Submission
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submitted by: Assistive Tech Date: 25/05/2026
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 228
assistive tech
table of contents
- About this submission … [page number]
- Summary of recommendations …[page number]
- Detailed submissions …[page number]… Recommendation 1: Statutory obligation on the Agency to publish operational guidance … Recommendation 2: Exclude the Capital support category from section 34A support determinations …… Recommendation 3: Workable exemption framework for the 90 day claim window .. Recommendation 4: Refine the leasing presumption in proposed subsections 34(1B) and 34(1C). Recommendation 5: Calibrate the evidence hierarchy in proposedsubsection 34(1E) forn AT. Recommendation 6: Carve out mainstream AT retailinN DIS rules underproposedsection 10 C. Recommendation7:DedicatedATsectorconsultationonthe first-section- 45Cpricing determination…. Conclusion…
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 228
About this submission
Assistive Tech is a registered NDIS provider and specialist assistive technology retailer. We supply low cost, mid-cost assistance technology nationally, predominantly through online channels associated clinical product support. Allied health professionals are not employed; allied practitioners external customers referrers.
We welcome scrutiny of NDIA’s policy intent restoring scheme sustainable footing addressing fraud integrity weaknesses. Our focus small number specific issues materially improve operation bill assistive technology participants served. Do address every clause have attempted canvass in full.
Summary recommendations:
- Embed legislation obligation Agency publish operational guidance definitions internally so providers comply without recourse Freedom Information requests.
- Exclude Capital category scope ministerial determinations alternative impose strict additional constraints against capital supports.
- Provide workable exemption framework new Section day claim window Assistive Technology supplies extended lead times custom fabrication multi-stage delivery.
- Refine proposed leasing presumption subsections recognise limits Australian AT market practical impossibility many categories.
- Soften absolute primacy published peer reviewed evidence where support Assistive Technology incidence rare disability cohort.
- Ensure Category D rules made under section explicitly carve mainstream retailers off the shelf assistive technology while preserving registration obligations for risk assessed services such as assessment customization fitting training.
- Require dedicated public consultation first pricing determination made under proposed section given current fragmentation AT instruments.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 228
Detailed submissions
Recommendation 1: Statutory obligation on the Agency to publish operational guidance
The Bill provides an opportunity to embed legislation with transparency obligations. The current situation relies heavily internal NDIA knowledge articles, delegate guidance documents & policy material governing how supports are defined, asessed& claimed but which aren’t published online. Providers seeking clarification frequently have no avenue other than Freedom Information requests.
This inefficiency disempowers participants inconsistent w/ policies underpinning bill.The Bill acknowledges proposed Part Schedule 3, emphasizing pricing matters and repeatedly highlighting transparency as guiding principle.Same should apply rules road govern day-to-day interaction between provider–
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 228
assistive tech
gj)
- a specified percentage: That conceptual model works for time-based or volume-based supports where an x% reduction translates into fewer hours or sessions while still permitting meaningful service. It does not work in capital funding contexts like wheelchair acquisition recommended by allied health professionals quoted by suppliers assessed against discrete needs; there is no partial provision without full transaction completion leading clinical need remaining but unfundable due proportional reductions producing non-supply items because participant cannot complete transactions. The Minister’s pricing determination mechanism already provides a direct lever on underlying prices affecting AT home modifications SDA addressing price pressure scheme cost pressures properly through tightening instruments refining what reasonable necessary rather than reducing dollar value approved capital allocations made basis. We submit that proposed section should expressly exclude Capital support category at least impose additional statutory constraints requiring before making determinations any capital group satisfied manner preserves participant safety choice supplier and clinical appropriateness publish statement reasons each matter.
