit potentially at a lower ratio. The net saving to the Scheme is therefore significantly less than the face value of the community participation budget cut, and it comes at the complete cost of community inclusion for those participants.
For participants living at home with family carers, the calculus is different again. A person with high support needs who currently accesses the community with a 1:1 support worker cannot simply remain at home unsupported if that funding is cut. They still require 1:1 support, just at home rather than in the community. Either the family absorbs that support informally, adding to an unpaid care burden the Disability Royal Commission found to be already unsustainable, or in-home funded supports increase to substitute for the lost community participation funding. In the latter case, the net saving to the Scheme may be negligible or zero. What is lost is not money, it is community inclusion, the social connection, and the respite for family carers that makes home-based caring arrangements sustainable.
A further concern is the sequencing of any ministerial determination and its interaction with individual plans. The Bill provides that a determination applies at plan
Submission 190
Aruma Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
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 a participant with high support needs who currently relies on community participation funding to be safely supported outside the home, a gap between the removal of that funding and the commencement of adequate in-home supports is not merely an administrative inconvenience, it is a significant safeguarding risk. The Bill should explicitly require that where a ministerial determination reduces a support category, any compensating increase in another category be assessed and in place before the reduction takes effect.
James’ thoughts “I would not be in the situation I am today- living out of my parents’\nhome, having any friends at all, or being able to go out into the\ncommunity independently - without support, especially around\ncommunity participation, from the NDIS.
Community participation funding is one of the major support areas I\nhave received from the NDIS. Others need it not just to have social\nouting opportunities, but to do the basic things needed in life, especially\nif they do not have friends or family to rely on.
Every autistic person is different and their ability to ‘function’ changes\nwith the day or situation. There are a thousand versions of the autistic\nexperience.“ — James
5.4 The ‘directly arising’ narrowing (section 34(1)(aa))
The Bill amends the test for what supports can be funded to require that a support need arise ‘directly’ from an impairment, meaning the impairment must be the ‘direct and immediate source, cause or origin’ of the need, not merely a contributory cause. The Explanatory Memorandum confirms this was intended to override Federal Court and Tribunal decisions that had expanded the scope of funded supports.
For participants with multiple co-occurring impairments, this narrowing is significant. Many participants supported by Aruma in SIL have complex presentations where communication needs, behaviour support needs and daily living needs arise from the interaction of several conditions, not a single direct cause.
The safeguarding implications of this test are most acute at the boundary between disability support and health. Two examples illustrate the risk. A participant who uses a wheelchair full time as a result of their disability is at documented clinical risk of pressure injuries. Managing that risk requires repositioning, skin integrity checks and, where wounds develop, nursing care. A participant whose disability causes dysphagia may require a PEG tube for safe nutrition, and ongoing PEG feeding support, which is currently funded under the NDIS. Under a strict reading of “directly arising,” both of these supports could fall outside NDIS funding on the basis that they arise from functional consequences of the impairment rather than the impairment directly. Yet neither is adequately covered by Medicare or the public health system at the intensity required in a home or SIL setting. The participant falls between two systems, with potentially life-threatening consequences.
The impact extends beyond the clinical supports themselves. Support workers in SIL\nhand home settings are trained to recognise early signs of clinical deterioration, like\nskin breakdown and PEG complications, and to follow care plans developed by\nclinicians. They are not, and should not be, performing clinical procedures beyond\ntheir scope of practice. If the clinical supports that underpin those care plans fall
Submission 190
Aruma Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
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 isk; 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.
5.5 The reassessment process
Under the new framework, the support needs assessment process in section 32L, read together with the budget methodology in section 32K, is not yet sufficiently designed to ensure that participants with high and complex support needs are assessed in a way that meaningfully incorporates existing clinical evidence.
The new assessment is conducted by assessors who have no prior relationship with the participant. While existing clinical evidence may be available to the assessor, there is no clear mechanism to ensure it is meaningfully incorporated. Rather than a participant’s years of accumulated clinical records informing the assessment, the process largely asks participants to articulate their needs afresh through a standardised framework.
