Concerns regarding potential harm to individuals with complex needs (Family or carer experience) | External submission

Submission 2599

Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment Bill 2026 Senate Inquiry

Shirley Humphris 31/5/26

Executive Summary

I am the grandparent of a high intensity complex needs teen, and I am deeply concerned for my family’s well-being. Experiences of many and my family show that high intensity needs will not be protected from harm even death and will be set in law without appeal by this Bill. The needs will not disappear when supports are removed only removed to other taxpayer funded entities. NDIS supports are not luxuries, they are NEEDS.

I have a BA Deakin with a psychology major and allied health qualifications (medical radiations). I am now retired but spent 29 years in a public teaching hospital with daily clinical experience and responsibility for the imaging requirements of university research. I am not a lawyer, but like many, have had to do the deep dive into the law, however time does not permit me to word appropriate further amendments, only flag the harms of this Bill.

This submission will begin with a consideration of the reprehensible actions of government to influence public opinion of NDIS participants and the railroading through of this harmful Bill.

The following will then be discussed:

The undemocratic timeline of this Bill
the “blank cheque” of this Bill,
the lack of guardrails for participant harm,
the intention to disregard harm, with cuts and caps despite need
the god powers to be handed the Minister
the disregard of the Disability Royal Commission
the departure from the Review recommendations.
The departure from the Productivity Commission 2011 reasoning
The taxpayer burden of cost shifting

Bill Inquiry timeline

I would like to preface this submission by expressing that the timeline for this Inquiry is an insult to our democratic process by the government.

A Bill of this severity impact and complexity needs to be properly scrutinised and responded to by all stakeholders. The Senators need more time to gather information and be able formulate a considered decision.

Submission 2599

This timeline violates the government’s Office of Impact Analysis “best practise consultation” of minimum 30 days1 Minister Butler admitted to the Saturday Paper “We want that legislation passed before the 30th of June,” Of course he does, the Labor budget depends on it.

Labor back bencher and person with disability, Ali France stated “It’s gutting for our community.”2 Gutting is much more than belt tightening. The reality is harm and deaths and that deserves far more consideration than this rush job for Butler’s wants.

Recommendation:

I urge the Committee to demand more time for further submissions or supplementary submissions.

This Bill must not pass until there are serious amendments to very many parts, and too many for this timeline to deal with. Senators must be allowed much more time to propose their own amendments.

Manufactured hate: how this government became so empowered to propose legislating severe neglect

The so-called loss of social licence for NDIS has been manufactured. It is the result of the government procured RedBridge report, prior to the 2024 legislation to enable cuts. This report stated that the public were generally supportive of disability support but could have “qualified acceptance” of cuts when messaged with fraud and rorts.

“After presenting respondents with the above proof points that provide vital, believable context of reforms designed to benefit participants, we were able to elicit a degree of qualified tolerance for reforms that would restrict either eligibility for the Scheme (raising the threshold for children with developmental delay) or the amount of support high-need participants would receive (moving to a 1:3 care model for Supported Independent Living participants),3” the research says.

1 https://oia.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/best-practice-consultation.pdf 2 https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/ali-france-on-the-ndis-overhaul-where-you-live-shouldnt-determine whether-you-get-care 3 https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/2024/06/01/exclusive-shorten-revives-the-coalitions-failed ndis-reforms

Submission 2599

This government induced harm is reprehensible. Those affected believe the Minister could be liable for inducing hate speech towards a psychologically vulnerable cohort.

The attacks are out of control and noting Albanese has a reported 11 Media Advisors. On the eve of the Press Club budget Chalmers sends the States an ultimatum, agree with his demands or they will be up for billions if NDIS collapses. 5 Is Chalmers proposing passive euthanasia rather than looking at other unsustainable government supports (wealth welfare)? NDIS collapse is within government control of ethical, sensitive reform and prioritisation of Commonwealth spend that is currently skewed toward wealth.

The “social license” research Butler is referring to is polling last month from Talbot Mills, a firm used to advise political strategy – that found 7 in 10 respondents regarded the NDIS as “vital”, but 6 in 10 regarded it as “broken” and “costs too much” (note the double-barrelled question).

