Submission: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (SecuringtheNDISforFutureGenerations)Bill2026

Sam Paior from The Growing Space submitted this document.

Date: May 25th, 2026

Consent for publication:

I consent to my name being published with these submissions.

About me

I’m Sam Paior from The Growing Space – an informal systemic advocacy practice working alongside NDIS participants across Australia. Sam also serves as sole parent to two young adult NDIS participants: one diagnosed with Down syndrome or autism; another suffering brain injury; as well as being co-founder/director at Self Manager Hub (16k+ self-managed participants). Paior previously held roles on both NDIS Independent Advisory Council & other committees over past five years. The current submission reflects personal/professional work outside these positions, based upon reading Future Generations Bill/Explain Mem., Integrity Safeguarding Act ‘2026’, published analyses from Justice Equity Centre/Darren O’Donovan/Villamanta Disability Rights Legal Service/Intrepidus Law, together first thirty published submissions to your Committee, reaching more than half a million views via social media since April’s Minister Butler Press Club Speech. This document aims for clarity in recommendations derived through this process.

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

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 - Sam Paior

• future potential participants and their nominees
• people who self-manage their NDIS plan funding (often with highly\nindividualised teams post service failures and harms to those with profound\ndisability/needs)
• NDIS providers
• everyone affected by the proposed changes to “Reasonable and Necessary”,and the lack of clarity and security around buying/claiming decisions Recommendations are numbered inline under each section where the issue isscussed, can list again at the end of submission under same numbers ease reference.

If you’re already on NDIS

Seven pieces this Bill concern me concerning scheme. The Minister can cut your plan instrument no review s s A`. Percentageoffunding removed from support category legislativeinstrument firstcut lockedin social community participation phased October plans renew The EM confirms Changes result notsubject meritsreview For participant whose socialcommunityparticipation keeping world outside front door including assistance GP appointments, support while visiting Mum Papa nursing home even help supermarket Suggestion1: Amend s34A require percentage reduction preceded mandatory co-design least consultation disabilitycommunity published impact statement thataffected retain individual rights when change harmful intheirplan Particularconcern for participants very high needs. Someparticipants socialcommunitynot discretionary recreational sense mechanism through which essential supervision behavioural communicationsupport nuresg oversight airway safety active intensivedisabilitysupport deliveredhome Participant requiring 247supervision may funded combination -

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission # Submission_193

NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 Sam Paior

home support (say, 18 hours per day) and community participation support (say, 6 hours per day), together creating a practical 24-hour safe support framework. Where a participant requires continuous 1:1 support because of profound behavioural group needs complex health risks tracheostomy care swallowing risk absconding group or other intensive needs percentage-based reduction does not magically reduce need supervision It simply leaves periods where no arrangement exists The foreseeable includes serious neglect preventable hospitalisation increased restrictive practices carer breakdown placement collapse emergency service involvement some circumstances life-threatening harm including choking airway difficulties self-harm.The Bill its associated public commentary framing as discretionary lifestyle expenditure workers scrolling phones That framing recognises that for many participants with complex disability these supports are inseparable from core safety supervision communication regulation inclusion safeguarding needs.Suggestion Amend s so any percentage cannot apply category high or complex support -including but to participants requiring supervisions participants profoundly behaviouralsupportsneeds participants with complex health needs management)and requirements Provide an automatic exemption mechanism uniform percentage reduction produce unsafe gaps in supervisionsupportThe Minister can also cap at time ss By legislative instrument the planner’s reasonable-and-necessary finding EM Marco example walks through it A narrower version sits new ss allowthe value live

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 Sam Paior

The document incorporated by reference can be updated without Parliament seeing again.

• Cap rule stays disallowable

Suggestion3:

Require cap values themselves to sit within the disallowed NDIS rule, included under ss 33(2G)-(2H) &209(2AA)-(2AB).

The “whole-of-person” approach being narrowed (s 34(1)(aa))

Section adds “directly” – supports become fundable if need arises directly from a qualifying impairment as Darren O’Donovan notes this erecting medicalized barrier on claiming support For people whose disabilities interact (physical psychosocial sensory cognitive) interaction may stop funded.

