Submission 2427 — AMPARO Advocacy — NDIS Future Generations Bill | External submission

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2427

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

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Submitted to community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

July 2026

53 PROSPECT ROAD, GAYTHORNE, QLD 4051

PO BOX 2065, BROOKSIDE CENTRE, QLD 4053

PHONE: (07) 3354 4900

EMAIL: info@amparo.org.au

WEB: www.amparo.org.au

ABN: 56 876 279 925

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2427

About AMPARO

AMPARO Advocacy is a non-profit community-based organisation which provides independent, individual and systemic advocacy with and on behalf of vulnerable people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds with disability. As a Peak and Representative body for people from CALD backgrounds with disability AMPARO Advocacy continues to highlight the voices and concerns of people with disabilities and their families to bring about positive sustainable changes to legislation, policy and practice.

AMPARO Advocacy is governed by a voluntary management committee, the majority of whom are themselves people from a CALD background with disability.

AMPARO Advocacy is funded by the Queensland State Government’s Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety, and at the Commonwealth level through the Department of Health, Disability & Ageing.

AMPARO Advocacy’s mission is to defend, protect and promote the human rights, interests and inclusion of vulnerable people from a CALD background with disability.

Our vision is that people from a CALD background with disability are respected, valued and included in family, community and the broader society, with equitable access to information, services and supports.

Recommendations

AMPARO Advocacy asks the Committee to consider the following recommendations:

The Bill should be amended before passage to include stronger equity, cultural safety, accessibility, procedural fairness, review and independent advocacy safeguards for CALD people with disability and families.
Functional capacity assessment provisions should explicitly require culturally safe assessment practice, access to qualified interpreters, translated and plain-language information, and consideration of environmental, social, cultural, family, trauma and communication barriers.
The Bill should preserve a whole-of-person approach to access, planning and support decisions, particularly for people with complex and layered disability-related needs arising from trauma, psychosocial disability, physical impairment, family circumstances and environmental barriers.
Permanence and treatment-related requirements should only apply where treatment is genuinely available, affordable, timely, culturally safe, trauma informed and accessible, including with appropriate language support. People should not be disadvantaged where treatment is only theoretically available or where available treatment is culturally unsafe, inaccessible, unaffordable or likely to cause retraumatisation.
Planning, reassessment and review provisions should include clear exceptions where the original decision or plan may have been affected by language barriers, lack of advocacy, lack of interpreter access, cultural misunderstanding, new evidence, family circumstances, trauma, disability, literacy or digital exclusion.
Plan suspension powers should not be exercised unless the NDIA has demonstrated culturally and linguistically accessible contact attempts, including contact in the person’s preferred language, through their preferred contact method, with interpreter support and involvement of authorised representatives, nominees, trusted supporters or independent advocates where appropriate.

AMPARO Advocacy - NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 Submission July 2026 Page | 2

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2427

Suspension powers should be subject to strong procedural safeguards, including accessible communication, reasonable attempts to support engagement, clear review rights, urgent reinstatement pathways, and monitoring of suspension decisions by language, cultural background, disability, age, gender and location to identify disproportionate impacts.
The Bill should not rely on blanket assumptions about parental capacity. Decisions about supports for children should consider the actual circumstances of families, including parental disability, trauma, poverty, caring responsibilities, language barriers, social isolation and resettlement stress.
Supports should not be reduced or refused on the basis of assumed access to mainstream, community, family or foundational supports unless those supports are demonstrably available, accessible, timely, disability competent, culturally safe and appropriate for the person and family.
Any changes to social and community participation supports should be delayed or amended until culturally safe and accessible alternatives are available for CALD people with disability and families.
Fraud, compliance and provider regulation reforms should include safeguards to protect participants and families from exploitation without punishing people for misunderstanding, language barriers, literacy barriers, trauma, fear or systemic exclusion.
Automated administrative decision-making should be transparent, explainable, reviewable and subject to meaningful human oversight, particularly where decisions may affect access, planning, funding, reassessment, compliance or suspension.
Implementation of the Bill should be supported by additional investment in independent advocacy, including specialist advocacy for CALD people with disability and families.
Independent advocacy should be available before adverse decisions are made, not only after a person has lost access to supports or experienced harm.