Chris Coombes explained that “social licence” for AUKUS can be found in the Australian Electoral Study 2025 where only 4 in 10 believe AUKUS will make them safer 6 Coombes notes that defence was funded by $54 billion the week before the budget $57 billion cut to NDIS. That cut despite 7 in 10 regarding NDIS as vital. Go figure.

Astoundingly, asked whether the scale of fraud is being exaggerated, the minister for Health and the NDIS tells The Saturday Paper he’s been careful not to do so. “It’s not a huge part of the growth in the scheme,” Butler says.

To be clear this Bill proposes budget savings from harm to the severely disabled TEN TIMES the savings from tax reform.

A move that Ali France ALP MP admits is “gutting” for her community.

Are the savings going to be real for taxpayers or a delusion?

The work to convince the community is far from complete, says Mark Peach, from the advocacy group Every Australian Counts: “This slash-and-burn attitude will only push costs elsewhere and cost us all much more in the long run.”7

5 https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/states-face-billions-in-ndis-costs-if-they-refuse-reforms-20260420 p5zp9y 6 https://youtu.be/JvBb3wxoiwI?si=hd8qD0YA7SbLrhG1 7 7 https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/2024/06/01/exclusive-shorten-revives-the-coalitions-failed ndis-reforms

Submission 2599

In 2011 The Productivity Commission executive summary outlined the failure of State based systems and the benefits of NDIS

In 2011 The Productivity Commission stated “The current disability support system is underfunded, unfair, fragmented, and inefficient, and gives people with a disability little choice and no certainty of access to appropriate supports. The stresses on the system are growing, with rising costs for all governments.”

These benefits arise from many sources: wellbeing gains to people with disabilities and informal carers; efficiency gains in the disability sector; savings to other government services; increased labour force participation, and the resulting fiscal gains. The benefits from cost-effective early intervention, which will produce better outcomes for people and reduce costs for future taxpayers1

Fundamentally, the NDIS (and other complementary reforms) addresses the large list of deficiencies present in the current system.

Productivity Commission 2011

There is no doubt NDIA has not delivered “efficiency gains” proposed by the Productivity Commission. Reform is needed. However, this reform must not be a winding back the clock to previous systems just in the interests of short-term fiscal gains for the Labor budget. Hospitals are already in crisis with bed block from social care in hospital, mental health escalation, ambulance, police call out, and incarceration risk are consequences. Harm costs more long-term. Greens spokesperson Jordon Steele-John said “We know that these cuts will do harm. We know that they will likely cost lives.”

That the spend increased from 2012 projections is a matter of well underfunded

previous systems and poor data, along with increasing medical interventions and

innovations of technology way ahead of regular inflation. The technological advance

should be regarded as a good thing.

If the NDIS stops funding the support, what is the projected increase in demand for other

tax payer funded services already under pressure:

Medicare-funded GP visits?
Mental Health Care Plans? 5

Submission 2599

In Home Child Care Programs?
Out of Home Care Programs
Child Protection Services?
Emergency Department presentations?
Police; ambulance call outs
Incarceration for behavioural effects?
Hospital admissions for social care?
Hospital admissions for deterioration and harm of neglect?
Child Care Rebates?
Family Preservation Services?
Family Violence Services?
Homelessness Services?
Community mental health services?
Carer Gateway and other support services?
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme expenditure? Has that modelling been done? If so, where is it?

The Bill Details

It is beyond the timeframe for a proper investigation of the implications of the many individual serious changes. The Bill must not be rushed through so that amendments can be properly structured.

The blank cheque

This Bill gives most powers to be decided later through Rules. This happened with the 2024 Bill too, but this Bill has even more powers of widespread cuts with no guardrails against harm. Even more disturbing are the god powers (Schedule 5) given to the Minister to make Rules without Parliamentary scrutiny.

Similar Henry V111 powers for LNP were attacked by Labor in 2021

“State and territory disability ministers have been sidelined from plans to strip back the NDIS. The legislation will hand the federal minister ‘God powers’ over the scheme.”