Suggestion: Delete word “directly s (a)a, restoring whole person achieved in amendments.`

Plans auto-renew and unspent funds are not rolled over(s). From February when plan ends automatically renewed for months operation law is subject merits review EM ¶ . But makes no distinction between one-off funding you’ve already used versus still waiting. Custom wheelchair order? Home modification quoted but built vehicle finalised literal text of that funding disappears at end date variation power cannot rescue it variations adjust those plans don’t restore stripped by operation law EM’s Soraya example carefully picks participant wheelchairs purchased never addresses chair yet ordered feels easily fixable likely unintentional drafting oversight.

Suggestion5:

Amend so that one-off funding which has been quoted, ordered or otherwise actioned the plan end carries until provided claimed renewal whichever earlier.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

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

Asking For An Unscheduled Reassessment Becomes Much Harder (

Suggestion:

• Suggestion: Retain the decision timeframe. requests, stored the “deemed decision” safety net for missed deadlines; remove qualifier on informal-supports changes. There Is Also No Emergency Reassessments Pathway. The Bill treats all unscheduled reassessment same. But participant whose support arrangement has collapsed housing at risk behaviour needs escalated immediate safety risk, period harm happens current scheme no statutory fast-track pathway these participants should create one.

Suggestion7:

Insert into s a separate emergency re-assessment with timeframe available where participant nominee treating practitioner certifies that faces urgent safety housing behavioural or break-down risk Provide Missed Deadline Deemed Decision Participant’s Favour Pending Final Determination. Plan Suspension And Revocation Can Happen Without You Knowing (ss). CEO can suspend plan after reasonable attempts contact participant neither nor minimum period before such attempts defined in bill overseas hospital mental health crisis admission middle family bereavement phone number changed find their suspended suspension revocation under s directrevocation without window if made None of protected circumstances participants expect - hospital communication breakdown named Agency’s administrative discretion only safeguard isn’t enough.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 193

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 Sam Paior

Suggestion #8:

Define “reasonable attempts” as requiring evidenced contact via every channel provided (“phone,” “email” etc.) documented over at least one month. Build protected-circumstance exclusions for hospitalization, mental health admission, bereavement/family emergency/overseas travel < six weeks/unexpected communication breakdowns outside participant’s control. Remove direct-revocation pathway in s(4A)(a); suspension window does necessary work without removing safety net.

Eligibility itself being reopened: Section introduces new “functional capacity” test described section two). EM applies all current participants NDIS anyone applied previously or future) From January existing can be reassessed. The concedes scheme will significantly smaller than ~participants projected reform).

Suggestion (See Suggestion delay commencement of s until assessment tool designed consulted piloted tested/evidenced and made public)

Schedule sits this Henry VIII power letting Minister modify how the Act operates transitional rule We’ve seen plays out carried label still force eighteen months later amended multiple times.

Suggestion9:Narrow Schedule five transitional rule-making limit subject specifically enumerated issues reduce duration require mandatory consultation with disability community; published impact statement before such rules are made.

If you’re trying to get on the NDIS eligibility

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 Sam Paior

A new “naked person” functional capacity test (↓B)

The ‘functional capacity’ defined as ability without assistance. Disability effects cannot be neatly separated; multiple impairments interact constantly, as recognized Hespe J Eastham: support needs are confluence factors (at [83]). Bill demands impossible task—pull apart single need into component causes.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 193

with other healthcare access barriers (this also disproportionately affects those with intellectual disability).

Suggestion 11:

Remove or qualify s 25A(2) so that the participant’s individual circumstances restricting access to treatment – including geography, cost, wait lists, and access barriers tied to disability — must be considered in deciding whether a treatment is “appropriate” for that person.

“Materially improve” is like a trap door—and the Bill doesn’t define it. Both the new permanence test (s (4)(b)) and the “appropriate treatment” definition ((`(``(1))((b))) hinge on whether a treatment can “materially improve, reverse, or alleviatethe impactof,the impairment.” The Bill itselfdoesn’tdefine“materially.”The EM at ¶639and¶648says“materially means noticeablyor significantly”—andsignificantly—sitstheverydifferentpointonthespectrumfromsignificantly.The drafting flaw:thetestisaboutimproving“Theimpact of theimpairment,”notwhether threetreatmentwouldliftyououtofthesescheme.Sota treatm entproducinga“noticeable” improvementtooneaspectoff an impaire mentcan disqualify you—evenify ou would stillbe wellbelow these substantially-reduced-functional-capacity threshold afterit.T heEM’sMatiuexampleusesfriendlierlanguage aboutfunctionalcapacity (§ 663),butacourtwillreadthestillBillfirst.Thispossiblyanotherunintendeddraftingmiss,and needsfixinginthelessislation,notthestatement.

