Supplementary Submission

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee - Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Lee Knights supplementary to my submission lodged June 1st, 2026

Introduction

I submitted an inquiry on January 1th, 2026; since which time the Senate extended its reporting date until August 14th of same year. Several developments have emerged directly affecting provisions in said bill not previously presented at committee’s consideration when I originally filed mine; henceforth focusing solely upon these five aforementioned changes, as opposed repeating arguments from original document.

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

Submission 2079 - Supplementary Submission

Access-and-budget lever (legislative before the Committee)

as distinct should ask why one being exercised quietly in advance other.

Governments expected provide “alternative supports” say they have not agreed them

Relevant provisions:

schedule access which assume foundational- safety net people lose denied access.The Bill's access-tightening rests assumption people no longer eligible will be supported through

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

Submission 2079 - Supplementary Submission

the scheme and the act“ (Proof Committee Hansard, May 21). This peak disability body draws on Government’s integrity-inquiry record to support omitting Schedule 1 & deferring Schedule 2. 4.The treatment-exhaustion test is distorting clinical decisions before enacted: The permanence provisions commence Jan ’28; Parliament has yet voted them in. Evidence from inquiry shows that logic already operates clinically: ECT, clozapine asked to demonstrate impairment’s permanency. People are steered toward serious interventions evidentiary rather than therapeutic reasons—before enactment rewards such behavior. New info parallels Part I: provider prices cut under administrative power ahead of bill, reshaping treatments anticipating it. Enacting s.s(5),s.(B)) would harden into statute a dynamic already distorting practice. Royal Australasian College evidence explains why drafting cannot fix this: no clear point at which all reasonable treatment completes or reflects real-world circumstances not hypothetical inaccessible options. For autism—the majority new entrants lifelong condition with no remedy reverses alleviates exhaustion limb lacks coherent content as original submission set out.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 2079 - Supplementary Submission

thing it can produce is the evidentiary treatment pressure Professor Fels describes, applied to a cohort for whom the demanded treatments do not exist. 5. The integrity inquiry has now reported – and the Bill fails test of its own pillar* Relevant provisions: the Bill’s integrity rationale; Schedule 2; s.s4A support- determination s.4C pricing powers Schedules 1 & omision.* The Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS tabled Integrity of the National Disablity Insurancce Scheme report July 26 making twelve recommendatons.Integrity is th epillar Government sought public suppor this so report bears Committee’s review no other document can: It government’s own inqury answering terms reference expressly asked what legislative or reforms are required strengthen scheme integrit The Bill described Report background chapters but appears nowhere Chapter which contains committee views and recommendations, recommendation recommends passage bill provision in mismatch runs directions Four Twelve recommedations (4) contemplates amendments NDS Act mandatory reporting penalty framework kickbacks inducements whistleblower protections harmonised Corporations Act requirement eligibility reports completed only registered clinicians limited exemptions enabling disclosure misconduct findings before Committee amends NDS Act carries none them text contains kickback induction frame work no whistleblowr provisions (its references Corporations Act definitional), worker registration scheme clinician-registration require Conversely nothing Twelv recomendation asks for Bills schedule access changes Schedule automation provisions ministerial support-determinatio nding power Both additional comments warn against fraud narrative carrying access cuts Australian Greens found Government continued rely uncertain inflated estimates to justify substantial changes Scheme noting NDIA evidence We don’t measure a figure NDI broad integrity leakage per cent Agency acknowledged cannot decompose into fraud error Coalition members arguing should have gone further structural reform added Australians expect those defraud scheme be confronted

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

Submission 2079 - Supplementary Submission

Because integrity is the Bill’s stated foundation, I ask the Committee to test the Bill against what the inquiry’s evidence says integrity actually requires. First, enforcement capacity.The NDIA’s Deputy CEO for Integrity told the inquiry the agency’s integrity workforceis “in therealmof about people,” includingabout Fraud Fusion Taskforces staff,in scheme processing between claimsadayThe Task force hadprovider-fraud investigationson footat March ; convictions have been secured over its lifetime. The heard that NDIS Commission may not havethecapacitycurrentlyto effectively overseea significant increase registered providers with Aruma Dr Martin Laverty tellingthecommittee: suspect they don’thave themanagement scaleaheadusBill grantsnew powers; it doesnot resource policingthemNew without enforcement powerpaperintegrity under-resourced reactive oversight weak onTaskforce own listBefore reliesCommitteepowersprotectionagainst fraud shouldaskwhat resourcing accompanies themSecond market conditions can sustain quality High-quality high-integrity services require correct pricingproviders who cannot deliver at funded price either leave thinning cut corners survive init Either path an failure misaligned incentives and design failures“ task forceslist Inquiry evidencethat kickbacks inducements do their worst damage precisely areas where markets arethin report paragraph 644 committee asks registration changes staged thinmarkets reason Yet new s34A(5) expressly authorises funding support less than total cost ofthe support as Part1 this submission sets out provider prices already beingcut administratively year ahead Bill

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill

Submission 2079 - Supplementary Submission

The Bill’s pricing settings do not build the market the integrity evidence calls for; they build the one it warns about. Third, deployment at a pace the system can absorb.“Rushed deployment” is the first pattern on the Taskforce’s list, it is the same failure the inquiry’s May evidence identified in the scheme’s original rollout.My submission of June set out how the Bill’s commencement architecture repeats this.The integrity report now supplies the government’s vocabulary concerning this concern.

