Submission 228

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

We're The Glue Pty Ltd T/A Assistive Tech
ABN 14 612 411 668 | ACN 612 411 668
support@assistivetech.com.au | assistivetech.com.au

Table of Contents

1. About this submission ……………………………………….. 3

2. Summary of recommendations ………………………………… 3

3. Detailed submissions ……………………………………………. 4

Recommendation 1:	Statutory obligation on the Agency to publish operational guidance ......................................... 4
Recommendation 2:	Exclude the Capital support category from section 34A support determinations ..................... 4
Recommendation 3:	Workable exemption framework for the 90 day claim window .............................................. 5
Recommendation 4:	Refine the leasing presumption in proposed subsections 34(1B) and 34(1C) .......................... 6
Recommendation 5:	Calibrate the evidence hierarchy in proposed subsection 34(1E)	following AT ........................ 7
Recommendation 6:	Carve out mainstream AT retail in NDIS rules under proposed section 10C ........................... 7
Recommendation 7:	Dedicated AT sector consultation on the first section 45C pricing determination ................. 8
Recommendation 8:	Graduated response for record retention obligations under proposed section 45B .................. 8

4. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9

Submission 228

assistive techgj)

About this submission

Assistive Tech is a registered NNDIS provider and specialist assistive technology retailer. We supply low cost, and mid cost assistive technology to participants nationally, predominantly through online channels with associated clinical and product support. We do not employ or contract allied health professionals; allied health practitioners are external customers and referrers.

We welcome the Committee’s scrutiny of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the Bill). We support the policy intent of restoring the Scheme to a sustainable footing and addressing fraud and integrity weaknesses. Our submission focuses on a small number of specific issues that, if addressed, would materially improve the operation of the Bill for the assistive technology (AT) sector and the participants we serve. We do not seek to address every clause and we have not attempted to canvass the Bill in full.

Summary of recommendations

Embed in legislation an obligation on the Agency to publish, in plain language, the operational guidance and support definitions it currently holds internally, so that registered providers can comply without recourse to Freedom of Information requests.

Exclude the Capital support category from the scope of ministerial support determinations under proposed section 34A, or in the alternative impose strict additional constraints on its use against capital supports.

Provide a workable exemption framework to the proposed 90 day claim window in new section 45A(5) for assistive technology supplies with extended lead times, custom fabrication, or multi-stage delivery.

Refine the proposed leasing presumption in new subsections 34(1B) and 34(1C) to recognise the limits of the Australian AT leasing market and the practical impossibility of leasing many AT categories.

Soften the absolute primacy of published peer reviewed evidence in new subsection 34(1E) where the support is assistive technology for a low incidence or rare disability cohort.

Ensure that category D NDIS rules made under proposed section 10C explicitly carve out mainstream retailers of off the shelf assistive technology, while preserving registration obligations for providers who deliver risk assessed AT services such as assessment, customisation, fitting and training.

Require dedicated public consultation with the AT sector on the first pricing determination made under proposed section 45C, given the current fragmentation of AT pricing instruments.

Submission 228

assistive techgj)

Calibrate the proposed civil penalty for record retention failure under new section 45B to permit a graduated response that distinguishes inadvertent administrative breaches from deliberate non-compliance.

3. Detailed submissions

Recommendation 1: Statutory obligation on the Agency to publish operational guidance

The Bill is a significant opportunity to embed in legislation a transparency obligation on the Agency. At present, registered providers and participants rely heavily on internal NDIA knowledge articles, delegate guidance documents and operational policy material that govern how supports are defined, assessed and claimed, but which are not published on the Agency’s website. Providers seeking to understand the Agency’s position on a particular support, or the boundaries of a support category, frequently have no avenue other than to lodge a Freedom of Information request.

This is inefficient, disempowering and inconsistent with the policy objectives that underpin the Bill. The Bill itself acknowledges, in proposed Part 1 of Schedule 3, that transparency in pricing matters, and the Explanatory Memorandum repeatedly emphasises transparency as a guiding principle. The same principle should apply to the rules of the road that govern day to day participant and provider interaction with the Scheme.

We submit that a discrete amendment should be inserted, requiring the CEO to publish on the Agency’s website, in plain language, all operational guidance, knowledge articles and support definitions on which the Agency or its delegates rely in administering the Act. Publication should be a precondition to the Agency relying on that guidance in any compliance, payment or planning decision. This would significantly reduce information asymmetry, support voluntary compliance, reduce the volume of FOI requests directed at the Agency, and align with the Bill’s wider integrity objectives.