For participants with complex communication needs, cognitive disability or lengthy clinical histories, this is both inadequate and burdensome. A standardised assessment tool applied by an unfamiliar assessor cannot replicate the knowledge held by the therapists, support workers and clinicians who know a person well. Where a participant has a substantial body of existing clinical evidence, there is no clear mechanism to ensure that evidence is meaningfully incorporated into the assessment outcome.
This concern is not theoretical. Aruma participant Elyce Shearer volunteered to participate in the NDIS trial of the new support needs assessment. Her experience (see breakout box below and in full at Annexure 1) illustrates the gap between the process as designed and the process as lived by a person with complex, well- documented support needs.
Elyce’s Experience
Elyce is an Aruma participant who volunteered to participate in the NDIS trial of the new support needs assessment. This is her account, in her own words.
The assessment took four hours with no breaks, despite being told it would take two and a half hours. There were too many papers. The questions were not in Easy Read. Some questions felt like they needed a therapist or medical professional to answer, not the participant. Elyce felt grilled, under pressure and scared.
Elyce had a 78-page neuropsychology report. The assessor knew it existed but it was not meaningfully used. The assessment did not feel like a whole-person approach. Elyce felt her experiences were downplayed and shut down.
“Support needs assessment should be more clear, more consistent, more about what you can do, and more fair.”
Submission 190
Aruma Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Elyce has since reflected, “I feel scared being in front of a person who holds so much power - it feels like they will decide my future and they are a stranger who does not understand. I struggle to think straight, like my mind goes numb, and I am fearful because I know I have only one shot at this. I wish I got more help with this and the process was easier.”
Elyce’s full reflection is at Annexure 1.
5.6 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 are reduced, not increased. Two specific removals are particularly concerning. First, the Bill removes subsection 48(4) as a reviewable decision, eliminating a safety net that previously allowed participants to seek review where the CEO failed to make a reassessment decision within the required timeframe. Second, plan renewals under section 50A occur by operation of law and are not subject to merits review, meaning a participant whose plan is auto-renewed with inadequate supports has no pathway to challenge that outcome.
The combined effect is that more decisions affecting participants will have fewer review pathways. Restricting participant-requested reassessment to cases of significant and ongoing change, while actively removing existing review rights, will drive a larger volume of unresolved disputes toward the ART. The ART is already under significant pressure, and pushing more complex, high-stakes disability decisions into that system without a pre-ART resolution mechanism is not sustainable.
Aruma participant James, has shared, “I have also had to appeal a decision, which took over a year to hear back about. Very insulting - it tells me my time and effort, as well as information about my experiences, aren’t that important when somebody else is making an important decision about my life.”
Aruma draws the Committee’s attention to the Independent Expert Review (IER) process, chaired by Graeme Innes AM, which was established to clear the existing AAT backlog of NDIS decisions through lighter-touch, pre-tribunal review conducted by independent experts. The NDIA’s own evaluation found that participants preferred it to the AAT and that the average cost per case was lower. Aruma recommends the Committee consider reinstating a similar mechanism as a condition of the new framework commencing.
5.7 Recommendations
Rec 2 That the Bill explicitly resolve the tension between individualised needs assessment and the ministerial expenditure lever. Where a ministerial determination under section 34A would result in a participant receiving supports below their individually assessed reasonable and necessary level,
that outcome should only be permissible where:
(a) the circumstances in which a categorical cap may override an individual assessment are precisely defined in primary legislation;
(b) any ministerial determination under section 34A is subject to enhanced Parliamentary scrutiny before taking effect, beyond the standard disallowance process;
(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, involving participant feedback, be publicly reported before commencement. Aruma further recommends that a pre-ART independent review mechanism, m modelled 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) 6.1 New surveillance and penalty powers
Schedule 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 notices and enforceable undertakings.