AMPARO Advocacy should be invited to give evidence to the Committee about the likely impacts of the Bill on CALD people with disability, refugee communities and families.

Introduction

AMPARO Advocacy welcomes the opportunity to provide this submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

AMPARO Advocacy works with and alongside people from CALD backgrounds with disability, as well as families, supporters and communities. Our work gives us direct insight into the barriers experienced by people from CALD backgrounds with disability when accessing, understanding and navigating the NDIS and related service systems.

This submission is made from AMPARO Advocacy’s independent advocacy perspective. It does not seek to speak for all people from CALD backgrounds with disability. Rather, it draws on our advocacy experience and the recurring systemic issues raised through our work with people and families who are often least visible in policy, consultation and reform processes.

AMPARO Advocacy recognises the importance of a sustainable, safe and fair NDIS. We also recognise the need to address fraud, exploitation and poor-quality services. However,

AMPARO Advocacy - NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 Submission July 2026 Page | 3

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2427

reforms aimed at Scheme sustainability and integrity must not deepen inequity for people who already face language, cultural, communication, digital, socioeconomic and systemic barriers.

Our central concern is that, without stronger safeguards, the Bill may have unintended and disproportionate consequences for people from CALD backgrounds with disability and their families.

Summary of AMPARO Advocacy’s position

AMPARO Advocacy is concerned that the Bill does not adequately recognise how NDIS access, planning, reassessment, compliance and review processes are experienced by people from CALD backgrounds with disability and families.

Many of the proposed changes may appear neutral on their face. However, administrative processes are not experienced equally by all participants. For people from CALD backgrounds with disability, procedural fairness depends on more than the existence of a right, rule or review pathway. It depends on whether a person can understand the process, communicate their circumstances, access interpreters, obtain culturally safe support, gather evidence, challenge errors, and access independent advocacy before decisions are made or supports are affected.

AMPARO Advocacy is particularly concerned about the potential impact of the Bill on people who:  do not speak English as a first language  require interpreters or translated information  have limited understanding of Australian disability, health, legal and administrative systems

 rely on family members or community members to communicate with services  experience stigma, shame or cultural misunderstanding about disability  may not describe disability, support needs, family roles or daily functioning in ways that align with NDIS administrative language  may not know they have review rights or how to exercise them  may be digitally excluded  may have experienced trauma, migration stress, racism, poverty or social isolation; and

 may only be able to participate fairly in NDIS processes with independent advocacy support.

AMPARO Advocacy recommends that the Bill be amended before passage to include stronger equity, cultural safety, accessibility, review and independent advocacy safeguards.

Evidence from AMPARO Advocacy’s advocacy experience

AMPARO Advocacy’s concerns are grounded in our direct advocacy experience with people from CALD backgrounds with disability and families, including refugee communities. Through this work, we see how NDIS processes can affect people differently where they already face barriers related to trauma, language access, cultural safety, poverty, privacy, family caring responsibilities and difficulty navigating complex systems.

AMPARO Advocacy - NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 Submission July 2026 Page | 4

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2427

The proposed changes are not likely to affect all participants equally. Processes that appear administratively neutral can have unequal impacts if they assume English proficiency, digital access, familiarity with government systems, confidence responding to official contact, access to private assessments or treatment, and the availability of family or community support.

AMPARO Advocacy’s submission is therefore based on the practical experience of supporting people and families to engage with the NDIS, including access, planning, reassessment, review, communication with the NDIA, and understanding complex decisions and rights in culturally safe and accessible ways.

Complex and layered disability-related needs

Many people supported by AMPARO Advocacy are refugees with complex disability-related needs. For some people, these needs arise from trauma-related psychosocial disability together with physical impacts affecting mobility, daily functioning and participation. These impacts are not always easy to separate into a single impairment category.

In AMPARO Advocacy’s experience, a whole-of-person approach is essential to understanding the real support needs of people whose disability, trauma, health, family circumstances and environment interact in complex ways.

AMPARO Advocacy is concerned that removing or weakening a whole-of-person approach may disproportionately harm refugees and other CALD participants with layered impairments. A narrow approach that only recognises supports directly linked to one eligible impairment risks excluding people whose needs arise from the combined effect of trauma, psychosocial disability, physical impairment, family circumstances and settlement stress.