Suggestion 12:

define “” material ly improves in the bill itself(not sth e EM) by tying it to substantially reduced functional capacitythreshold - soatreatments that producesanotice able impro vement but leaves personstillwellwithinthese scheme’s eligibility threshold does notdis qualify them. Early intervention narrows from “mitigating or alleviating” t o “reducing”(itemno90o f Schedule). People with degenerative conditions-MND, MS,Parkinsons-curre ntl y comeintothe schemebasesthat supports can mitigate thee impact off inevita ble decline.Showingthat asupport will reduceimpact is much harder when capaci tyis on a known downward trajectory.

Suggestion: Retainthexistingword ing“ mit ig atingoralleviat ing” ine arly-interventionprovisions;dononarrowittoreduc ing.”

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

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 - Sam Paior

Compensation schemes block you automatically ( Suggestion: Amend Section 25B, so an “excluded impairment” applies where compensation or alternative systems actually pay for needed support.

• Require any Section 25B declaration as a disallowable instrument subject mandatory consultation with disability community, or First Nations representative bodies if affects them.

And the access decision timeframe blows out from 9 days (s ext{ } ef{s:accessDecisionTimeframe}) to ※⁊(s ext{ } ef{s:accessDecisionTimeframe}). An extra ten weeks without supports while waiting.

If You Self-Manage and/or Employ Your Own Workers

Two important pieces good news, alongside concerns some outside current bill’s remit gives context may raise other issues Committee due time constraints submissions.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission: NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 Submission 193 Sam Paior Good news!:

• The NDIC Commission has now confirmed twice ((Self Management Advisory Group) May 5th & mid-May), mandatory registration as SIL provider requires three elements: high-risk supports managedbya provider delivered by apvovider.
• Self-managers running their own workers or sole-trader contractors are generally not caught Restrictive Practices remain exception No stops on July, J7 2026. However, personal care supports across board will have requirement regisration which may undo recent comfort provided by ndic commision above. Good News! The Minister’s new price-setting power does *not apply selfmanaged funding New s (2) is explicit EM at confirms selfmanaged participants pay above guide where they need tradeoff buying less That flexibility survives bill. Claim window drops two years to days (s A(5)(a)). For self managers who batch invoicing recovering from hospital stay parents juggling six things managing complex teams of workers this real administrative burden Suggestion Retain longer claim window months minimum broader “exceptional circumstances” discretion explicitly contemplates hospitalisation family emergency practical realities management Three years records for participants five nominees others excluding providers automatic debt if missing ss B(5)B(7)824 If cannot produce specified record Agency’s request owe automaticdebt equal amount claimed can’t ask review reasonable recordkeeping fair lack statutory defences listed There odd defence pattern worth flagging Providers face civil penalty failing retain records s B3 but minister prescribe rules excusing that penalty s B4 Participants and nominees no equivalent civil penalties also no equivalent rulesbased defence debt. Can be excused the only

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

Submission 193

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 - Sam Paior

escape is the s 195 special-circumstances waiver –and s 195(a)(ii) requires that the person did not “knowingly” fail to comply. As O’Donovan puts it, the agency is not necessary to put forward any proof of non-entitlement nor even attempt think about whether this person was on broader evidence entitled.” The debt arises operation law—only CEO’s decision reviewable, not itself.

Suggestion: Amend s(II)

circumstance exception matching recent social security amendments financial abuse and coercive control Robodebt Royal Commission recommendations management). Amend s require CEO consider absence records actually corresponds non-entitlement before raising debt.

Nominees additionally face new civil penalty under s knowingly breaching their duty The carve-outs in ss ZSH(ZSI(ZSJ protect against infringement notices compliance undertakings but not direct civil-penalty order court. Many nominees unpaid family members stepped role support someone they love exposure would carry under disproportionate Role.

Suggestion Remove s alternatively add reasonable steps defence explicit protection from direct civil-penalty orders nominee acting good faith without remuneration.