Aruma supports stronger tools to remove unsafe and dishonest actors from the market and to protect participants from fraud and exploitation. Effective regulatory enforcement is essential to participant safety, and Aruma has advocated for it consistently in previous submissions to this Committee and its predecessors.
However, consistent with our previous submissions on the Integrity and Safeguarding Bill 2025, Aruma’s position is that enforcement must be sequenced appropriately. Regulatory obligations should not get ahead of the sector’s capacity to fulfill them, and that capacity is directly dependent on pricing that reflects the actual cost of compliance.
6.2 The pricing gap and market sustainability
The NDIS Disability Support Worker Cost Model subsumes regulatory compliance and
registration costs within a general 'corporate overheads' component, alongside
supervision, utilisation and workers’ compensation costs. There is no distinct
compliance loading and no published methodology for how these costs are
Submission 190
Aruma Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
calculated or whether they reflect actual regulatory obligations. The Bill will
substantially increase those obligations; through new monitoring powers, record-
keeping requirements and civil penalty exposure, without any corresponding review
of whether the existing overhead component is adequate.
In common with many registered providers, Aruma has operated at a loss in recent
financial years due to inadequate NDIS pricing. Sector benchmarking, including the
Ability Roundtable, indicates the core NDIS price is below the reasonable cost of
service delivery. This structural imbalance must be addressed before significant new
obligations commence.
Meeting the new monitoring, record-keeping and investigation-readiness
requirements will require additional staff capacity, systems investment and
management overhead. For large providers like Aruma, these costs are material. For
smaller providers, particularly those operating in thin markets delivering complex
supports, they may be existential. It has the potential to accelerate market exit and
reduce participant choice in precisely the communities where choice is already most
constrained.
Finally, Aruma draws the Committee’s attention to the broader market sustainability
concern. Aruma is, in practice, the provider of last resort for many participants with
the highest and most complex needs. When a participant’s funding does not meet
the cost of safe service delivery, Aruma absorbs the gap rather than exit, because for
many of these participants, there is nowhere else to go. That cross-subsidy is real, it is
significant, and it is only possible because of Aruma’s scale. If the ministerial lever
drives prices down further across support categories, a blanket ratio cap for personal
care and reduced community participation budgets, the gap between funded
supports and safe service delivery widens across the board. The point at which exit
becomes unavoidable comes sooner. Were large providers like Aruma to exit the
market, participants would find it difficult to find alternative providers, leading to the
increase in the number of participants entering hospitals, justice facilities, out of home
care. That is not a saving. It is a cost shift to more expensive and less appropriate
systems, and it represents a significant failure of the NDIS’s foundational purpose.
6.3 Recommendation
Rec 4 That commencement of the new compliance and civil penalty provisions in Schedule 2 be conditional on the completion of an NDIA pricing review that specifically identifies regulatory compliance and registration costs as a distinct component of the Disability Support Worker Cost Model, with a published methodology demonstrating how those costs have been calculated and whether they reflect the obligations imposed by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.
The Committee should also recommend that future NDIS price-setting
processes be required by law to separately identify and publish compliance
cost assumptions.
7. Price-Setting Transparency (Schedule 3, Part 1) Aruma welcomes the move to a legislative mechanism for setting maximum prices for NDIS supports, with the Minister as the final decision-maker based on advice from the NDIA following its Annual Pricing Review. This change brings the price-setting process closer to democratic accountability and is, in principle, a positive development.
Aruma | May 2026 | Submission to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Submission 190
Aruma 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 that transparency, participants, providers and the public cannot assess whether pricing decisions are soundly based or adequately funded.
Meaningful participation in monitoring pricing decisions, which Article 4(3) of the CRPD requires, is only possible if the evidence and reasoning behind those decisions is publicly available. A determination made on the basis of unpublished advice cannot meaningfully be scrutinised or challenged.
Rec 5 That the Bill be amended to require publication of the NDIA’s advice to the Minister underpinning any pricing determination, given under Section 45C(14). This should include the evidence base, methodology and assumptions used in the NDIA’s Annual Pricing Review.