“He [Stuart Robert] is taking all of the King Henry VIII powers,” one legal source said. “You cannot get a more pure power grab. That is a God power.”

Submission 2599

“In law, Henry VIII clauses are often described as subordinate pieces of a primary legislation – in this case NDIS rules under the NDIS Act – that subvert or amend the legislation itself, typically through executive power.” Rick Morton Sat Paper April 3-9 2021

It should be noted that the s10 Transitional Rules have been law since Oct 2024 – hardly transitional. These Rules are yet to be amended despite this admission from then DSS executive Sarah Hawke in interview with George Taleporos 6/6/25: “We have to acknowledge, I have to acknowledge that it was, that it, once the bill passed, we had very limited time to make the rule and we didn’t do a very good job of consulting with people”.

There has long been distrust of NDIA to get thing right, there is now severe distrust of this government toward disabled people, but this god power will be handed to any new government that could have even more nefarious motives.

The Minister’s far-reaching powers, to make, discriminatory, harmful, Rules, must be soundly rejected as dangerous. Parliament must approve the Rules

The Original Purpose

The original purpose is best ascertained from s3 and s4 of the NDIS Act, the Objects and Principles of the Act. This Bill makes the Original Purpose unrecognisable.

There is not a definition in legislation of a certain cohort such as “profoundly disabled”. Access to NDIS has legally always been on permanent and significant impairment. Removing the policy of diagnostic lists could have happened at any time as the lists were never legislation.

The Objects of the Act at s3 d) amendment departs from the original purpose and the reasonable and necessary supports will only be available if an undefined financial sustainability applies. That is cost, benefit appears to not be considered. At s31 the Principles of the Act relating to Plans have been obliterated, removed, gone. Sickeningly.

The economic effect of blunt removal of supports must include the modelling analyse of harm, cost shifting and participant, carer and worker job loss. “The most important of the economic benefits are the welfare impacts for people with a disability and their carers” states the Productivity Commission 2011. Why is there no recognition of this original intent?

The manufactured and exaggerated loss of social licence, with the excuse for change, has been found bogus as Aukus 8 and Gas perks are found to have lower social licence than NDIS.

8 8 https://youtu.be/JvBb3wxoiwI?si=hd8qD0YA7SbLrhG1

Submission 2599

Of course, clean up the fraud, look at efficiencies, but don’t pretend harmful participant cuts are needed when there is money elsewhere in the economy.

The Cuts

These powers are insidious. Whole groups of individuals are to be attacked. At s34A The Minister can make broad reductions to any category. This has already been declared at 50% to social and community (i.e. support to shopping, drs, therapy, work, study etc as well as socialising). A flagrant disregard of the “original intent” of inclusion. Also 10% cut to capacity building therapy and no guardrails for increased need for equipment, home mods etc. reports. Many high care have a flexible budget split between daily living and community because they need the same care in or out of the home. Furthermore, any category can be cut up to 99% . Support caps at s33(2EA) that could apply to any groups, possibly to those with the most intense needs, even to breathe and survive. That is the position my granddaughter is in.

It has not escaped notice that the biggest savings would be had from the highest care need. They have the largest plan size so a cost saving temptation. The legislation states that the minister responsible must consider the safety of participants but there is no appeal right.

We have not forgotten that 20-year-old Noah Thompson, 4-year-old Koa Gibson, and those we cannot discuss, died because of plan cuts by NDIA. NDIA were acutely aware of their situation but cut anyway and refused to reinstate for safety. They died. This Bill is not just about the “mild and moderate”.

It has not escaped notice that the greatest savings could be had from the highest care need with the largest plan budget. The government rhetoric of the “profoundly” disabled that will be protected has already failed.

“These determinations are not to be applied on a ‘plan-by-plan’ basis but, rather, have the effect of reducing the funding for certain groups of supports across the Scheme. Changes to funding as a result of support determinations are not subject to merits review,” the explanatory memoranda states.

