Getting the Implementation Right: NDIS Future Generations Bill (Provider advocacy) | External submission

Submission 272

National Disability Services Submission:

Getting the Implementation Right: NDIS Future

Generations Bill

Submission 272

About National Disability Services

National Disability Services (NDS™) is Australia’s peak body for disability service organisations, and Australia’s biggest and most diverse network of quality disability

service providers. Our valued members collectively operate several thousand services for more than 300,000 Australians with disability and employ a workforce of more than 100,000 people.

NDS is committed to a sustainable and diverse disability service sector, underpinned by the provision of high-quality, evidence-based practices and supports that strengthen,

safeguard and provide greater choice for people with disability in Australia.

Acknowledgement of Country

NDS acknowledges the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Traditional Custodians of the lands, waters, and skies where we live, learn and work. We pay our respects to Elders past, present, and future and honour the enduring cultural authority, knowledge systems, and Ways of Knowing, Being and Doing that continue to strengthen communities across Australia.

Submission 272

Executive Summary

National Disability Services (NDS) supports the intent of reforms that strengthen the sustainability, integrity and long-term effectiveness of the NDIS. The Scheme must remain

capable of delivering high-quality supports to people with permanent and significant disability, while maintaining public confidence and ensuring resources are directed to where they are most needed.

The proposed reforms will achieve these objectives only if these conditions are met.

Implementation will determine whether reforms succeed or create harm.
A viable, quality provider market is essential to participant outcomes.
Safeguarding risks must be explicitly addressed across all reform settings.
Governance, transparency and consultation must match the scale of reform powers.
Reform must be sequenced and aligned with system readiness to avoid gaps in support.

Measures that increase provider visibility, improve safeguarding, support more active

market stewardship and clearer regulatory arrangements are important and necessary.

However, the central issue is no longer the direction of reform, but how it is implemented.

The scale, pace and interconnected nature of the changes mean implementation will determine whether the reforms strengthen the Scheme or unintentionally create harm.

Across planning, pricing, funding, regulation and market design, significant operational detail remains undefined, while multiple reforms are being progressed concurrently. Without careful sequencing, transparency and safeguards, there is a material risk of:

disruption to participant supports.
provider instability and market exits.
reduced access to quality services.
cost-shifting to other parts of the system. 3

Submission 272

For participants with complex needs in particular, continuity of supports is essential to

safety and wellbeing. Disruption is not marginal; it can have immediate and serious consequences.

Reform settings must support a viable, quality provider market

The sustainability of the NDIS is fundamentally linked to the sustainability of the provider

market delivering supports on the ground.

Current reform settings, including pricing pressures, funding constraints and shifting

incentives, risk accelerating provider exits, particularly in regional and complex parts of the market, and reducing access to high-quality supports for people with higher needs.

There is also a clear risk that, under constrained funding conditions, participants are driven toward lower-cost, lower-oversight service models. This risks undermining quality, workforce capability and safeguarding outcomes.

Reform must actively support, not inadvertently erode, the viability of providers delivering complex, high-intensity and safeguarding-critical supports.

Safeguarding risks must be explicitly addressed

Many supports affected by the proposed reforms, particularly in Social, Civic and

Community Participation and capacity building, are not discretionary. They are essential to maintaining safety, supervision, stability and community connection.

Changes to these supports, if not carefully designed and sequenced, are likely to result in:

increased social isolation and loss of daily structure.
unmet and escalating support needs.
growing reliance on informal supports, with a heightened risk of carer strain and breakdown.
increased exposure to unsafe, inappropriate or lower-quality services. 4

Submission 272

For many participants, these supports function as preventative safeguards. Reductions do

not remove underlying need, they shift that need into less visible, less supported and often less safe environments.

There are also broader system implications. Participants may increasingly rely on unpaid carers, families and informal networks to fill gaps in support. This creates a real risk of over-reliance, leading to carer burnout, reduced workforce participation, and increased demand for crisis responses across health, housing and other service systems.

At the same time, providers and community-based supports cannot rapidly adjust to these

changes. Building inclusive capability, redesigning service models, and developing appropriate community alternatives will take time. Without sufficient transition planning and investment, there is a significant risk that funding changes will outpace system readiness.

This combination of reduced supports, increased reliance on informal care, and limited system capacity creates a heightened risk of harm, instability and avoidable system pressure.

There is also a broader market risk that funding and pricing pressures will shift demand

toward lower-cost and lower-oversight service models, further undermining quality and safeguarding outcomes across the Scheme.

Safeguarding, including clear review, escalation and monitoring mechanisms, must therefore be embedded as a core design and implementation requirement, not treated as an indirect outcome of reform.

Governance, transparency and consultation must be

strengthened to match the scale of reform powers

The Bill introduces significant reliance on Ministerial powers, delegated legislation and future rulemaking across core elements of the Scheme.