Certainty flexibility what’s missing Bill Two important gaps current scheme addressed anywhere Bill Both leave participants nominees carrying risk decisions only Agency could be fixed simple statutory amendments There is no way check buy appeal after claimed (ss 45A) the worst administrative gap already scheme there mechanism participant or nominee to

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 Sam Paior obtain a binding ruling on whether a particular support is claimable before they purchase it, and no appeal pathway if theAgency cancels aclaim after themoneyhas been spent. Self-managers and plan-managed participants are forced to make purchasing decisionson basisof operational guidelines,a pricing document ,a contradictorydifficult evenfor ARTto useNDIS Supports list,and(sometimes)genuinely lousy verbaladvicefrom contact centreowritten advicen an LAC,SUPPORT CoordinatorPlan Manager(nonewhohave decision making authority)-none which binds agency.Ifagency later disagrees,theparticipant carries debt under s(4),an donly escapeis specialcircumstances waiver.Thereequivalent ATO’sbinding privateruling mechanismMedicare MBS item lookup.UnderBill this gap becomes more dangerous not less.Theclaim window drops from two years90 days (s5A(a)),missing records produce automaticdebt(s ),automateddecisionmaking authorised for ss7daysafter Royal Assent Agency gets faster,more automated harder challenge.Participants get lesstime,fewer defences,same lack pre-claim certainty.It lose-loose.Suggestion19:Insert into NDIS Act-bindingpre-clam advice mechnism modelled Australian Taxation Officeprivate rulings see ITAA 1953 Schedule Partunder participantnominee orplan manager may apply writingAgencyruling on whether specified support claimable thatparticipanthAgency legally bound honour ruling period stated.Provide statutory timeframes withinwhich must respondbeyond positive ruling deemed given.Where a partn relies in good faith written advicethe Ag should be held tothat advice.Binding precl ammechanism answerother half where partic has actedwritten advicedefireAgency particular support is claimableParticipant saddled with debt because Agency changed mindWithout protection,writtenadvice worthless system runs fear guesswork. Suggest20: insertinto theNDISActstatutory safeharbour provision soparticipantor nominee reliedgoodfaithon written advicefromthe agency particularsupportis claimablefor Participant

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026

Reasonable and necessary, rebuilt

These changes feel among the most consequential.

The test that decides what gets into your plan – section 34 — have been deeply re-engineered.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 193

the Agency could ever hope to fund day programs or group homes – neither of which would meet this evidential requirement (so I guess this amendment is not all bad…).

Suggestion 27:

Amend section s 34(IE)**)to enumerate“lived experienceoftheparticipant“and “clinicalexperienceoftreatingpractitionerswiththeparticipantas evidence categories equal weight peer-reviewed research.Removesection (IF, so that missingpeer-reviewresearchcannotoperate asaveto where othercategories evidence support participant.

Value for money now demands cheaper comparable supports - and safeguard requiringcomparablesupportachieve samoutcome has been quietly removed (s(A)). “Comparable”is undefined Socheaper support achieves different worse outcome can treated comparably.

Suggestion(28):

Restorerequirementthatany

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 Sam Paior

parent) and the systemic cumulative care load where the family includes multiple disabled children.

Informal supports first (€₹). Formal funded supports only when reliance on informal networks would expose someone to “material risk of harm, abuse or neglect that cannot be mitigated through informal or lower cost supports.” A high bar that undervalues choice around carer reliability and loses future-focused capacity-building before caregivers age out. This also places undue burden on the partner of an incapacitated person who might otherwise offer informal assistance but could lose employment due to caregiving responsibilities at what point does this solo father change his daughter’s tampon because such actions are not considered “material risks”? This dark return will undo all efforts made for increased independence, dignity respect for people with disabilities further entrenching a “carer burden narrative,” devaluing their lives in public view.

Suggestion30: Amend s (1K) so material risk test takes account: a) participant’s dignity & autonomy; b) sustainability of arrangements including caregiver health/employment/capacity over time; c) right choose not rely informally matters affecting bodily integrity intimate care Restore focus building fundable category before caregivers age-out.

“More appropriately provided by another system.” returns €(1)(g). Even if reasonable necessary CEO can refuse funding based other systems should provide it reverses NDIA v Sutherland EM 2073 It operates planning stage separately from access-stage exclusions So even after scheme individual supports may be referred off more appropriate you may or actually able to access.