Contact requirements and plan suspension risks

AMPARO Advocacy is also concerned about proposed contact and plan suspension powers. Many refugees and CALD participants we support may not answer calls from private, blocked or unfamiliar numbers. This can be due to trauma, safety concerns, fear, mistrust, past experiences of authority, or uncertainty about who is calling.

Contact attempts made only by phone, SMS, letter, portal message or English-language communication may not be reasonable or effective for people who require interpreters, translated information, trusted intermediaries or culturally safe communication.

These barriers are not hypothetical. AMPARO Advocacy is aware of situations where people have been removed from, or lost connection with, disability pathways because they could not be contacted in ways they understood or trusted. If broader suspension powers are introduced without strong safeguards, there is a real risk that CALD and refugee participants will lose access to supports not because they have disengaged, but because contact processes were not culturally and linguistically accessible.

Individual example: AMPARO Advocacy continues to see the NDIA fail to translate written communications with families, even where an interpreter requirement is clearly recorded on file. This is particularly harmful where a communication sets out a specific timeframe to act – for example, before a plan rollover or suspension – and the family does not understand that a deadline applies at all.

AMPARO Advocacy considers the NDIA’s continued failure to translate time-critical communications, despite a recorded interpreter requirement, to be a form of indirect discrimination that produces inequitable access for families from CALD backgrounds. Any

AMPARO Advocacy - NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 Submission July 2026 Page | 5

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2427

contact-based suspension or revocation power must not be able to be triggered where this kind of documented communication failure has occurred.

Assumptions about parental capacity

AMPARO Advocacy has serious concerns about any presumption that parents are able to provide substantial care.

In refugee families supported by AMPARO Advocacy, some parents themselves live with psychosocial disability linked to trauma. Some are caring for multiple children with high support needs, including children with significant autism-related support needs.

A blanket presumption about parental capacity ignores the realities of trauma, disability, poverty, resettlement stress, language barriers and social isolation. It may result in necessary supports being reduced or refused for children and families who are already under significant pressure.

Treatment requirements and genuine access to services

Treatment-exhaustion requirements also risk operating unfairly for CALD and refugee communities.

Many families AMPARO Advocacy supports are on Centrelink incomes and cannot afford private treatment. Some therapies that may be treated as “appropriate” in theory are not realistically available through the public system, are unaffordable privately, or are not safe or culturally appropriate for the person.

For example, a person with post-traumatic stress disorder may be expected to have accessed a therapy such as EMDR, even where that therapy is not practically available to them.

Language and privacy barriers also affect access to psychosocial treatment. Some people from refugee and CALD communities do not feel safe accessing counselling through interpreters, particularly in small communities where people may know each other. This can create real concerns about privacy, stigma, shame and retraumatisation.

In these circumstances, treatment may be theoretically available but not genuinely accessible, safe or appropriate.

Compounding existing inequities

Across AMPARO Advocacy’s work, we see how trauma, language barriers, lack of culturally safe services, poverty, digital exclusion, limited knowledge of rights, fear or mistrust of systems, and significant family caring pressures can interact to create substantial barriers to fair access and participation.

AMPARO Advocacy is concerned that, without stronger safeguards, the Bill may compound these existing inequities. The Bill should be amended to ensure these realities are properly recognised before access, planning, reassessment, suspension or support decisions are made.

AMPARO Advocacy - NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 Submission July 2026 Page | 6

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2427

Discussion

Functional capacity, permanence and whole-of-person assessment

AMPARO Advocacy is particularly concerned about the proposed changes relating to functional capacity, permanence and the connection between funded supports and eligible impairments.

We recognise that a functional capacity approach (as newly defined, and made subject to Ministerial assessment rules, under proposed section 9B) can, in principle, support a more individualised understanding of disability. However, functional capacity is not assessed in a vacuum. It is shaped by the interaction between a person’s impairment, environment, communication, family circumstances, service access, cultural context and social barriers.

For CALD and refugee participants, a whole-of-person approach is essential. AMPARO Advocacy supports people whose disability-related needs arise from the combined impact of trauma-related psychosocial disability, physical impairment, settlement stress, poverty, family circumstances and limited access to culturally safe services. These needs cannot always be separated into neat impairment categories.