Submission 272

Given the scale and consequences of these powers, stronger safeguards are required. At

present, key elements of reform, including pricing approaches, planning methodologies and funding frameworks, remain to be defined. This limits the ability of participants, providers and Parliament to fully assess the impact of the reforms and creates uncertainty during a period of major structural change.

Reform of this magnitude requires:

transparent and evidence-based decision-making.
meaningful consultation.
appropriate oversight and accountability mechanisms. Reform must be sequenced and aligned with system readiness

The NDIS Review emphasised that reforms are intended to operate as a connected and

sequenced package.

However, key enabling elements, including foundational supports, planning systems, pricing frameworks and workforce capacity, are not yet fully in place.

Proceeding ahead of system readiness creates a clear risk that participants will lose access to supports before alternatives are available, and that providers face unsustainable transition pressures.

Reforms must be staged, tested and aligned with system capability to avoid gaps in

support and ensure continuity of care.

Recommended approach

Taken together, NDS considers that the Bill and associated implementation arrangements

should be strengthened to ensure reforms are carefully designed and delivered.

In particular:

Submission 272

Implementation architecture should require staged delivery, independent readiness assessments, and active monitoring of participant and market impacts.
Reform settings should support a viable, quality provider market, including through independent, evidence-based pricing and effective market stewardship.
Safeguarding should be embedded across all reform design and implementation decisions, including through impact analysis and continuity protections.
Governance and consultation should be strengthened through transparent methodologies, exposure drafts and meaningful engagement prior to implementation.
Reform should be sequenced and aligned with system readiness to ensure funding reductions or structural changes do not occur ahead of operational replacement supports and system capability.

Ultimately, the success of these reforms will be determined not only by legislative intent, but by the discipline of implementation. A sustainable NDIS requires not only financial sustainability, but a stable quality provider market, effective safeguarding, and an approach to reform that protects continuity of supports for people with disability.

Submission 272

Summary of Recommendations

NDS recommends that the Bill and associated implementation arrangements be strengthened to support safe, effective and sustainable reform. The following

recommendations are drawn from the detailed analysis in this submission and are organised under key reform themes.

Strengthen implementation architecture and safeguards

The Bill and associated implementation arrangements should be strengthened to ensure

implementation risks are actively managed.

Legislative safeguards

Require independent assessment of operational readiness prior to the commencement of major reforms.
Require publication of key operational detail, including planning, pricing and funding methodologies, prior to implementation through Rules or legislative

instruments.

Require independent monitoring and public reporting on participant and market impacts during implementation.

Implementation and delivery

Implement reforms in a staged and sequenced manner, including defined checkpoints before progressing to subsequent reform stages.
Provide clear transition arrangements, including minimum timeframes, guidance and support for participants and providers.
Ensure replacement systems, workforce capacity and foundational supports are in place prior to major reforms taking effect.
Establish continuity of supports as an explicit requirement when exercising powers that affect participant funding or supports.

Submission 272

Ensure reform supports a viable, quality provider market

The Bill and associated pricing and market stewardship arrangements should ensure the

NDIS supports a viable, high-quality provider market.

Legislative safeguards

Require pricing and funding decisions to consider impacts on the viability of quality providers, particularly those delivering complex and safeguarding-critical supports.
Require that pricing advice provided to the Minister is publicly released and tabled in Parliament.
Establish an independent, evidence-based pricing framework with transparent publicly available methodologies and regular review of pricing adequacy.

Implementation and delivery

Ensure pricing reflects the full cost of delivering complex, high-intensity, regional and safeguarding-intensive supports.
Support pricing and market stewardship arrangements that protect workforce capability, service quality and continuity of supports.
Support commissioning and market stewardship approaches that preserve provider diversity, including specialist and community-based providers.
Monitor and respond to provider exits, service gaps and emerging market instability during reform implementation.

Embed safeguarding as a core design and implementation

requirement

The Bill and associated reform measures should embed safeguarding as a core design and

implementation requirement.

Submission 272

Legislative safeguards

Require safeguarding and impact analysis prior to changes to funding levels, support categories or planning arrangements.
Require strengthened safeguards, transparency and review pathways for automated decision-making and for planning or funding decisions that create significant safeguarding risks.
Establish continuity of supports as a central consideration in all funding and planning decisions affecting participants.
Avoid blanket funding reductions or policy settings that create risks to participant safety, continuity or support adequacy.

Implementation and delivery

Ensure funding and market settings do not increase reliance on unsafe, inappropriate or lower-quality service models.
Maintain access to preventative, community-based and relational supports that reduce risk of isolation, harm and crisis escalation.

Strengthen governance, transparency and consultation

The Bill and associated rulemaking powers should strengthen governance, transparency

and accountability in decision-making.