The Review already flagged 1:3 share for those with 24/7 needs, implying people will be coerced to leave their family home to receive (even substandard) care. The Royal Commission heard numerous testimonies of people being abused and neglected in congregate care and now the Chronical has an article that “Disability advocates warn

Submission 2599

people are exploring voluntary assisted dying after discovering they face removal from the NDIS under brutal federal budget cuts. 9

BREAKING NEWS: 31/6/26 – a heartless appeal by NDIA against a successful ART decision for a 6-year-old high intensity care child, at risk of death.10

Legal actions of NDIA, with expensive King’s Council support, are proof of future intent. This is not an administrative error. They do not intend participant protections.

From admin Lawyer Darren O’Donovan on Linkedin 11

“This family’s most recent experience, a threatened cut of 500k, comes from the decision to insert the phrase ‘hospital in the home’ into the ‘out’ side of the NDIS support lists.

People with power need to listen to the warnings around this forthcoming Bill. I don’t think they even noticed this change when signed off on in 2024. That’s the power of self-interested, bureaucratic advice. Deleting key phrases in a complex document with no effective oversight. emphasis added

The obscure change was only published with two days notice before coming into effect. And that is why Disability Representative Organisations are rightly returning to the debate we had in 2024 over an obligation to consult within this current Bill.

It has already been used to strip a family of funding in similar circumstances in the separate case of YGBW and National Disability Insurance Agency. Which they will now attempt to enforce against this family by appealing to the Guidance and Appeal Panel as this article describes…. it is just so hard to sit and watch the law used in this manner.”

My Linked in repost response:

Labor is lying when they claim the cuts are to save the scheme for the “profoundly” disabled. They are going after high care plans and have no interest in harm and deaths.

No one should have to live in hospital when they can be home alive with care. No child should be removed from a loving family for want of support.

Here’s the thing. Hospitalisation costs the taxpayer more. The same bloody portfolio Health Disability and Aged Care is from this appalling Minister Butler. All it is, is to serve the Labor bleat of whoopee we have made savings. No, you haven’t, you have

9 https://archive.is/nLO6D 10 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/may/31/ndis-funding-celebral-palsy-parents-of-six year-old-ntwnfb 11 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/darren-o-donovan-3b4089139_six-year-old-siennas-parents-have-fought share-7466617813164777472 rU64/?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=member_desktop_web&rcm=ACoAACOS4sABA_Oao9Bi MYANh8KzLbiOasbclbo

Submission 2599

shifted the cost or killed people.

Vale 20 year old Noah Johnson, 4 year old Koa Gibson. Both died preventable deaths from savage plan cuts.

Access and Reassessment of Access

At s9B A functional capacity tool or tools is to be used to determine access. There are no details of the tools and whether the tools will suit the disability or not. The I-CAN 6 alteration for NDIA plan administration will be discussed under planning and similar pitfalls are likely to apply to access. Experts have rejected the validity and reliability of I-CAN for many disabilities and cohorts.

Furthermore (s9B) the amendment proposes to ignore anything but what has been termed “the naked person”. All external factors are ignored. This flies in the face of any functional capacity assessment known and enshrines a medical model of disability that should be moved away from. Two people with the same condition can have very different impacts depending on circumstances. It is an impossible task for an assessor to pull apart conditions to decide what is impact and what is the impairment. How do you figure out if the disability is a result of the ASD, the ID, the psychosocial or the mobility difficulties in isolation.

There are no details of who will deliver the assessment or whether medical reports will be considered.

Evidence will be required around the ‘Permanence’ of a person’s disability. At s25A there will be a requirement to exhaust ‘all appropriate treatment’ before NDIS eligibility is confirmed. This may disadvantage people where treatments are unavailable, unaffordable, unsafe, ineffective, culturally inappropriate or create significant side effects. To gain access, participants may have to undergo ‘treatment’ including surgeries, medication and therapies that may be harmful. Low income, ID people, remote and First Nations will have the greatest barrier. “Material improvement” how is that to be defined? What happens for degenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s and MND assessed at a point in time?