Recommendations These developments reinforce my recommendations as outlined in submissions made prior to June 26th.On an Integrity Report I put forth these suggestions using terms specific rather than adopting committee proposals.Five among twelve recommended matters are framed merely with consideration; softness that both additional comments chapters criticize against opposite directions.Evidences before said Inquiry support more than what was requested within its findings.Scheduled Item One must be excluded from The Bill Scheduled Item Three should also be omitted until implementation of Royal Commission Recommendation Number Seventeen and Eighteenth into Robodebt SchemeScheduled Item Two needs deferral pending Government response to the Integrity Inquiries’ recommendation.Its redesignation shall carry measures supported by the Inquiry’s Evidence: A directive mandatory reporting framework penalizing kickbacks inducements collusive conduct Whistleblower protections harmonized Corporations Act 2001 incorporating reforms proposed Human Rights Law Centre during their testimony.A requirement for eligibility reports assessments completed by clinicians registered professional bodies calibrated so it does not duplicate existing AHPPRA regulation Limited exemptions enabling disclosure misconduct findings Only then should such measures presented Parliament again reflecting outcome

of government’s own integrity review Participant-side record-retention obligation automatic debt mechanism (new ss.45B,ss) removed Schedule two inquiry evidence locates integrity risk provider conduct participants.

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

Submission 2079 - Supplementary Submission

Schedule 5, item 1, subitems (2) and (3) should be amended to remove the power to provide, by legislative instrument, that provisions of the NDIS Act 2013 have effect “with any modifications prescribed by the rules.” This is a Henry VIII clause: for twelve months it allows the Minister to modify the operation of primary legislation by instrument, without the parliamentary scrutiny that amending the Act would require. The Government’s own NDIS Reform Advisory Committee identified it as a Henry VIII clause in its submission to this inquiry. My original submission did not address Schedule 5; I add this recommendation because the clause completes the pattern this submission documents — substantive power exercised by legislative instrument, outside merits review and ordinary parliamentary amendment procedure. The Committee should seek evidence on the enforcement resourcing that will accompany the Bill’s new powers – against the inquiry’s record of an integrity workforce of about 600 people,₄ provider-fraud investigations on footagainst₄ convictions overthe Fraud Fusion Taskforce’s lifetime,andthetheevidencethatthenNDIS Commission may lack capacityto oversee expanded registration—andshould recommend apublished implementationandresourcing planforthescheme’s anti-fraud functions before theBill’spowersare reliedonas fraud protection.The NDIA should berequiredtopublish adecomposedintegrity-leakagemeasure thathdistinguishesfraud,error uninentional non-compliancebefore frauestimates are usedtousetojustifylegislative change.Ontheadgey’sown evidencetotheinquiry,”We don’t measurea fraud figureinth eNDSI”—only leakageof7.to13per centit cannot decompose.Pricing shouldebe treatedasan integrity setting. New s.34A(5), which authorises funding below then total costofsupports,she be removed ,an ministerial pricingandsuppor determinations she grounded in publishedcost evidece nd remain subject to independent Annual Pricing Review.I do not supportannounced fifty percent reductiontosocial,Civic and Community Participation supports,nothing this submission should read as accepting that a reducion of kind is justified.If suppotdeterminationsthiskindaretos exist at all they must individually reviewable: Department answers inquiry questions on notice confirm reductions made through Ministerial support determination “not arviewable decision.”

Disclosure — Use Of Accessibility Tools

This Submission Has Been Prepared With Assistance From AI Tools Used As Cognitive Accessible Infrastructure To Support My Participation In Democratic Process. I Am A Late-Diagnosed Autistic Adult; Executive Function And Communication Characteristics Make Drafting Lengthy Formal Documents Without Structural Language Support Significantly More Effortful Than It Is For Neurotypicals; Artificial Intelligence Tools Have Assisted Me Structuring This Submission, Drafting Sections From Research Analysis, And With Polish And Source Tracking Substantive Arguments Lived Experience Material Primary-Source Research Verification Factual Claims Positions Adopted Throughout This Are Mine I Have Reviewed Every Section Verified Sources On Which Rests The Assistance Analogous To Support Neurotypical Submitting Staff Professional Editors Would Receive Reflects Committees Own Invitation Participants Where Required Underlying Advocacy Analytical Judgments Views Expressed Are Mine Alone.