Legislative safeguards

Strengthen safeguards and oversight of Ministerial and delegated powers that affect funding, supports and market operation.
Require publication of exposure drafts, methodologies and supporting evidence prior to significant policy or funding changes.
Establish clear consultation requirements, including minimum timeframes and public responses to stakeholder feedback.
Require that decisions to reduce or restrict supports are supported by evidence and subject to transparent processes. 10

Submission 272

Limit reliance on delegated instruments for significant policy changes without appropriate scrutiny and accountability.

Implementation and delivery

Ensure participants, providers and the disability community are meaningfully engaged in design and implementation processes.

Sequence reform in line with system readiness

The Bill and associated implementation arrangements should ensure reforms are aligned

with system and market readiness.

Legislative safeguards

Prevent funding reductions or structural reforms from being implemented ahead of replacement supports and systems.
Require that new planning frameworks, assessment approaches and funding methodologies are tested and evaluated prior to rollout.
Ensure participants retain access to timely reassessment, review and appeal processes during periods of transition.

Implementation and delivery

Align implementation of reforms with workforce capacity, market capability and system readiness.
Avoid implementation approaches that create gaps in supports or reliance on informal or unsupported arrangements.
Support a coordinated approach to reform sequencing across planning, pricing, safeguarding and market design.

Submission 272

Contents

Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

Reform settings must support a viable, quality provider market …………………………….. 4

Safeguarding risks must be explicitly addressed ………………………………………………… 4

Governance, transparency and consultation must be strengthened to match the scale of reform powers ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 5

Reform must be sequenced and aligned with system readiness …………………………….. 6

Recommended approach ……………………………………………………………………………… 6

Summary of Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………… 8

Strengthen implementation architecture and safeguards …………………………………….. 8

Ensure reform supports a viable, quality provider market …………………………………….. 9

Embed safeguarding as a core design and implementation requirement ………………….. 9

Strengthen governance, transparency and consultation …………………………………….. 10

Sequence reform in line with system readiness ………………………………………………… 11

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

Part One …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16

Overall position, reform context and risks ……………………………………………………….. 16

Reform implementation safeguards ………………………………………………………………. 18

Access, planning and support reforms …………………………………………………………… 20

Market and participant impacts of SCCP and capacity building changes …………….. 21

Governance, pricing and automation …………………………………………………………….. 30

Independent and evidence-based pricing …………………………………………………….. 31

Submission 272

Differentiated pricing and market stewardship ……………………………………………… 32

Automated decision-making and transparency ……………………………………………… 34

Ministerial powers, rulemaking and implementation oversight …………………………….. 36

Part Two …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 37

Schedule 1: Access, planning and support reforms …………………………………………… 37

Functional capacity, permanence and access pathways …………………………………. 37

Reasonable and necessary supports and direct impairment links – Section 34 …….. 40

Principles relating to plans – Section 31 ………………………………………………………. 42

Reassessments, variations and plan review processes …………………………………… 43

Schedule 2: Fraud, integrity and provider regulation reforms ……………………………….. 45

Provider visibility and universal risk-proportionate registration …………………………. 45

Investigative powers, civil penalties, fraud prevention and regulatory overlap ………. 48

Claims, payment systems and provider enrolment…………………………………………. 49

Commissioning, plan management, support coordination and market stewardship . 51

Schedule 4 – New Framework Planning ………………………………………………………….. 55

Budget methodologies and direct impairment funding ……………………………………. 56

Psychosocial disability and fluctuating support needs ……………………………………. 57

Implementation readiness, transparency and operational uncertainty ……………….. 58

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 59

Contact ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 60

Submission 272

Introduction

National Disability Services (NDS) welcomes the opportunity to provide a submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the National Disability

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

NDS is the peak body for non-government disability service organisations in Australia, representing providers delivering supports and services across the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), including in regional, rural and remote communities and across

a wide range of support types and participant cohorts.

NDS supports the intent of reforms aimed at strengthening the long-term sustainability, integrity and stewardship of the NDIS, including stronger provider visibility, improved safeguarding, more active market stewardship and clearer regulatory arrangements as outlined in the Bill.

However, NDS is concerned that significant reforms are being progressed ahead of key operational detail, implementation safeguards, replacement systems and broader

ecosystem readiness. Members are particularly concerned about the interaction of planning reforms, funding restrictions, pricing pressures, commissioning approaches, registration expansion and workforce challenges occurring simultaneously across the sector.

The cumulative interaction of these reforms, combined with the significant operational detail still deferred to future rules and implementation processes, makes it difficult for participants, providers and Parliament to fully assess the practical implications and unintended consequences of the Bill.

The concentration of executive decision-making powers, combined with limited operational detail and compressed consultation timeframes, increases the risk of

unintended impacts on participant outcomes, provider sustainability, continuity of supports and market stability.

Submission 272

This submission makes practical recommendations aimed at ensuring reforms are

implemented in a way that maintains continuity, quality, participant confidence and the long-term sustainability of the disability support market.