That there are no foundational supports even planned for is deeply concerning for those exited on a technicality, to nothing.

Note: with the Henry V111th powers the Minister could legislate unchallenged Rules that name an inappropriate tool that must be used and disregard safeguards.

Planning

The cornerstone of the original purpose of NDIS is to be revoked at s3 (1)(d) 17B. People may no longer receive REASONABLE AND NECESSARY SUPPORTS. Section 31 is completely removed.

Sam Paior of The Growing Space puts this in context “It is the most fundamental architectural shift in the Bill and has barely been mentioned publicly. It doesn’t sound too

Submission 2599

distressing on the face of it, but think about what it means in terms of the whole direction of the scheme. It’s a strong pointer to a “disabled people are a burden” mentality, and sadly enshrines that narrative in the core of the Act.”

Changes that exist in Rules Supports for Participants have been made in the Bill:

Effective and beneficial requires published peer reviewed research. Support research is different to a drug trial as it is not possible to remove variables and double blind. It may prove an impossible hurdle to many innovative and working supports.

Value for Money now only requires “cheaper” not cost effective. “Achieve the same outcome has been removed”. Cue cost more long-term.

Perhaps the most insidious is Parental Responsibility (s34 1G – (1 J) the existing Rules are careful to assess parental responsibility with regard to comparison of care to a similar age non-disabled child, to the well being of the family (not only the parent) and the parent’s other responsibilities. No child should be relinquished from their family just because support has failed and parents collapse.

At 34 (1 K) a) is worded to disregard any real support for informal support or participant well-being, and replaced with “material risk of harm, abuse or neglect that cannot be mitigated through informal or lower cost supports”. Sam Paior of Growing Space bluntly but pertinently asks “At what point should a solo father be changing the tampon of his 20- year old daughter because that is not considered a “material risk of harm, abuse or neglect”? “ Paior calls this over reliance on informal supports, a dark return to a “carer burden narrative” and devaluing of the lives of the disabled people. 12

34 (1)g “More appropriate systems” is especially concerning for the very many who get caught between Health and NDIS. This debacle saves NO taxpayer money and may even cost more. The participant is involved in a fight that should be clearly sorted before individuals are harmed.

New Framework plans (32L) and the proposed Support Needs Assessment

The 2024 amendment has been changed to remove Note 2 of impacts on impairments that meet access, requiring an assessor to “unpick” the whole person, as never required of the

NDIS Review

The I-CAN 6 proposed tool has been highly criticised by experts

The president of the Australian Psychological Society, Dr Kelly Gough, which represents more than 25,000 psychologists across Australia, said there were strengths to the I-CAN tool, but was concerned about the way the tool had been “validated” – tested and shown to produce consistent results.

12 https://www.thegrowingspace.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/NDIS-Bill-Senate-Com-Submission

Sam-Paior-May-2026-Final.pdf

Submission 2599

Gough warned that if the I-CAN were to be implemented broadly without further research and validation, there could be consequences. The president of the Institute of Clinical Psychologists, Dr Marjorie Collins, shared Gough’s concern that the I-CAN has not be validated for use with a wide range of disability groups. “The I-CAN has not been tested on very many populations at all,” she said, adding to roll it out to all adult NDIS participants without further testing would be “reprehensible”.13

From Gerry Humphris Emeritus Professor of Health Psychology at the Medical School,

University of St Andrews. “I have constructed new measures myself in clinical social assessments (e.g. FCR4/7 and MDAS) and am aware these instruments take many years of research. I note that the I-CAN was first published as a scale in 2014. The key level of internal consistency (or reliability) is the first port of call to examine the properties of new measures. The lower bound estimate (of Cronbach’s alpha) was found to be 0.73. Not unrespectable, but accounts for only 53% approximately of the total measurement variance. That is, to predict the assessment of disability on a further occasion using this measure would return the same value just over half of the time.”14

The procurement of I-CAN 6

Testing of the I-CAN tool needs to be on the changed tool for budget purposes as offered by the Centre for Disability Studies in their 2024 submission number 20 to the Senate Inquiry on the 2024 NDIS Act amendment. “CDS recognises that the Commonwealth may want appropriate control of the assessment tool used for determining reasonable and necessary budgets for NDIS participants and would be happy to discuss suitable arrangements. We would welcome exploring these opportunities further with the relevant parties.” This group cannot be considered impartial as they have been well funded for their involvement of supplying a tool that experts state has limited validity. They were actively proffering their services in 2024. The procurement of this tool, with a 5-year contract, would be worthwhile for the committee to investigate.