Recommendation: Workable exemption framework of claim window Proposed amendments Part Schedule reduce statutory period two years to days We acknowledge integrity rationale do not oppose tighter default However, day applied uniformly will create avoid administrative loss legitimate supply Acquisition routinely involves lead times exceed Custom fabricated seating custom moulded orthoses prescribed power wheelchairs configured specification wide range imported high-cost AT items commonly subject manufacturer lead weeks from order delivery Some products including specialised paediatric mobility equipment complex vehicle modifications can take longer Point Supply Fit Training Final Commissioning often separated months step generating own claims event.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 228
assistive tech
gj) A 90 day window measured from a point upstream in this sequence will simply result in claims falling out of time despite the supply being entirely legitimate and fully documented. The risk falls on the participant who must either pay out-of-pocket or forego support; it also rests with providers carrying working capital costs. The submission proposes including sector-specific exemptions under section 45A(5)’s NDIS rulemaking when any one condition applies: manufacturer lead times exceeding ninety days, custom fabrication or customization per participant specifications, staged delivery involving assessment/supply/fitting/training/follow-up spanning more than九十天。The exemption shouldn’t require individualized applications each claim. Predictability is essential business operation AT suppliers。
Recommendation 4 Refine leasing presumption proposed subsections341Band34C ProposedsubsectionssubsectionsrequireCEO determine whether equipment modifications represent value money consider comparative costleasing where participants circumstances likely change short term presume that supports represents value money if provided only through lease We support underlying principle leasing should be available genuinely representing value money example rapidly progressive conditions well chosen difficulty lies applying broad AustralianATlease market immature outside narrow range products product categorieswhereleasingroutinecommercial offering remain limited (some mobility devices some communication clinicalequipment) across most catalogue functioning lease markets no commercial lessor able take residualvalue risks for particular configuration In addition significant proportionofproducts cannot lawfully safely re-leased after first use hygiene continence intimate carecustom seating moulded compression orthoses consumable adjacent items The presumptions drafted risk delivering outcome cheaper faster safer while shifting administrative burden onto the participant to rebut.
The submission proposes qualifyingpresumption in section C either primary legislationNDIS rules apply commerciallyavailable lease offerings exist specific item class ofitemsAustralian 6 SubmissiontotheSenateCommunityAffairsLegislationCommittee InquiryintothenationaldisabilityinsuranceSchemeAmendmentSecuringthennidisforFutureGenerationsBill2026
Submission
Recommendations on Evidence Hierarchy and Mainstream AT Retail Rules
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 228
Assistive Tech
cost, low risk AT items (where the participant or their AHP selects, the supplier dispatches, and no clinical service is provided) through to providers who supply complex AT alongside assessment, customisation, fitting and training. The same legal entity may operate at both ends of that spectrum depending on the transaction. We submit that the category D NDIS rules should adopt a function based test rather than an entity-based test. Suppliers should fall outside the NDIS provider definition for transactions that are pure mainstream retail (off-the-shelf supply of items capped at defined value with no associated clinical service), while remaining within the definition where they provide risk-assessed AT services. This protects integrity without forcing legitimate AT retailers to register entire operations in respect of examples like consumable items freely available via main channels.
Recommendation 7: Dedicated AT sector consultation on first section 45C pricing determination We support proposal Part1 Schedule3 consolidate maximum prices into legislative instrument made Minister Status quo Pricing Arrangements Price Limits NDIS Support Catalogue Specialist Disability Accommodation Price Guide Assistive Technology Home Modifications Consumables Code Guide administrative instruments updated outside any legislative framework unsatisfactory Bills move legislation welcome
The AT pricing settings these documents have developed piecemeal over many years inconsistent code structures gaps coverage assumptions do not always reflect contemporary commercial reality Migrating directly into legislative instrument focused consultation risks ossifying inconsistencies primary legislation Submit before first pricing under proposed Section takes effect assistive technology Minister commit dedicated public consultation AT components determination Consultation structure codes, current Coverage Gaps alignment price limits actual cost products subject manufacturer import costs currency exposure
Recommendation 8 Graduated response record retention obligations Proposed new Section imposes record retentions obligations providers participants other persons supported civil penalty units non-
Submission to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Securing Future Generations Bill
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 228
assistive tech
compliance by a provider. We support the underlying obligation.Sound record retention is a basic requirementof an integrity assuredSchemeand aligns with consumer law anda warranty practicethat already appliestoassistivetech nology supply.
We submit howeverthataregulatory architecture surroundingthe civil penaltyshould explicitly accommodatea graduated response.TheBill confers significant newmonitoringinvestigation and enforcement powersontheadencyAgencythroughapplicationRegulatory Powers(Standard ProvisionsAct ) Act ,creates compliance notice infringementnoticepowersThe12penaltyunitcivil penaltyshould bereervedfor deliberateor systemic non-compliancem.Inadvertentorisolatedadministrative failures shouldbe addressed throughcompliance notice infringmentnoticeninthefirstinstance.Weseek aclarestatementtotheffectinExplanatory Memorandum or in regulatory guidance issuedby Agency before commencement.