Jodyne Greig — Disability Accredited Social Worker
Anchorage Mentoring and Consultancy
PO Box 69, Muchea WA. 6501 ABN: 99548549960
28’ May, 2026
Submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Introduction and Experience
lam a Disability Accredited Social Worker through the Australian Association of Social Workers, based in Western Australia, with 25 years of experience in the disability sector. My perspective is shaped both professionally (running a private allied health practice for participants with complex intersectional needs) and personally, as a parent-carer of a NDIS participant. My feedback is informed by the lived realities of over a thousand individuals and families across metropolitan, regional, and remote Australia, many of whom have ‘fallen through the gaps’ and are navigating homelessness, the justice system, family violence, and deep-seated trauma or cultural dislocation.
Preliminary Comment: The Inquiry Process
I’m grateful to have the opportunity to make a submission, but am disappointed in the extremely short timeframe for this Inquiry. For a Bill introducing such radical structural changes, a reduced consultation period instils community alarm and can be perceived as tokenistic, serving as a barrier preventing people with disabilities, their families and the practitioners who support them from contributing meaningfully.
Key Issues and my Recommendations
Definition of Functional Capacity (Schedule 1, Part 1, Item 4)
The proposed insertion of Section 9B, defining functional capacity “in a context that excludes environmental and personal circumstances as far as possible,” disproportionately penalises already marginalised and intersectional disability populations, including but not limited to First Nations participants, those from non-English speaking backgrounds, LGBTIQ+ individuals, and those in regional or remote areas. While | acknowledge the legislative intent to avoid subjective consideration of factors that are transient or within the participants control, the current definition if left as is, ignores the reality of intersectional disadvantage and risks creating the very systemic inequities that the NDIS was explicitly designed to prevent, while directly contradicting the social model of disability foundational to Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
Recommendations:
e Amend Section 9B: Refine the definition to align with the social model of disability by narrowing the exclusion to temporary and avoidable circumstances only. The section should include a note or a clear directive mandating the consideration of unavoidable, permanent intersectional impacts on functional capacity.
e Co-design the Assessment Tool: It is imperative that the Minister consults directly with the disability community and subject-matter experts in the development of any legislative instrument or assessment tool used to determine functional capacity. This ensures the resulting tool is trauma-informed, intersectionality-aware, and clinically valid in real-world settings.
Jodyne Greig — Disability Accredited Social Worker
Anchorage Mentoring and Consultancy PO Box 69, Muchea WA. 6501 ABN: 99548549960
Support Determinations and Funding Reductions (Schedule 1, Part 4, Item 34A)
While the goal of financial sustainability is understood, a rigid, one-size fits all percentage reduction fails to consider that the NDIS market is not uniform. Applying identical percentage reductions across metro, regional, and remote populations exacerbates existing inequities. For example, a metro client experiencing a 25% reduction in core community access funding experiences a linear 25% reduction in service hours. However, a regional or remote client experiencing this same cut often faces a 40% or greater reduction in service hours, due to service scarcity, the disincentive of shorter shifts with higher travel requirements, and the challenges of service clustering. In this context, what is fair is not equal.
Recommendations:
- Exempt Vulnerable Cohorts: Amend Section 34A(1) to exempt vulnerable cohorts (specifically those in regional or remote locations and those with complex needs requiring high-intensity intervention) from blanket percentage-based funding reductions, or ensure that any reduction is proportional to local market viability.
- Broaden the Definition of Safety: Amend Section 34A(3) to explicitly define “safety” as encompassing physical, psychological, and relational safety. Additionally, mandate that any communication regarding funding adjustments be delivered through a trauma-informed lens to mitigate the distress caused by abrupt financial changes.
Reasonable and Necessary Supports (Schedule 1, Part 6)
| have significant concerns regarding Item 70 (inserting paragraph 34(1)(f)), which stipulates that a support will not be funded if it is “more appropriately provided or funded by another scheme or government service system.” While this may appear reasonable in theory, it fails to account for the fragmented and inconsistent nature of these systems across Australia. For example, there is a stark discrepancy between states regarding the provision of life-saving medical equipment backup for participants reliant on power-dependent technology. In some Eastern states, non-NDIS grants or alternative supply pathways exist; in Western Australia, these simply do not. When NDIS delegates, often situated in other jurisdictions, incorrectly generalise this support is more appropriately met by another scheme without checking the actual viability, accessibility or total absence of the service in the participant’s specific jurisdiction, participants are forced into an impossible position. it frequently generates wasteful NDIS expenditure as participants are compelled to challenge these decisions, often having to rely on expensive professional support to provide the necessary proof of service unavailability - a burden that vulnerable participants cannot sustain independently.
Recommendation:
- Evidence-Based Decision Making: Amend paragraph 34(1)(f) to require that before a support is deemed “more appropriately provided” by another government system, the CEO must have reasonable grounds to be satisfied that the alternative service is currently available, accessible, and viable in the participant’s specific jurisdiction. The Agency’s decision must be based on verified service availability, ensuring the burden of proof for service existence remains with the Agency, not the participant.
Plan Suspension and ‘Non-Contactable’ Participants (Schedule 1, Part 7, Item 83)
While | understand the administrative need to maintain scheme integrity and the need for suspension of a plan when a participant is deemed “non-contactable” (Section 40A) the application of this provision to our most vulnerable cohorts is fraught with risk. | frequently support individuals who have had no contact with the Agency for extended periods. Their silence should not be interpreted as non-compliance - rather, it is often a fear-based, maladaptive avoidant symptom stemming from systemic trauma.
