NDIA Accountability Project

Concerns regarding inadequate recognition of individual needs for people with intellectual disability

‹ PrevPage 1 of 3 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 2268

PRIVATE – publish as anonymous only

Committee Secretary Community Affairs Legislation Committee Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

To the Committee,

Re: Stop the amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. Some parts are bad and need to be revisited.

I have a family member with a lifelong genetic disability. It has severe impacts on brain function and some physical consequences as well. This person cannot survive independently. I have major concerns about certain changes proposed in the NDIS Bill. It should not proceed in its current form.

1. Concerns with automated decision-making and standardisation

  • Automated tools for assessment and plan review are considered unproven and inadequately safeguarded, risking mis-categorisation and underfunding for complex conditions where the brain and ‘thinking’ capacity is impaired.

  • Standardised approaches ignore the multifaceted and compounding nature of some disabilities, leading to insufficient support.

2. Inadequate recognition of individual needs

  • The Bill’s approach to categorisation fails to recognise the whole-person needs of those with ID and other cognitive impairments, which are often accompanied by behavioural issues and intersectional disadvantage. Multiple impairments can interact, exacerbating each other. This failure increases the risk of neglect and crisis.

3. Systemic failures and risks for people with intellectual and other cognitive impairments

  • The current NDIS framework already exposes people with intellectual disability (ID) to predictable risks, including medical crises, behavioural escalation, and premature mortality.

  • The Bill’s proposed changes are likely to worsen these risks rather than address them.

4. Excessive Ministerial authority and lack of accountability

  • The Bill would grant the Minister too much power to make changes without parliamentary oversight, increasing instability and risk for participants.

5. Unrealistic expectations on families

  • The expectation that families will take on more support is considered unsustainable and harmful, shifting the burden without adequate resources.

6. Lack of detail and rapid implementation

  • Many critical details (e.g., criteria for functional capacity) are missing, making it difficult for the community to provide informed feedback.

  • The pace of change is too fast, with insufficient consultation and co-design, especially for those with ID and cognitive impairments.

7. Problematic treatment requirements

Submission 2268

PRIVATE – publish as anonymous only

  • The requirement to have tried all appropriate treatments is problematic for ID and cognitive conditions, where knowledgeable services may be unavailable or unaffordable.

Participant safety vs. Scheme sustainability

  • The Bill is seen as prioritising scheme sustainability over participant safety and wellbeing. This is dangerous for high-risk groups that already have reduced ability to perceive risk, analyse it or identify and enact safer options. (ie requiring supported decision-making)

Inflexible Plan budgets and renewal processes

  • Locking plan budgets into three-month periods and excluding participants/nominees from renewal processes is viewed as inappropriate and risky for the participant and the NDIA’s administrative costs because budgets will have to be revisited for avoidable reasons.

Funding caps and service gaps

  • Hard caps on funding may result in neglect and even death for people with complex and high intensity support needs.

Recommendations for improvement

  • The Bill should not proceed in its current form, especially regarding ministerial powers and standardisation.

  • Some disabilities involving ID and other cognitive impairments result in greater vulnerability. These must be differentiated and formally recognised as a higher risk and more complex. These people require individualised plans that address supports for the whole-person impairments, with adequate funding.

  • Automated tools should only be used if co-designed and proven not to disadvantage people with ID, cognitive impairments and greater vulnerability.

  • Safety must be paramount in all NDIA decisions.

  • A Provider of Last Resort should be established to prevent homelessness and service gaps for the most vulnerable, such as those with behaviours of concern.

Example Implementation:

  • When designing NDIS plans for people with ID, or other cognitive impairments, ensure assessments are conducted by professionals familiar with the condition, avoid rigid standardisation, and include input from independent advocates.

  • Avoid using automated tools as the sole basis for decisions affecting high-risk participants.

  • Independent advocates should be available to support vulnerable participants, not just when something goes wrong.

  • Maintain flexibility in plan budgets and renewal processes to accommodate unpredictable needs.

In conclusion, whilst I agree with the compliance, fraud and provider oversight aspects of the Bill, but the changes that refer to participants require substantial revision to ensure safety, individualised support, and proper support service oversight for vulnerable people.

Yours sincerely,

Submission 2268

PRIVATE – publish as anonymous only

Anonymous