This submission is structured in two parts.

Part One focuses on key overarching implementation issues, including risks associated with the sequencing and pace of reform, and the need for greater detail and more time to enable informed and constructive engagement on implementation. It also highlights the importance of appropriate safeguards to identify and mitigate any unintended impacts on

participants and the market arising from the implementation of measures proposed in the Bill. This section includes an overarching implementation recommendation, followed by more targeted recommendations to support the effective implementation of specific elements of the Bill.

Part Two outlines NDS’s key observations in relation to specific provisions of the Bill, identifying areas where clarification or refinement may strengthen outcomes, and proposing recommendations to address these issues.

Submission 272

Part One

Overall position, reform context and risks

NDS supports the overall direction of reform. The Bill includes measures intended to strengthen the long-term sustainability, integrity and stewardship of the NDIS, including stronger fraud prevention measures, improved provider visibility, more active market stewardship, clearer planning and funding arrangements, and a more risk-proportionate

regulatory framework.

However, members remain concerned that implementation architecture, governance arrangements, sequencing and ecosystem readiness are underdeveloped relative to the scale and pace of change proposed. Collectively, the reforms establish broad legislative powers and structural mechanisms ahead of key operational detail, implementation safeguards and system readiness.

NDS also remains concerned about the limited timeframe provided for consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny of legislation of this scale and complexity. Participants, providers and the broader disability community have had insufficient opportunity to assess the

practical implications of the reforms or engage meaningfully on key implementation issues. Action 25.2 of the NDIS Review called for “deep public consultation on proposed legislative reforms”, while the Disability Royal Commission highlighted the ongoing need for people with disability to be meaningfully involved in government decision-making

processes affecting their rights and supports and to support good reform design and implementation practice.

Poor implementation, inadequate governance arrangements and insufficient operational

readiness create material risks of participant harm arising from unintended consequences, provider instability, payment disruption and broader system inefficiency. Stronger transparency, review rights, transition planning, implementation safeguards and

staged operational readiness will therefore be critical throughout the reform process.

Submission 272

It is also important to acknowledge that the NDIS Review did not propose isolated or

standalone reforms. The Review repeatedly emphasised that its recommendations were intended to operate as an interconnected and sequenced reform package across foundational supports, participant pathways, safeguarding, market stewardship, pricing and system design.

Members continue to report concerns that participants may lose NDIS supports before appropriate alternatives exist, increasing pressure on hospitals, mental health systems, housing and homelessness services, aged care systems, unpaid carers and families. It is important that changes to access and funding include transition safeguards to ensure

participants do not lose access to supports before equivalent replacement systems and community alternatives are operational and accessible.

This concern is particularly relevant in relation to:

reductions to Social, Community and Civic Participation (SCCP) supports progressing ahead of implementation of replacement community supports and the Inclusive Communities Fund.
unresolved future commissioning, pricing and stewardship arrangements,
the absence of operational foundational supports and accessible mainstream alternatives particularly for SCCP changes which come into effect on 1 October 2026.
and the administrative readiness of the NDIA and broader systems to safely implement reforms at scale.

The sustainability and integrity of the NDIS is also fundamentally linked to the sustainability of the provider market delivering supports on the ground. Reform settings must support the viability of quality providers, workforce capability, safeguarding and

continuity of supports, particularly in thin, regional, rural and complex support markets.

Without active stewardship and careful implementation, there is a significant risk that reforms may unintentionally accelerate provider exits, market consolidation and reduced access to quality supports for participants with complex needs.

Submission 272

Reform implementation safeguards

The Bill proposes a significant expansion of Ministerial, administrative and delegated

powers across pricing, planning, funding, automation and broader Scheme administration. Significant aspects of Scheme operation may increasingly be determined through rules, legislative instruments and administrative arrangements rather than primary legislation. Collectively, these provisions represent a substantial shift of operational authority away from Parliamentary oversight and toward Ministerial and administrative discretion.

While NDS recognises the need for Government to retain flexibility to implement reforms and respond to operational issues, the scale and breadth of the proposed powers raise significant governance, transparency and accountability concerns.

Substantial aspects of Scheme operation and implementation have not yet been publicly released. This limits the ability of participants, providers and the broader sector to fully assess the practical implications of the reforms and increases uncertainty during a period

of major structural change.

NDS supports reforms intended to strengthen integrity, stewardship and sustainability within the NDIS. However, whether the measures proposed in the Bill achieve the desired objectives will depend on how well they are designed, implemented and evaluated. Implementation must occur in a way that is transparent, evidence-based, operationally ready and informed by genuine co-design with participants, providers and the broader disability community.

Recommendation: Implementation architecture and safeguards

Recommendation: The Bill should strengthen governance safeguards, implementation oversight and market stewardship mechanisms prior to passage.

Implementation arrangements should:

require independent assessment of operational readiness prior to major reform commencement.