Suggestion31: Amend (₹) CEO can only refuses support on basis another system provides where the participant has actual,

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026

Automated decision-making

Schedule 3 Part 2 of the Bill immediately authorises automated decision-making for four sections from seven days after Royal Assent:

• s 33 (plan content)
• s 45 (payments)
• s 45A (claims)
• s 45C (pricing). Under ésö[59C](«{2}», the Minister can add moresectionsbylegislativeinstrument.TheJusticeandEquityCentreDarrenO’Donovanhavebothwrittencarefully ontheadMconcernsincludingtherobodebtparallelsandthefactthatthesafeguardsins·59Earenotlegallyenforceable.Given therobodebhitoryautomatingclaimassessmentplandecisionsbefore legally enforceablesafeguardsaireinplaceisthekindofriskthisParliamentshouldnotinake.

Suggestion [34]: Makethesesafeguards inss­59Elawfully enforcable. Requirehuman reviewany adverseADMdecision affecting a participant’s funding, eligibility or claim beforethedecisiontakeseffect.Defercommencement of ADMauthorisation for ss 33 , 45 , and until these safeguards are inplaceaudited.

If the Bill must pass,buildina mandatory independent post-implementationreview The combined effect changesBillnew functional capacity test new budget method,new automated decision-making.new claim window,new replacement-renewal mechanism.narrowed reasonable-and-necessarytest expanded ministerial powers isimpossible to model advance.Honestposition no-one knows what cumulative impact participants will be.That reason enough require statutory.independentpost-implementatioreview.

Suggestion[35]: InsertintotheNDISActa statutary requirementfor an independentevaluationparticipant safety outcomes including unmet need,hospitalisatiorates.restrictive practice rates.plan suspensions revocations.harm incidents.cohort-disaggregated analysis (including First Nationsparticipants.CALD participants.participants with intellectual disability.psychosocialdisability.profoundandcomplexsupportneeds.women girls.self-managedparticipan)andpublishedgovernmentresponse within six monthsofthepage21ofof8

| review’s tabling. Provide that material findings of harm trigger an obligation on the\nMinister to introduce remedial amending legislation.|

Consolidated suggestions

Each suggestion is numbered inline above where the issue is discussed. They are collected here for ease of reference, in the same order they appear in the body of the submission.

The numbering is not a priority ranking - every one of these suggestions addresses a problem that, if left unfixed, will harm participants, spective ticipants or those who support them.

From section 1 – If you’re already on the NDIS

• Amend S to require that any percentage reduction be preceded by mandatory co-design; at least consultation with disability community; published impact statement affected participants retain individual merits-review rights when change occurs plan.
• Amend so no percentage reduction applies to participants whose funding reflects high complex needs including but limited requiring supervision profound behavioural support needs complex health (including tracheostomy swallowing risk airway management) and intensive requirements provide automatic exemption mechanism uniform cannot produce unsafe gaps supervisions supports.
• Require cap values themselves sit disallowable rule incorporated under ss(2G)-(2H) and -(2AB).
• Delete word directly from s(aa), restoring whole-of-person approach achieved amendments .
• Amend s(b) so that one-off funding quoted ordered actioned end date carries over until provided claimed renewal whichever earlier.
• Retain day decision timeframe unscheduled reassessment requests restore deemed safety net missed deadlines remove qualifier informal-supports changes.
• Insert into separate emergency pathway statutory days available where participant nominee treating practitioner certifies faces urgent safety housing

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission: NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 Submission No.: Sam Paior

• Provide deemed decision on missed deadlines.
  • Behavioural risk, support breakdowns; o Missed deadline is favourable pending final determination if no action taken after missing date.

Define “reasonable attempts” (Sections S and S)

• Requires evidence contact via every channel provided:
  • Phone, Email, Post, Emergency contacts, nominee, support coordinator).
• Documented over minimum period - spread out at least six months with exclusions like hospitalization, mental health admission etc., to pause clock.
• Remove direct revocation pathway in Section S; suspension window ensures safety net remains intact without removing it entirely.

Narrow Schedule Rule-Making Power

• Limit subject matter specifically enumerated transitional issues for duration reduction.
• Require mandatory consultation disability community before making rule changes published impact statement.

From section If you’re trying to get onto the NDIS

1. Delay commencement of s9B test until assessment tool has been designed drafted consulted piloted diverse cohorts including people intellectual psychosocial rare conditions First Nations CALD participants made disallowable parliamentary scrutiny rules creating tools.
   • Design draft publish assess tool.
2. Remove or qualify 5A(2) so participant’s individual circumstances restricting access treatment geography cost wait lists barriers tied must be considered deciding appropriate person.
3. Define “materially improve” Bill itself not EM: by tying threshold notice improvement leaves scheme’s eligibility does not disqualify them.
4. Retain existing wording mitigating alleviating early-intervention provisions do narrow reducing. 5 Amend B so excluded impairment applies compensation alternative scheme actually pays supports needs require any declaration system disallowable instrument,

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

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 - Sam Paior

subject to mandatory consultation with the disability community and, where the declaration affects First Nations people, with relevant First Nations representative bodies.