Recommendation 2: Exclude the Capital support category from section 34A support determinations

Proposed new section 34A allows the Minister, by legislative instrument, to reduce the funding component amount for any specified group of supports across the Scheme for the purposes of financial sustainability. The Explanatory Memorandum lists the support groups subject to the mechanism and includes, alongside Core and Capacity Building categories, the Capital category, comprising Assistive Technology, Assistive Technology Maintenance Repair and Rental, Home Modifications and Specialist Disability Accommodation.

We submit that this mechanism is not fit for purpose when applied to capital supports. The instrument is described in the Explanatory Memorandum as a means of correcting overfunding by reducing the funding available to a participant for a group of supports by

Submission 228

assistive techgj)

a specified percentage. That conceptual model works for time-based or volume-based supports, where a 10 or 25 per cent reduction translates to fewer hours or sessions while still permitting a meaningful service to be delivered. It does not work for capital supply.

Capital funding in the AT context is allocated for the acquisition of specific items recommended by an allied health professional, quoted by a supplier, and assessed against a discrete and identified support need. There is no partial supply of a wheelchair, a power assist drive, a speech generating device, a hoist or a vehicle modification. A proportional reduction does not produce a smaller or cheaper item; it produces an item that cannot be supplied at all, because the participant cannot complete the transaction. The participant’s clinical need remains, but is no longer fundable.

Further, the Bill’s pricing determination mechanism in proposed section 45C already provides the Minister with a direct lever to address the underlying price of assistive technology, home modifications and SDA. Where genuine price pressure or scheme cost pressure exists in the capital space, it is properly addressed by tightening the pricing instrument or refining what is reasonable and necessary, not by reducing the dollar value of an approved capital allocation that was made on a non-substitutable basis.

We submit that proposed section 34A should expressly exclude the Capital support category, or at the very least impose additional statutory constraints requiring the Minister, before making a determination affecting any capital support group, to be satisfied that the support need can continue to be met in a manner that preserves participant safety, choice of supplier and clinical appropriateness, and to publish a statement of reasons addressing each of those matters.

Recommendation 3: Workable exemption framework for the 90 day claim window

Proposed amendments in Part 5 of Schedule 2 reduce the statutory claim period from two years to 90 days. We acknowledge the integrity rationale and we do not oppose a tighter default. However, a 90 day window applied uniformly will create avoidable administrative loss for legitimate AT supply.

AT acquisition routinely involves lead times that exceed 90 days. Custom fabricated seating, custom moulded orthoses, prescribed power wheelchairs configured to clinical specification, and a wide range of imported high cost AT items are commonly subject to manufacturer lead times of 12 to 26 weeks from order to delivery. Some products, including specialised paediatric mobility equipment and complex vehicle modifications, can take longer. The point of supply, the point of fit and training, and the point of final commissioning are often separated by months, with each step generating its own claim event.

Submission 228

assistive techgj)

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 forgo the support, and on the provider, who carries the working capital cost of supply.

We submit that the NDIS rules to be made in support of proposed section 45A(5) must include a workable, clearly published, sector-specific exemption for capital AT supply where any of the following apply: the support is subject to a manufacturer lead time exceeding 90 days; the support involves custom fabrication or customisation to participant specification; or the support involves a staged delivery (assessment, supply, fitting, training, follow up) that necessarily spans more than 90 days. The exemption should not require an individualised application for each claim. Predictability is essential to the operation of an AT supply business.

Recommendation 4: Refine the leasing presumption in proposed subsections 34(1B) and 34(1C) Proposed subsections 34(1B) and 34(1C) require the CEO, in determining whether the provision of equipment or modifications represents value for money, to consider the comparative cost of leasing and, where the participant’s circumstances are likely to cchange in the short term, to presume that the support represents value for money only if it is provided by leasing.

We support the underlying principle that leasing should be available where it genuinely represents value for money. The example of a participant with a rapidly progressive condition is well chosen. The difficulty lies in applying the presumption broadly. The Australian AT leasing market is immature outside a narrow range of products. The product categories where leasing is a routine commercial offering remain limited (some mobility products, some communication devices, and limited categories of clinical equipment). Across most of the AT catalogue there is no functioning lease market and no commercial lessor able to take on residual value risk for the participant’s particular configuration.

In addition, a significant proportion of AT products cannot lawfully or safely be re-leased after first use: hygiene and continence products, intimate care equipment, custom seating, custom moulded supports, prescribed compression and orthoses, and a range of consumable-adjacent items. The presumption as drafted risks delivering an outcome that is neither cheaper, faster, nor safer for the participant, while shifting the administrative burden onto the participant to rebut the presumption.

We submit that the presumption in proposed subsection 34(1C) should be qualified, either in the primary legislation or in NDIS rules, to apply only where a commercially available lease offering exists for the specific item or class of items in the Australian

Submission 228

assistive techgj)

market, and where the item is capable of being leased having regard to hygiene, customisation and clinical considerations.