Submission 272

require public consultation and publication of draft rules prior to major reform implementation.
require publication of key methodologies, modelling and decision-making frameworks underpinning planning, funding, pricing and assessment reforms prior to implementation.
require clear operational guidance, transition support and realistic implementation timeframes for participants and providers prior to commencement of major reforms.
require continuity of supports to remain an explicit implementation objective across planning, pricing, commissioning, registration and payment system reforms.
preserve accessible review, appeal and reassessment pathways for participants affected by planning, funding, pricing or automated decision-making reforms.
limit the scope of temporary rule-making powers to clearly defined operational or technical matters.
establish independent market and participant impact monitoring, including regular public reporting on provider exits, workforce impacts, participant outcomes,

regional access and continuity risks.

include implementation checkpoints and staged review mechanisms before progressing major reform stages.
prevent major funding reductions or market restructuring measures from occurring before replacement systems, foundational supports and commissioning arrangements are operational, accessible and independently assessed as capable of delivering equivalent continuity, accessibility and participant outcomes in practice.
and require independent statutory review of major reform impacts within 12–24 months of implementation, including impacts on participant outcomes, provider sustainability, workforce capability and market stability.

NDS supports stronger statutory consultation and transparency requirements for future NDIS Rules, including mandatory minimum consultation periods, publication of exposure

Submission 272

drafts, disability impact statements and public responses to consultation feedback prior

to implementation, particularly where rules relate to eligibility, functional capacity assessments, funding levels or support determinations.

The following section provides targeted recommendations to support the effective implementation of specific elements of the Bill.

Access, planning and support reforms

Recommendation: The Bill should ensure that any power to reduce or limit categories

of NDIS supports through legislative instrument is subject to strengthened safeguards including consultation with participants, providers and the broader disability community.

Schedule One proposes ministerial powers under section 34A that would enable broad reductions to categories of NDIS supports through legislative instrument for the purpose of Scheme sustainability. These provisions represent a substantial shift in how supports may be limited within the Scheme and create considerable uncertainty for participants and providers.

Key issues and concerns

Under the proposed changes, categories of supports may be reduced across entire cohorts of participants, even where those supports have already been individually assessed as reasonable and necessary through the planning process. This creates a significant disconnect between assessed participant need and the level of funding ultimately available to deliver supports safely and sustainably in practice. NDS is

concerned that the proposed provisions:

provide broad delegated powers with limited statutory safeguards.
reduce transparency and predictability for participants and providers.
allow significant policy changes to occur through Ministerial determination. 20

Submission 272

reduce Parliamentary scrutiny of decisions that may substantially alter participant supports and funding settings, creating risk to continuity, stability and long-term planning for participants.

While the Bill requires the Minister to have regard to participant safety, it does not establish:

minimum evidentiary thresholds for determining what level of reduction is safe.
mandatory independent review or oversight mechanism.
requirements for consultation with participants, providers and the broader disability community.
clear safeguards to monitor unintended impacts following implementation. The Bill also does not require publication of the evidence, modelling or impact analysis underpinning decisions to reduce categories of supports.

NDS is also concerned that broad powers to reduce categories of supports may create significant uncertainty for providers, workforce planning and market stability, particularly where reductions occur with limited notice or transition arrangements. This is especially

relevant in thin, regional and complex support markets where provider viability and continuity of supports are already fragile.

Importantly, once established in legislation, these powers would not be limited to current policy settings or the current Government. They would create an enduring mechanism through which future governments could progressively reduce categories of supports through delegated instruments rather than primary legislation, creating a mechanism in which reductions to participant supports could occur over time with limited consultation and oversight. NDS is concerned that the long-term implications of embedding such broad

discretionary powers into legislation have not been sufficiently examined.

Market and participant impacts of SCCP and capacity building changes

Recommendation: Remove or significantly limit the proposed blanket Ministerial determination of reducing SCCP budgets for all NDIS participants and require that changes to SCCP funding be reviewed through public consultation and supported by 21

Submission 272

evidence demonstrating that alternative community participation supports are

available, accessible and able to meet demand.

Recommendation: Government should undertake a safeguarding and gap analysis prior to implementation of funding or support category changes, specifically assessing impacts on participants with complex support needs, including risk of isolation, service withdrawal and loss of essential daily safeguards.

NDS supports the broader objective of improving Scheme sustainability. However, NDS strongly opposes the proposed blanket reduction of Social, Civic and Community

Participation (SCCP) budgets by 50 per cent and Capacity Building daily activity budgets by 10 per cent through Ministerial determination. NDS recognises the need to address growth in areas of Scheme expenditure and supports evidence-based approaches to ensuring long-term sustainability. However, broad, category-wide reductions applied outside of individual participant assessment processes risk undermining participant outcomes, continuity of supports and the core principles of the NDIS.