Section 3: If you self-manage and/or employ your own workers

• Retain an existing longer decision timeframe (€2€ day in €(2)(a))
• Retain broader “exceptional circumstances” discretion explicitly considering hospitalisation, family emergency, and practical realities related to self-management;
• Amend s \u20ac195(a)(ii) to add some kind of “justified” exception matching recent social security amendments on financial abuse coercive control; refer Robodebt Royal Commission recommendations debt management). -Amendment s\u20ac182(4) require CEO consider absence records actually corresponds non-entitlement before raising debt.
• Remove or alternatively amend s 80(5), reasonable steps defence explicit protection from direct civil-penalty orders nominee acting good faith without remuneration. 

From section Certainty flexibility

Insert into Act binding pre-claim advice mechanism modelled Australian Taxation Office’s private rulings (see ITAA Schedule Part under which participant nominate plan manager apply Agency for ruling specified support claimable thatparticipantAgency legally bound honour period stated Provide statutory timeframes within Agency must respond beyond positive ruling deemed given.

• Insert NDIS Act a statutory safe-harbour provision so where participant relies written advice agency particular support is claimable basis the participant not liable repay claims approved any arising waive under € 195.
• Provide statutory merits-review pathway disallowances post-payment reversals ss and A, including timeframes in which Agency act reverse paid claim, beyond which claimed waived.

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

Submission 193

Submission: NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 – Sam Paior

deemed finally approved. Where the Agency seeks to recover a paid claim as a debt, the participant or nominee should have a right of merits review of the underlyingclaimdecision notonlythedebt decision.

Section 5 If you’rea provider:

• Consolidate enforcement powers proposedin SchedulePartwithin existingNDIS Commissionratherthanestablishingparallel NDIA function.TheCommission is already set up toregeulateinth eNSIDS context.
• ImplementNDISR Review RecommendationAmendsofmaximum-price determinationsmustbe made onbinding adviceof IHACPA,notAgency.

Fromsection Reasonableandnecessaryrebuilt:

• Amend s sofinancial sustainabilityisoneofo several considerationsCEO must weigh -alongside choice-and-controlindividualisation andparticipantdirection principlespreviouslyfoundins rather than an override that sits above reasonable-necessary test.Retain’s planningprinciples in modified form within PartOfThe Act.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission - NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026

From section 7 - Automated decision-making

• Make the safeguards in s 59E legally enforceable. Require human review of any adverse ADM decision affecting a participant’s funding, eligibility or claim before the decision takes effect.Defer commencement of ADM authorisation for ss 33, 45 ,

  45Aand 45C until these safeguardsa rein place anda udited .

Insert into then DDIS Acta statutory requirementforan independent post- implementationreviewofchangesmadebythisBill,tobecommencednotlater than two years after Royal Assent and reported publiclyto Parliament.The revi ew must include ( ) mandatory consultation with them disability community,(b) evaluationo fparticipant safety outcomes including unmet need,hospitalisat ion rates,restrictive practice rat es,p lan suspensions andrevo cations,and harm incidents,c( cohort-disaggregated analysis(including First Nations participants,CALD partic ipants.participantswithintellectualdisability.psychosocial disabilit y.profoundandsupportneeds,womenangirlsandself-managed parti ci pants),anda published government response within six months o fth e review’s tabling. Provide that material findings oharm trigger an obligation on th e Minister to introduce remedial amending legislation.

Closing I support the work placing NDIS sustainable long-term footing.I do not accept requiresParliament pass this Bill drafted The amendments above would derail Government’s policy direction nor materially reduce scheme sustainability see what did there They protect people parts drafting most likelyharmthem - by accident or design preserve parliamentary oversightthattheBil is several places quietly handing away My suggested amendmentssafeguardscheme against future governments may share same intent currentgovernment – Primary Legislation should always act shieldagainstunknownfuture .

I welcome opportunity speak submission hearing Sam Paior CEOTheGrowingSpace info@thegrowingspace.com.au