Furthermore, this tool is proposed to be used by non-clinically qualified assessors and without access to clinical reports. It is to be some sort of Melbourne University research experiment without consent (no opt out).

Despite the Explanatory Statement, at length, spruiking this bill as enacting the NDIS Review this assessment process demonstrates an untruth.

That the Supports Needs Assessment (SNA) proposal, as we understand it now, rejects the NDIS Review recommendations at every step is cause for deep concern.

Action 3.4 called for “…whole-of-person level… structured, reliable and valid assessment processes to enable Needs Assessors to accurately identify support needs and intensity. This should also include an assessment of what risks might be present in the participant’s life

13 https://psychology.org.au/insights/aps-in-the-guardian-ndis-tool-to-determine-support

14 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gerry-humphris-48601414_i-can-i-have-travelled-from-scotland-uk activity-7388803920791506944

Submission 2599

and what safeguards could be put in place in response.” NDIS Review Final Report p 93 Emphasis added

Action 3.8 ‘a skilled and qualified Needs Assessor who is a trained allied health practitioner or social worker or similar…

… include reviewing any existing information provided by the participant and trusted professionals’ NDIS Review Final Report p 88 Emphasis added

Assessments in 2021 — were not done in consultation with the disability community and, as a result, provoked considerable anxiety and anger. These were a short-cut algorithm driven approach to planning that was never validated or transparent. Our proposed approach to the participant pathway (see Recommendation 3) is fundamentally different to Independent Assessments. People with disability, as well as experts, must be involved in implementing our new approach to ensure budget setting is fair and can be trusted.” NDIS Review Final Report p. 36

32L must be amended to include a requirement of using professional medical reports by the assessor as is international standard practice of assessments 15 and assessor report not computer driven.

In 2025 The Occupational Therapy Society for Invisible Disability (OTSi) proposed a far more valid and reliable assessment process by a National Endorsed Assessor Team (NEAT) and Medicare funded. 16

Automation of NDIS processes

This screams RoboDebt.

Minister Butler has been quoted as saying the automation is only as part of most basic of NDIA processes to “leave time” for human more complex task. Nothing, zero, zilch gives that ring fencing.

and then this from Aged Care:

The developer of the Aged care independent assessment tool (IAT) Lynda Henderson states:

“I had no idea that an algorithm would eventually be applied to the assessment we were developing, which we began work on at the end of 2020,” Henderson said.

15 Health Information and Quality Authority (2024) Scoping review to inform standards for assessment of need. Dublin, Ireland.

16 https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/0790623a-fb7d-4afe-930e-62b50a3b30ef/downloads/7a9cd7f7-619c 4538-b045 26135cac7fba/Best%20Practices%20Support%20Needs%20Assessment%20for%20th.pdf?ver=1779696291839

Submission 2599

“My background is in psychology, psychometrics and statistics, and when we developed it, it was through the eyes of an assessor who would be carrying the assessment out, and so we made sure it would have room for nuance, notes and changes.”

the IAT has been criticised after the government removed the ability for assessors to override an incorrect outcome when assessing people for home support. Aged care workers and clients say the algorithm frequently under-assesses levels of need, leaving people with inadequate funding and care.17

How the NDIS SNA is proposed to work

A likely non-clinically qualified assessor runs a participant through the tool with little or no allowed outside medical information.
The result/score is fed to the algorithm BLACK BOX. We know little of this except it is likely to have the Minister of the day, bulk caps and cohorts embedded. And likely the individual’s crude impairment category that meets access.
The spit out budget is seen by the delegate to make the “all-important human decision”. That that decision is Yes or No on that budget. A No can call for another assessment only, not a change to the budget. A reassessment with the same tool, same algorithm. Therefore, the human interaction is lip service only. The delegate hasn’t even performed the assessment so how do they decide if it is a YES or NO? A reassessment is their prerogative to suggest. It is not reviewable for interrogation of the budget itself. Of course these same dangers of inaccuracy and harm are likely to apply to an automated access decision, yet to be determined (the blank cheque).