A narrow approach that funds only supports directly linked to a single eligible impairment risk misunderstanding the lived reality of people with complex and layered disability. This is particularly concerning for refugees with trauma-related psychosocial disability, where physical impacts, mobility limitations, daily functioning, communication, family roles and social participation may all be interconnected.

AMPARO Advocacy is also concerned about treatment-exhaustion requirements (proposed subsection 24(5) and proposed section 25A, which require a person to have undertaken all “appropriate treatment” before an impairment can be treated as permanent). Treatment should not be treated as “available” merely because it exists somewhere in the health system or private market. For treatment to be relevant to NDIS access or permanence decisions, it must be genuinely available, affordable, timely, culturally safe, trauma informed, and accessible with appropriate language support.

For some CALD and refugee participants, counselling or psychosocial treatment through interpreters may raise serious privacy and safety concerns, particularly in small communities. A person should not be disadvantaged because the only available treatment pathway is one that is culturally unsafe, unaffordable, inaccessible or likely to cause retraumatisation.

AMPARO Advocacy’s position - The Bill should preserve a whole-of-person approach and ensure that functional capacity, permanence and treatment-related requirements are applied in a way that recognises trauma, culture, language access, poverty, family circumstances and the genuine availability of culturally safe services.

Planning, reassessment and review rights

AMPARO Advocacy is concerned that proposed limits on participant-requested reassessments, including the NDIA’s new power to transition a participant to a “new framework plan” instead of deciding a reassessment request (proposed subsection 32B(2A)) – a decision that is not reviewable – may disproportionately affect CALD participants and families.

Many people from CALD backgrounds with disability do not receive effective explanations about their plans, review rights, evidence requirements or decision-making pathways. Some people only realise that a plan is inadequate after they attempt to use it. Others may only

AMPARO Advocacy - NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 Submission July 2026 Page | 7

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2427

later connect with an advocate, interpreter, support coordinator or trusted service that can help them identify errors, gaps or unmet needs.

Limiting reassessment pathways risks locking people into unfair or inadequate plans, particularly where the original planning process was affected by language barriers, lack of advocacy, poor communication, cultural misunderstanding or inadequate evidence.

AMPARO Advocacy recommends that reassessment and review provisions include clear exceptions where:

 the participant did not have access to an interpreter  the participant did not understand the decision or its consequences  relevant cultural, family or communication factors were not considered  independent advocacy support was not available at the time of the original decision  new evidence becomes available  family or informal support arrangements change  the participant’s circumstances were misunderstood; or  the participant’s ability to engage was affected by trauma, disability, language, literacy or digital exclusion.

Individual example: A participant known to AMPARO Advocacy received a letter from the NDIA stating that their plan would be automatically rolled over and that no further evidence was required. A few months later, without warning, a plan review was conducted by phone. Because the earlier letter had said no evidence was needed, the participant had no current allied health reports available for the review, and the plan was cut by half.

The support coordinator formally complained and asked for the planner to be changed; the complaint was acknowledged but not actioned, and the planner was not changed until the participant’s family raised the matter again. A further review is now required, adding months of delay before the plan can be corrected.

This illustrates how a lack of accessible, accurate and consistent communication before a reassessment can directly produce an unsafe outcome – and why reassessment and review rights need to remain genuinely available where the original process was affected by inadequate or misleading communication.

Review and reassessment rights are not merely administrative steps. They are essential safeguards against inequity.

AMPARO Advocacy’s position - Planning, reassessment and review provisions should include clear exceptions where the original decision or plan may have been affected by language barriers, lack of advocacy, lack of interpreter access, cultural misunderstanding, new evidence, family circumstances, trauma, disability, literacy or digital exclusion.

Contact requirements, suspension powers and procedural fairness

AMPARO Advocacy is concerned about the proposed expansion of circumstances in which a participant’s plan may be suspended, including where the NDIA has made unsuccessful attempts to contact a participant (proposed section 40A), and the related power to revoke a person’s status as a participant altogether where they remain uncontactable or a suspension continues for 90 days (proposed subsection 30(1A)).

AMPARO Advocacy - NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 Submission July 2026 Page | 8

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2427

Suspension of NDIS supports can have serious consequences. For CALD and refugee participants, the risk is heightened where contact attempts are made in ways the person does not understand, trust or recognise.