NDS considers that any adjustments to funding levels should occur through transparent,

individualised assessment and planning processes, including the proposed Support

Needs Assessment (SNA) framework, rather than through blanket reductions applied across entire support categories. If government intends to implement a more consistent and evidence-based budgeting approach, the SNA process is the more appropriate mechanism to identify reasonable and necessary levels of support based on individual need, functional capacity, goals and circumstances. Blanket reductions risk disconnecting funding from assessed need and may disproportionately impact participants with complex support needs, limited informal supports, or those in regional and remote areas.

The proposed application of this measure highlights the risks associated with broad, uniform approaches to budget setting. Reductions of this scale, applied without sufficient targeting or safeguards, are likely to give rise to significant unintended consequences for participants and the provider market.

Submission 272

This proposal underscores the importance of ensuring that any budget adjustments made

through instruments or rules are carefully calibrated, evidence-based, and supported by mechanisms to identify and respond to impacts on participant outcomes, continuity of supports, and market stability.

Key issues and concerns

NDS is concerned that the proposed reductions are premised on an assumption that SCCP and Capacity Building supports are discretionary or non-essential. For many participants, these supports are fundamental to safety, regulation, skill maintenance,

community connection and sustainable living arrangements.

NDS is concerned that current modelling and impact assumptions may not adequately reflect how supports are operationally delivered in practice, particularly within Supported Independent Living (SIL) and other 24x7 support environments. Funding currently classified under SCCP may in practice underpin essential daily living support, supervision and safe community access. Participants are often already supported at the minimum safe staffing ratio while outside the home. In these circumstances, broad reductions to

SCCP funding may directly reduce essential supports required to maintain participant

safety, health and wellbeing, rather than reducing discretionary participation activities alone.

These supports are often inseparable from:

supervision and active support.
positive behaviour support.
social regulation and inclusion.
assistance with high-intensity support needs outside of the home. In practice, these supports are frequently delivered concurrently through a single staffing arrangement rather than as separate and easily distinguishable activities. Reductions applied solely on the basis of support category risk failing to recognise the integrated nature of support delivery and may unintentionally reduce participant safety, increase

Submission 272

provider risk exposure and undermine the objectives of independence, inclusion and

community participation that the NDIS was established to support.

Community participation and capacity building supports often function as protective and preventative safeguards that help people remain connected, visible and safe within their communities.

Participants with complex disability frequently rely on a combination of in-home support and SCCP funding to maintain safe and sustainable support arrangements. Reducing SCCP funding does not reduce the underlying need for supervision or support. Instead, it

risks creating unsafe gaps in service delivery, increased social isolation and greater pressure on informal supports, Supported Independent Living (SIL) providers and families.

Impact on Supported Independent Living (SIL) arrangements

In practice, many participants are not funded for SIL supports for the portion of the day

where they engage in community participation supports. The Impact Analysis acknowledges that people in Supported Independent Living (SIL) would be disproportionately affected, with 99% of SIL participants currently receiving SCCP budgets.

A reduction of 50 per cent in SCCP for all NDIS participants with old framework plans will leave participants unable to access community supports, while SIL providers

simultaneously lack funded capacity to provide additional day time supports within the home. This creates significant operational and financial pressure for SIL providers and risks service viability.

Impact Example:

Robert resides in SIL accommodation with three other NDIS participants, all with complex support needs. Robert receives funded SIL supports in the mornings and evenings under the shared roster of care. Between 9am – 3pm each weekday, he attends community participation activities funded through his SCCP budget, where he receives support for mobility assistance, personal care and enteral feeding.

Submission 272

Following the 50 per cent reduction to SCCP funding, Robert no longer has sufficient

funding to safely attend these activities. The SIL provider is also unable to provide additional daytime support within the home during these hours, as the SIL funding relies on participants attending external daytime supports.

Robert cannot safely access mainstream community activities without funded supports due to his wheelchair use, personal care and mealtime management requirements.

This creates significant safeguarding risks, including social isolation, unmet care needs and increased risk of neglect or hospitalisation.

Reduced flexibility and safeguarding risks

The proposed blanket reduction in SCCP funding will significantly reduce flexibility for participants with old framework plans. Many participants rely on the flexible use of Core funding to manage daily living supports and community participation. This reduced

flexibility may also flow through to other Core funded supports, including support for employment, transport and consumables.

Where participants require 1:1 support due to complex support needs, supervision or

behaviour support, reduced funding causes significant safety risk where participants may be left with reduced support.

The Impact Analysis states that participants may continue to access supports “at a lower frequency, or through shared/group supports which are charged at lower rates and provide greater opportunities for connection”. While group-based support can provide positive outcomes where they are genuinely participant-led and appropriate to individual needs, there is concern that funding reductions of this scale may compel participants to rely on shared support models due to affordability pressures rather than genuine choice or

sustainability.