- Conclusion Aruma agrees the Bill should be passed, subject to refinements recommended. Aruma supports the long-term sustainability of the NDIS and understands that the Scheme must be put on a sound financial footing for the benefit of current and future participants. We are committed to working constructively with Government, the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to achieve that goal.
Our five recommendations, if adopted, would:
-
Provide a proportionate, light-touch eligibility confirmation pathway, modelled on the Aged Care IAT, for participants with severe, permanent disability, protecting them from unnecessary and potentially harmful reassessment processes, and link commencement to the availability of Thriving Kids.
-
Preserve the primacy of individual needs assessment over categorical expenditure controls, ensure Parliamentary oversight of values set in incorporated documents, and protect the ‘directly arising’ test from being applied in ways that harm participants with multiple impairments.
-
Reinstate a pre-ART independent review mechanism to manage the surge in disputed decisions the Bill’s reforms will generate, and ensure the new assessment framework is co-designed and publicly reported before commencement.
-
Ensure new regulatory obligations are matched by adequate pricing before they commence and prevent the market sustainability crisis that categorical support cuts would cause for providers of last resort and the participants who depend on them.
-
Strengthen transparency and accountability in NDIS price-setting, enabling meaningful scrutiny by participants, providers and the public.
Submission 190
Annexure 1
Easy English report of Elyce Shearer about her experience in the NDIS Support Needs Pilot.
Submission 190
I did a test for the NDS.
It was about trying a new way
of planning.
On the website I had to sign up
to
-
Participant first
-
NDIS Engage
I asked to be involved in the
project.
I waited a long time.
I did not hear anything.
I did not know if I was
accepted.
Submission 190
Suddenly, the NDIS sent me
papers.
things to do They asked when they could things to do call me to talk.
- ✓ — ✓ — ✓ __.,. — ✓~ .. _.. - ~=– I Then they sent me more – <, – papers.
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
me.
Submission 190
They asked me to write notes
for about 50 questions. write down
This took a long time.
It made me tired.
I felt ready.
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
-
frustrated
-
confused
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.
Submission 190
The meeting took 4 hours.
There were no breaks.
The papers said it would only
take 2 and a half hours.
I told the NDIS this was horrible.
Submission 190
The NDIS said this was a whole
person approach.
This means looking at my
whole life.
But I felt they only looked at
small parts of my life.
The NDIS chose the questions.
Some questions were not
relevant to me.
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
walk down the street only with
a robot suit.
It is supposed to be more
positive.
I told the NDIS strength based
was a problem for me.
Like problems would not be
talked about properly.
Submission 190
NDIS wanted them asking questions to be like talking.
NDIS did not need their words to be used like reasonable and necessary.
I told them I felt grilled. Like under pressure and scared.
Submission 190
The papers said the assessor
will make sure they
understand. X .
This did not happen
The assessor did know about
some of my reports.
Like for Robofit.
This is like a name of physio.
I also wore a robotic suit
controlled by my brain.
Submission 190
They were interested in Robofit.
That was the best part
because I love it.
But it was still declined by the
NDIS.
Still our talk would not change
anything.
Submission 190
They knew I had a 78-page
europsychology report.
I wish they could use some - things in my reports to help.
It used an I CANS assessment.
Not the same one as I CANS 6.
The assessor was friendly.
But I felt they:
- Shut down what I said
- Downplayed my experiences
- Like by saying what I experienced happens to everyone
- Made it feel unimportant
Submission 190
The papers said I would talk to
4 people
-
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.
- Submission 190
The papers said I would get a
report.
- The assessor later said this was
not true.
Submission 190
I filled out a survey about my
experience.
I would like to know what
others think.
I think this must happen to
many people.
Submission 190
Support Needs Assessment
should
- Be more clear
- Be more consistent
- Be more about what you can do
- Be more fair
- Should save time and money.
- The new way of planningaims to be fairer and simpler
- person-centred
- understand your needs
I did get paid.
Submission 190
Thank you for reading.
tthank you
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.