Submission
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 - Submission 1963
Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Re: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by: Speech Pathologist (Sole Trader) Date: May 28th, [year]
Introduction I am a speech pathologist based Victoria specializing children adults disabilities complex communication needs high support minimal no speech expertise assistive technology since chosen operate as sole trader maintain autonomy quality care each client family receives individualized therapy capacity-building natural environment comprehensive assessment collaborative support their teams clients families actively sought services exercising right choice control previous work special education setting prior being rolled out.
Key Concerns With the Amendment Bill
- Ministerial Power Cut Funding Without Appeal
- Issue The grants Minister power reduce funding any category specified percentage without appeal participant.* Impact Undermines fundamental principle participant choice and control Clients many rely consistent essential devices therapies lose access life-changing supports warning recourse sudden changes lead regression in skills increased isolation greater reliance crisis services. Recommendation All decisions must subject independent review participants’ rights reductions should occur transparent justification adequate notice.
Key Concerns with the Amendment Bill
- Issue: The Bill grants the Minister the power to reduce funding for any support category by a specific percentage, with no right of appeal for participants.
* Impact: This undermines the fundamental NDIS principle of participant choice and control. My clients often relying on consistent funding necessary communication devices could lose access critical supports suddenly leading deterioration health wellbeing risk increase dependency emergency services
Recommendation: All funding decisions must be subjected an independent review; participants have clear appeals process all reductions require justified notification.
- **Tougher Unscheduled Reassessment Rules Loss Review Rights**
* **Issue:** The Bill restricts ability request reassessment removes review rights automatic plan renewals funding reductions.
* **Impact:** Many my clients fluctuating evolving needs inability timely re-assessments challenge decision means that may not keep pace changing circumstances deteriorate health well-being
Recommendation Preserve right unscheduled reassessments ensure all affecting supports are reviewed independently
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Submission
- Impact: Many families I work with cannot afford expensive medical reports or specialist assessments. This barrier will disproportionately exclude those most in need, particularly people with complex communication needs who may not be able to advocate for themselves.
- Recommendation: Remove the requirement to exhaust all treatment options prior to eligibility, or at minimum ensure safeguards are in place to prevent financial hardship and consider availability appropriateness treatments.
- Automated Decisions Algorithms No Individual Appeal
- Issue The Bill introduces automated decision-making processes no avenue individual appeal.*
- Impact My clients’ Needs highly individual can’t captured generic algorithms Automat decisions risk misidentifying support especially those Complex fluctuating disabilities leading inappropriate insufficient supports*
- Recommendation Ensure All autom decs subject review qualified assessors e g background allied health medicine disability child development provide clear accessible pathways participants Additional Concerns Cost shifting onto Other Government Systems These changes shift costs other already-stretched systems such Medicare hospitals disable pension Parents children forced leave workforce care increasing reliance government income support Provider Sustainability Risk As sole trader invest significant time comprehensive assessment collaboration capacity building Unpredictable funding cuts price caps make difficult sustain high-quality individ services likely force experienced providers out sector Systemic Waste Inefficiency Psychological Distress Families Leading Cost Blowout NDIS Current NDIS Processes been inefficient resulting waste participant funding professional resources families routinely go through lengthy stressful appeals process Administrative Appeals Tribunal AAT just secure basic supports like worker hours even few weeks continence products This delays access essential supports also diverts funds away direct therapy meaningful intervention Time as therapist spent writing reports justify need these essential supports Large amount of the governments tax-payer spending on NDIS directed paying lawyers who work for NDIS to reduce participants’ Supports in conducted I will list more examples impact observed below recommendations Excessive Administrative Burden Prior NDIS Victorian Electronic Communication Devices Scheme Yooralla allowed straightforward communication devices up $750 simple application speech pathologist Now obtaining even device tablet with a communication app totalling 2,000 requires –10 hours Page 3
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1963
- time spent on report writing, appeals, and additional documentation. This is poor use both participant funds professional expertise—money could instead direct therapy wasted bureaucratic processes. • Unqualified Decision-Making: Many clients families report people making decisions about plans are unqualified understand disability needs as result inappropriate made leading further appeals resources. • Coercive Hostile Communication Families describe interactions with NDIS representatives coercive hostile For example parents pressured say child doing well which used justification cut funding Plan review calls often private numbers unexpected times catching off-guard unprepared sometimes not even identified plan reviews This undermines trust transparency has led further appeals distress experienced work community family life. • Psychological Distress Constant need fight basic supports navigate appeals deal qualified unsympathetic staff causing high levels psychological stress impacting participant entire family unit reducing capacity engage in work community family life. • Ongoing Cycle Appeals Inefficiency adversarial nature system means that families providers caught cycle ongoing appeals wasting more time resources better supporting participants actual needs Recommendations: o Streamline access essential supports particularly established such communication devices continence products sensory supports support worker hours trusting allied health professionals recommendations minimising unnecessary administrative hurdles o Ensure decision-makers phone-based have appropriate qualifications training disabilities allied health communications children development trauma-informed practice. Implement clear transparent respectful protocols for all plan reviews including advance notice identification purpose of calls Reduce reliance on appeals excessive documentation so Participant funds can be direct supports bureaucracy As sole trader specialist complex communication impact when flexible, participat-driven responsive proposed changes erode these foundations risking harm most vulnerable Australians urge Committee reconsider amendments additional concerns listed above uphold principles choice control equity NDIs participants Thank you considering submission.