Many participants, such as First Nations families, parents with disability and those with deep histories of disengagement, have learned through repeated past negative encounters with government systems that “official contact” often precedes harm, removal, or punitive action. Consequently, their avoidant behaviour is a protective survival mechanism. Classifying these individuals as “non-contactable” and suspending their plans in these circumstances acts as a barrier to health and safety rather than an administrative safeguard.
Recommendations:
e Define “Reasonable Attempts”: The Bill needs to explicitly define “reasonable attempts” in 40A(1)(a) to contact a participant to ensure they are culturally safe and trauma-informed. This definition must move beyond standard digital, letter-based, or phone-only correspondence. For participants with complex support needs or histories of systemic trauma, “reasonable attempts” should mandate assertive, in-person outreach utilising existing trusted support networks, community elders, or specialised outreach workers.
e Adda safety-stop mechanism: Insert a mandatory clinical safeguard within 40A(1) that specifies that prior to suspending a plan the CEO must be satisfied that a welfare check has been attempted and that there is no information or reasonable suspicion that the participant is experiencing homelessness, complex psychosocial instability or imminent risk of self-harm.
Jodyne Greig — Disability Accredited Social Worker
Anchorage Mentoring and Consultancy PO Box 69, Muchea WA. 6501 ABN: 99548549960
Recommendations:
e Integrate a Harm Minimisation Clause: Amend Section 25A(1) by adding that appropriate treatment must also be socio-culturally safe, promoting the participant’s psychological and physical well-being; and clinically aligned with the participant’s history, including the need for trauma-informed and relational care delivery.
e Broaden the ‘Undertaken’ Criteria: Amend Section 25A(3) to clarify that a person is considered to have undertaken all “appropriate treatment” if access barriers (including, but not limited to, financial capacity, geographical location, language, and cultural identity) cannot be reasonably addressed.
e Mandate Procedural Transparency: Insert a provision requiring the Agency to provide a written, evidence-based explanation to any participant deemed ineligible, detailing: the specific “appropriate treatments” identified as outstanding; the Agency’s rationale for why these treatments are appropriate for the individual’s impairment; and giving guidance on how the participant may realistically access these treatments within their local context.
Provider Responsibility and Fraud (Schedule 2) While | strongly support robust measures to address fraud and ensure the integrity of the NDIS, the current seeming rush towards legislative changes is fostering a “culture of fear” within the provider sector. My experience as a provider already indicates that there is an increasing tendency to decline support to participants perceived as “complex” or “high-risk” simply to avoid regulatory scrutiny, and | worry this trend may be accelerated, leading to a provider landscape that prioritises “easy” participants while abandoning those whose needs are more challenging. To prevent this, the fraud framework must be balanced with clear protections that support the rights of participants to lead their own lives, including the management of risk.
Recommendations:
e Embed Dignity of Risk and Supported Decision-Making: Explicitly incorporate “Dignity of Risk” and “Supported Decision-Making” frameworks into the fraud and compliance regulations, so providers are not penalised for supporting participant-led risk-taking, provided that such risks are clearly considered, monitored, and documented within an established, person-centred framework.
Automation of Administrative Action (Schedule 3, Part 2, Division 5, Items 59B, 59D, 59E) The proposal to automate complex administrative actions, particularly when these actions involve evaluative determinations (such as forming a state of mind or exercising discretion, Section 59B(4)), although improving efficiency, carries a high risk of systemic error. The Bill, in Section 59E(3), suggests that a failure to comply with the CEO’s oversight requirements does not invalidate the administrative action taken by a computer program. This creates a significant gap in accountability; it essentially allows the Agency to “outsource” its decision-making to an algorithm while shielding itself from the consequences of that algorithm’s errors.
In my practice, | support individuals who have been marginalised by rigid, automated government systems in the past; as such incorporating an independent review mechanism founded on transparency of automation logic, and restoring accountability for the validity of automated decisions somewhat mitigates this.
Jodyne Greig — Disability Accredited Social Worker
Anchorage Mentoring and Consultancy PO Box 69, Muchea WA. 6501 ABN: 99548549960
Recommendations:
e Independent Review Mechanism: Build into the automation framework an external, independent, and objective review mechanism that evaluates the logic behind the “standard operating procedure instruments” to ensure that they are not inherently biased against vulnerable cohorts or those with non-standard support needs.
e Restore Accountability: Amend Section 59E(3) to ensure that the CEO and Agency delegates remain fully accountable for the validity of automated decisions and that there is a pathway to challenge automated decisions ensuring they are not absolute and final. “Automation” must never function as a shield against administrative or legal responsibility for flawed outcomes.
Conclusion
As a world first initiative, it is imperative that the sustainability of the NDIS should be measured not only by financial metrics but by the scheme’s ability to uphold the dignity, safety, and inclusion of its most vulnerable participants. As outlined repeatedly throughout this submission, several provisions in the proposed Bill risk undermining the social model of disability and creating systemic barriers for minority subgroups experiencing complex intersectional needs.
When trauma-informed scaffolding is prioritised, trust is built, and the reactivity currently driving scheme-wide anxiety (including the “hoarding” of funding mentality driven by fear) will naturally diminish. It is my firm recommendation that the Minister engage in meaningful, direct co-design with the disability community when drafting the legislative instruments underpinning this Bill. Decisions of this magnitude must be grounded in the lived realities of participants and the frontline expertise of practitioners, ensuring that the NDIS remains a sustainable system of support rather than a source of further marginalisation.
Thank you for your time in considering my submission
Sincerely,
® Jodyne Greig Disability Accredited Social Worker
7 Anchorage Mentoring & Consultancy bans Ph: 0455 450 558
“Accredited | scale. WWww.anchoragementoring.com.au