Plan end dates

The plan ends and a new plan drops – with cuts per the Minister’s indiscriminate groups and caps. No rollover for AT funding or home mods funding unable to be actioned yet, it just disappears. No appeal. No sense and no care. Shameful.

Reviews

This proposal to strengthen the reason for a Review and lengthening the admin time is dangerous. Even the existing 21 days is too long and 90 days absurd for a decision whether or not to Review. This is not the decision just the notification of not intention of the decision. A participant could be with no care within 24 hrs if their informal support dies or is hospitalised. There must be participant safety guardrails in place.

17 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/mar/05/australia-aged-care-assessment-tool-designer scared-use

Submission 2599

Revoked in 90 days of noncontact

The legislation It would allow for a plan to be revoked if contact is not made within 90 days. There could be very many reasons why contact cannot be made. There must be specific processes in the legislation of safeguards. There has been at least one death (David Harris) in the home when payments were cut off due to non-contact . So why is this in the Bill when it was agreed this wouldn’t happen again?? Labor’s NDIS spokesman Bill Shorten called for an independent inquiry into both deaths and “genuine reform” to prevent system failures resulting in neglect and harm to NDIS recipients.“Australians pay their taxes so that when they are vulnerable they are not left to die in squalor,” Mr Shorten said. 18

Registration

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the Taskforce recommendations. It is important that the recommendation of a Self-Direction Registration be as recommended by the taskforce. It is worth noting that DCEO Dardo stated in testimony that they had more oversight on self-managing participants. Self-Managers have a keen interest in scrutinising their invoices for accuracy to preserve their funds.

My family run a highly specialised team for a highest intensity needs child. We have strict training, supervision, and written protocols. No provider could run this sort of care, partly because they are not on site, and mostly because they could not be as invested in the care.

High intensity Care MUST be included in Self Direction. The highest care participants need the best care, and this may not be from a registered provider. Family care deeply for their loved one and many fight tooth and nail for their loved one. The capacity of self or family for self-direction would need to be assessed and monitored by the Commission prior to Self Direction Registration.

The restriction to registered providers will mean NO CARE for many due to cherry picking by providers in this “sellers’ market”. Registered providers may avoid the complex and novel participants if they cannot cover costs of service provision or focus on less complex participants that require less administration input for the same funding.

Claims, Debts and Penalties

That 25% of debts were incorrect that were sent to participants (NDIS Website) is very worrying. An insider said the number wrong debts to participants is actually greater. The incorrect debts were revoked by NDIA but there is no appeal process for revocation only a waiver. A waived debt is technically a debt on file. We know from Robo Debt the distress a debt can incur.

Incorrectly refused claims is a debt to the participant by NDIA. The participant must pay the provider as they have provided the service. There is no avenue for written preapproval.

18 https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/david-harris-was-left-to-die-alone-after-his-ndis-payments-were cut-off-20200522-p54vlv.html

Submission 2599

NDIA are known for poor claims knowledge of some staff. The IN/OUT lists are especially unclear as shown in some ART decisions.

There is provision for civil penalties that could be in the order of thousands.

It is disturbing that the debts and penalties do not differentiate between say Aruma the largest provider and a single parent on a pension. Guardrails are needed for participants and nominees by discretion.

Conclusion

The Bill should not pass. There is widespread potential for serious harm. Amendments to this Bill would need to be extensive and the Senators must be given a much longer time to consider this Bill. The harms are NOT unintended consequences and the actual cost savings or cost shifting must be explored. The desire of the government to pass this quickly must not be a reason to pass bad law.