Recommendation 5: Calibrate the evidence hierarchy in proposed subsection 34(1E) for AT Proposed subsection 34(1E) sets out an order of importance for evidence the CEO may have regard to in deciding whether a support is, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial. The first ranked source is research and evidence which is published, peer reviewed and generalisable. The Explanatory Memorandum makes clear that the CEO may decide a support is not effective and beneficial where there is limited or no published or peer reviewed evidence, even where there is evidence of effectiveness for the participant or for similar participants.

This hierarchy is appropriate for therapy and intervention decisions where a substantial evidence base exists. It is poorly suited to assistive technology, particularly where the participant has a low incidence or rare condition. The AT market is characterised by small populations, devices rather than pharmacologicals, and rapid product innovation. Randomised controlled trials are economically infeasible for the majority of AT product categories. Generalisable peer reviewed evidence is concentrated in a narrow set of mainstream products (some mobility products, some AAC products, some hearing products), and is largely absent for the long tail of AT products that genuinely transform individual participants’ lives.

Applied without qualification, the hierarchy risks freezing the Scheme’s funded AT catalogue at the state of published evidence circa now, and disadvantaging participants with rare conditions for whom the evidence base will never reach generalisability. We submit that the NDIS rules contemplated by the Bill, or the primary text of proposed subsection 34(1E), should expressly permit the CEO to give equal weight to clinical evidence of effectiveness for the participant or for similar participants where the support is assistive technology and where the participant’s impairment is of a kind for which generalisable published evidence is not reasonably available.

Recommendation 6: Carve out mainstream AT retail in NDIS rules under proposed section 10C Proposed new section 10C and the associated category D NDIS rules will distinguish between persons who are and are not NDIS providers. The Explanatory Memorandum makes clear that the intention is to ensure that mainstream retailers and suppliers who are paid for goods or services with NDIS funding (the supermarket, hardware store and pharmacy examples are given) are not inadvertently captured as NDIS providers.

Assistive Tech supports the policy intent. The category D rules will, however, need to address a more nuanced position than the retail examples in the Explanatory Memorandum. Suppliers in our sector range from pure off-the-shelf retailers of low

Submission 228

assistive techgj)

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 a defined value, with no associated clinical service), while remaining within the definition for transactions where they provide risk assessed AT services. This protects the integrity objective without forcing legitimate AT retailers to register their entire operation in respect of, for example, the supply of a consumable item that is freely available in mainstream channels.

Recommendation 7: Dedicated AT sector consultation on the first section 45C pricing determination

We support the proposal in Part 1 of Schedule 3 to consolidate maximum prices into a legislative instrument made by the Minister. The status quo, in which the Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits, the NDIS Support Catalogue, the Specialist Disability Accommodation Price Guide and the Assistive Technology, Home Modifications and Consumables Code Guide are administrative instruments updated outside any legislative framework, is unsatisfactory and the Bill’s move to a legislative instrument is welcome.

The AT pricing settings within these documents have, however, developed in a piecemeal fashion over many years, with inconsistent code structures, gaps in coverage, and pricing assumptions that do not always reflect contemporary commercial reality. Migrating these documents directly into a legislative instrument without focused consultation risks ossifying those inconsistencies in primary legislation.

We submit that, before the first pricing determination under proposed section 45C takes effect in relation to assistive technology, the Minister should commit to a dedicated public consultation with the AT sector on the AT components of the determination. The consultation should expressly cover the structure of AT codes, the coverage gaps in the current Code Guide, and the alignment between price limits and the actual cost of supply for products subject to manufacturer pricing, import costs and currency exposure.

Recommendation 8: Graduated response for record retention obligations under proposed section 45B Proposed new section 45B imposes record retention obligations on NDIS providers, participants and other persons, supported by a civil penalty of 120 penalty units for non-

Submission 228

assistive techgj)

compliance by a provider. We support the underlying obligation. Sound record retention is a basic requirement of an integrity assured Scheme and aligns with consumer law and warranty practice that already applies to assistive technology supply.

We submit, however, that the regulatory architecture surrounding the civil penalty should explicitly accommodate a graduated response. The Bill confers significant new monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers on the Agency through the application of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, and creates compliance notice and infringement notice powers. The 120 penalty unit civil penalty should be reserved for deliberate or systemic non-compliance. Inadvertent or isolated administrative failures should be addressed through compliance notice or infringement notice in the first instance. We seek a clear statement to that effect in the Explanatory Memorandum, or in regulatory guidance issued by the Agency, before commencement.

4. Conclusion

Assistive Tech welcomes the opportunity to make this submission. We would be pleased to appear before the Committee, in person or by video, to expand on any of the matters raised.