Many refugees AMPARO Advocacy supports do not answer calls from private, blocked or unfamiliar numbers. This can be due to trauma, safety concerns, fear, mistrust, past experiences of authority, or uncertainty about whether the contact is genuine. Other participants may not understand English-language letters, SMS messages, portal notifications or administrative deadlines. Some may rely on family members, nominees or informal supporters who also face language, literacy or system-navigation barriers.

A person should not lose supports because they:  did not answer a call from a private or unfamiliar number  did not understand an English-language notice  could not navigate a digital portal  did not know how to respond to the NDIA  relied on a family member who misunderstood the request  could not access an interpreter  was afraid to engage with government systems  had limited literacy in English or their first language; or  did not have access to independent advocacy.

In AMPARO Advocacy’s experience, these barriers are not hypothetical. People can and do lose connection with disability systems because contact methods are not accessible, trusted or culturally safe. Broader suspension powers may worsen this risk unless strong safeguards are included.

Any suspension power should be subject to strong safeguards, including:  no suspension based only on English-language or digital communication  mandatory interpreter access where required  use of the participant’s preferred contact method  reasonable attempts to contact nominees, authorised representatives or trusted supporters  access to independent advocacy before adverse action is taken  clear review rights  urgent reinstatement pathways where suspension would place a person at risk; and  monitoring of suspension decisions by language, cultural background, disability, age, gender and location to identify disproportionate impacts.

AMPARO Advocacy’s position - Plan suspension powers should not be exercised unless the NDIA has demonstrated culturally and linguistically accessible contact attempts, including contact in the person’s preferred language, through their preferred contact method, with interpreter support where required, and with reasonable efforts to involve authorised representatives, nominees, trusted supporters or independent advocates.

AMPARO Advocacy - NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 Submission July 2026 Page | 9

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2427

Family capacity, informal care and children’s supports

AMPARO Advocacy has serious concerns about any presumption that parents are able to provide substantial care.

Individual example: AMPARO Advocacy is aware of a family with two children with Level 3 autism spectrum disorder and significant behavioural support needs whose NDIS plan was substantially cut, with parental responsibility cited as the reason. The children’s support needs clearly extended well beyond what could reasonably be considered ordinary parental responsibility.

Treating complex, high-intensity support needs as a parental responsibility placed the family under unsustainable pressure and put the children’s safety and development at risk. This example illustrates why any presumption about parental capacity must be tested against the actual circumstances of the family, rather than applied as a general assumption.

Family and community support can be a strength, but it should not be treated as a substitute for disability support. In many cases, families are already providing substantial unpaid support because formal systems are inaccessible, culturally unsafe or difficult to navigate.

AMPARO Advocacy’s position - The Bill should not rely on blanket assumptions about parental capacity or informal family support. Decisions about supports for children and families should consider the actual circumstances of the family, including parental disability, trauma, poverty, caring responsibilities, language barriers, social isolation and resettlement stress.

Mainstream, foundational, family and community supports

AMPARO Advocacy is concerned that stronger links between funded supports and eligible impairments, together with consideration of other service systems, may lead to inappropriate refusal or reduction of supports for CALD participants.

Many people from CALD backgrounds with disability already experience difficulty accessing mainstream, health, community, education, housing and family support systems. These systems are often not culturally safe, disability competent, trauma informed, affordable, available in a person’s language, or accessible to people with complex communication needs.

A support should not be refused on the assumption that another system is available unless that system is genuinely available, accessible, timely, culturally safe and appropriate for the person.

This concern also applies to any assumption that foundational supports, community services, family support or informal networks will be able to replace NDIS supports. For many CALD and refugee participants, being referred to another service does not mean that

AMPARO Advocacy - NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 Submission July 2026 Page | 10

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2427

the service is actually available, affordable, culturally safe or able to meet disability-related support needs.

AMPARO Advocacy’s position - Supports should not be reduced or refused on the basis of assumed access to mainstream, foundational, community, family or informal supports unless those supports are demonstrably available, accessible, timely, disability competent, culturally safe and appropriate for the person and family.

Social and community participation

AMPARO Advocacy is also concerned about proposed changes that may reduce or restrict access to social and community participation supports.

For many people from CALD backgrounds with disability, social and community participation supports are not optional extras. They can be essential to reducing isolation, building confidence, maintaining mental health, developing relationships, participating in cultural and community life, accessing information, and preventing crisis.

People from CALD backgrounds with disability may face multiple barriers to participation, including racism, stigma, lack of accessible transport, inaccessible community programs, lack of interpreters, disability-related barriers, and limited culturally safe mainstream options.

Any reduction in social and community participation supports should not proceed on the assumption that community or foundational supports will be available. In many communities, those supports do not yet exist in a form that is culturally safe, disability accessible or adequately funded.

AMPARO Advocacy’s position - Changes to social and community participation supports should not proceed unless culturally safe, accessible and appropriate alternatives are available for CALD people with disability and families.

Fraud, compliance and provider regulation

AMPARO Advocacy supports measures to prevent fraud, exploitation and unsafe services. People from CALD backgrounds with disability can be at heightened risk of exploitation where they do not understand their rights, are isolated, rely on informal networks, or cannot easily complain.

However, fraud and compliance reforms must be carefully designed so that they do not inadvertently punish participants, families or small community-connected providers who are trying to do the right thing but struggle with complex administrative requirements.

Compliance processes must distinguish between intentional wrongdoing and misunderstanding caused by language barriers, literacy barriers, trauma, fear, disability, poverty or system exclusion.

AMPARO Advocacy’s position – Fraud, compliance and provider regulation reforms should include:

 clear separation between participant protection and participant punishment  culturally safe education for participants and families about rights, plans, claims and provider conduct

 translated information about fraud, exploitation and reporting pathways  safeguards for people who have been manipulated or exploited by others  culturally safe complaint pathways; and

AMPARO Advocacy - NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 Submission July 2026 Page | 11

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2427

 careful attention to the impact of provider regulation on small, community-connected and culturally responsive services.

Provider regulation should improve safety and quality without unintentionally reducing access to culturally appropriate supports.

Automated administrative decision-making

AMPARO Advocacy is concerned about provisions permitting automated administrative decision-making within the NDIS (proposed section 59B), including the Minister’s power to expand its use for further purposes by legislative instrument without further parliamentary scrutiny (proposed subsection 59C(2)).

Automated or data-supported decision-making can reproduce existing inequities where the data, assumptions or rules do not adequately reflect the experiences of people from CALD backgrounds with disability. This risk is particularly serious where decisions relate to access, eligibility, planning, budgets, reassessment, compliance or suspension.

For CALD participants and families, inaccurate or incomplete data may arise from language barriers, poor-quality interpreting, lack of culturally appropriate assessments, limited-service history, informal family support, and previous failures to document needs.

AMPARO Advocacy’s position - Automated administrative decision-making should be subject to strict safeguards, including:  transparency about when automated tools are used  plain-language explanations of decisions  translated explanations where required  human review before adverse decisions are made  a right to challenge or correct data  independent monitoring for discriminatory or disproportionate impacts; and  no fully automated decisions that reduce, suspend or deny essential supports without meaningful human oversight.

Efficiency must not come at the expense of fairness, accountability or human understanding.

Independent advocacy as an implementation safeguard

Independent advocacy is an essential safeguard for the fair implementation of NDIS reforms.

People from CALD backgrounds with disability and their families often need support to understand rights, communicate with the NDIA, gather evidence, participate in planning, respond to compliance requests, challenge decisions and navigate complex systems.

Without independent advocacy, many people will simply not be able to exercise the rights that exist on paper.

AMPARO Advocacy’s position - Implementation of the Bill should be accompanied by additional investment in independent advocacy, including specialist advocacy for people from CALD backgrounds with disability and families. This should include advocacy support before adverse decisions are made, not only after harm has occurred.

AMPARO Advocacy - NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 Submission July 2026 Page | 12

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2427

Request to give evidence

AMPARO Advocacy would welcome the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee, particularly in relation to the experiences of people from CALD backgrounds with disability and families who may not otherwise have the opportunity, confidence, language access or support to participate directly in this inquiry.

AMPARO Advocacy would be pleased to provide further information to the Committee about the issues raised in this submission.

Contact

Ange Boyd

Systemic Advocate

AMPARO Advocacy

AMPARO Advocacy - NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 Submission July 2026 Page | 13