Reduction in this flexibility may lead to:

increased social isolation.
impact on psychosocial wellbeing. 25

Submission 272

greater reliance on informal supports including those provided by older parent carers.
reduced preventative supports. These supports often play an important preventative role in avoiding homelessness, justice re-entry, carer breakdown and crisis escalation.

Funding periods within participant plans may further restrict participants’ ability to

respond flexibly when support needs or circumstances change over the life of a plan. Where funding is segmented into shorter or fixed funding periods, participants may have

reduced capacity to adjust the timing, intensity or mix of supports in response to changes in support requirements, informal support arrangements, workforce availability, living arrangements or unforeseen events.

When combined with tighter reassessment criteria and more limited opportunities to seek

plan changes, these arrangements create additional risks to participant safety, continuity of supports and provider sustainability. Participants with fluctuating, episodic or complex support needs may be particularly impacted where support requirements do not align neatly with fixed funding periods or pre-determined budget assumptions.

The Government must also consider broader market and safeguarding impacts. Participants may increasingly turn toward lower-cost and lower-oversight support

arrangements to preserve support hours within reduced budgets. This may unintentionally increase exposure to unsafe or poor-quality supports and undermine quality and safeguarding objectives.

Regional and workforce impacts

The proposed reductions are likely to have significant sector-wide impacts, particularly in

regional and rural areas where service availability is already limited. Providers operating in thin markets may face reduced financial viability, leading to:

provider exits from regional and remote areas.
workforce reduction and loss of skilled staff.
reduced continuity and choice of supports for participants. 26

Submission 272

These impacts may further entrench geographic inequities in access to community

participation supports and reduce the overall sustainability of the provider market.

Foundational supports and ecosystem readiness

The proposed timing of SCCP reductions appears misaligned with the establishment and

operational readiness of replacement community and foundational support mechanisms. Providers, community organisations and mainstream services cannot rapidly redesign service models, workforce structures and support pathways at the scale contemplated

within current implementation timeframes. Many of the proposed reforms assume that alternative community-based supports, inclusive mainstream services and lower-cost participation models will be available and operational before existing supports are reduced. However, significant system capability, workforce capacity, commissioning arrangements and infrastructure would need to be developed before this could occur safely and effectively.

For providers, redesigning service delivery models involves substantial operational transition, including workforce recruitment and training, redesign of rostering models,

establishment of new partnerships, adjustments to governance and safeguarding frameworks, and negotiation of new service agreements and referral pathways. These changes cannot occur immediately, particularly in thin, regional and remote markets already experiencing workforce shortages and financial pressure.

Similarly, mainstream and community organisations are at very different stages of disability inclusion capability and readiness. Many currently lack the workforce skills, accessibility measures, behavioural support capability and operational funding required

to safely and sustainably support people with complex disability support needs at greater scale. Without substantial lead time, investment and coordinated implementation, there is a significant risk that participants may experience reduced support availability, service gaps or inappropriate transfers between systems before replacement supports are fully

operational.

Submission 272

The broader ecosystem reforms intended to support these changes, including

Foundational Supports, mainstream service uplift and community participation alternatives, are not yet operational. This creates significant risk that participants may lose access to supports before replacement systems and community infrastructure are established.

Without accessible replacement systems, there is a heightened risk of increased pressure on hospitals, mental health systems, homelessness services, aged care systems and unpaid carers.

Implementation risks and the Inclusive Communities Fund

The Bill FAQs on the Department of Disability, Health and Ageing website indicate that participants would continue to be funded for group-based programs where it is appropriate for them and that a $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund will support community organisations to build capability and strengthen community participation activities.

However, there is a significant implementation timing issue. SCCP funding reductions are proposed to commence from plans that are reassessed post 1 October 2026, while

consultation on market reforms for SCCP is not scheduled to conclude until 31 October 2026, with further time required for rollout and implementation of the Inclusive Communities fund.

This creates a clear gap where funding reductions may occur before alternative community participation models or replacement supports are established and operational. NDS is concerned that this transition period may create substantial disruption for participants and providers, increase service uncertainty, and contribute to

provider exits before replacement community infrastructure is available.

During this period, participants may experience:

reduced access to existing supports.
limited availability of replacement community supports. 28

Submission 272

increased instability for providers, potentially accelerating provider exits prior to the Inclusive Communities Fund being rolled out.

Reform implementation therefore must be sequenced carefully to ensure foundational supports and mainstream services are fully operational and accessible prior to reduction of existing funding and participant supports.

Transparency and administrative complexity

The Explanatory Memorandum provides examples of how proposed support funding reductions, including reductions to SCCP supports, may operate in practice. However, the

examples provided create significant confusion and uncertainty for participants and

providers regarding how these reductions would be applied operationally and how essential support needs would continue to be met. Participants may receive a total budget amount in their plan while Ministerial determinations separately restrict the portion that can be used. NDS is concerned this may create confusion for participants and providers regarding available funding, increase administrative burden and heighten the risk of inadvertent over-servicing or funding disputes. Clear, timely and targeted communication and support to understand changes to funding and its implications will be required for

participants and providers.

Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with

Disability

The Disability Royal Commission (DRC) heard extensive evidence that social isolation, exclusion and segregation can increase vulnerability to violence, abuse, neglect and

exploitation for people with disability. The DRC report recognised that exclusion from community life can itself contribute to harm and highlight the importance of community

connection, inclusion and independent relationships of key protective safeguards. The report also identified heightened risks associated with segregated and congregated models of support.

There is a disconnect between the governments stated commitment to advancing the recommendations of the Disability Royal Commission and reforms that may reduce

Submission 272

community participation, weaken informal support networks, increase reliance on

congregated support models, and heighten risks of isolation.

Impact example Katie is a 30-year-old female with intellectual disability, behaviour support needs, and severe epilepsy. Katie lives in her family home with her mother and father and attends a day program 5 days per week where she receives 1:1 support for supervision, positive behaviour support and support to manage frequent seizure activity. Katie has received a 50 per cent reduction in her social and community participation budget as per a ministerial determination. This leaves Katie with SCCP funding for 2.5 days per week of 1:1

supports or 5 days per week in a group of 1:3. The provider of group based supports have advised Katie’s family that due to safety concerns for Katie, the other participants in the group and the support staff that they will be unable to support Katie in a ratio of 1:3.

Katie’s mother is required to make the decision to cease her employment to stay home to care for her adult child, creating financial burden on the family, disruption of Katie’s routine and carer burnout.

Governance, pricing and automation

Recommendation: Government should ensure that reform settings support the viability of quality providers, particularly those delivering complex, high-intensity and safeguarding-critical supports.

Schedule three introduces significant reforms relating to pricing governance, automated decision-making and broader Scheme administration within the NDIS. The amendments establish wide-ranging Ministerial and NDIA powers relating to pricing arrangements, plan indexation, administrative decision-making and the future use of automated systems

across Scheme operations.

NDS recognises the intent to strengthen market stewardship, improve administrative efficiency and support more consistent Scheme operations at national scale. However, collectively these reforms represent a substantial shift in governance arrangements and decision-making authority within the NDIS.

Submission 272

Given the critical role pricing, planning and administrative decisions play in participant

outcomes, provider sustainability and continuity of supports, NDS considers it essential that strong safeguards, transparency and accountability mechanisms accompany these expanded powers. This is particularly important where Ministerial decisions relating to pricing, automation or administrative settings may directly affect participant funding,

provider viability and confidence in the operation of the Scheme.

Independent and evidence-based pricing

Recommendation: The Bill should establish an independent, evidence-based NDIS

pricing framework, with pricing responsibility transitioning to an independent statutory pricing authority.

The legislation should:

require pricing decisions to be independent from short-term fiscal or budget sustainability pressures.
establish statutory pricing principles focused on quality, safeguarding, workforce capability, sustainability and continuity of supports.
require pricing methodologies, assumptions and supporting evidence to be publicly released.
embed structured consultation with participants, providers and the disability sector.
support differentiated pricing arrangements that reflect the real cost of delivering complex, high-intensity, regional, after-hours and safeguarding-intensive supports.
require regular independent review of pricing adequacy, market impacts and provider sustainability.

Key issues and concerns

NDS strongly supports reforms that recognise pricing as a central market stewardship function within the NDIS. Pricing directly shapes provider sustainability, workforce capability, participant outcomes, continuity of supports and the overall quality of the disability support market. 31

Submission 272

However, NDS is concerned that the Bill significantly expands Ministerial pricing powers

without establishing a genuinely independent pricing framework. Proposed section 45C would allow the Minister to determine maximum prices for Agency-managed and plan managed supports, including the ability to set different prices based on the type of support, provider or participant.

NDS supports the intent to strengthen stewardship and improve pricing governance, including the proposal to transfer pricing decisions from the NDIA to the Minister. However, pricing decisions should be made based on independent advice by a body such as the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority (IHACPA).

Pricing should function as a core stewardship tool that supports quality, capability, safeguarding and continuity of supports across the market. Independence in pricing is considered best practice and would align NDIS pricing determinations with those in other like systems such as health and aged care.

NDS considers that the Bill could be strengthened through including requirements for:

independent pricing advice from a body such as IHACPA.
transparent methodologies and publication of evidence.
structured consultation requirements.
statutory pricing principles focused on quality, sustainability and continuity of supports.

This is particularly important as Government progresses broader differentiated pricing reforms and market restructuring measures that may substantially reshape the disability support market over coming years.

Differentiated pricing and market stewardship

Key issues and concerns

NDS supports differentiated pricing as an important market stewardship mechanism within the NDIS. Uniform pricing arrangements do not adequately reflect the diversity, complexity and operating conditions of the disability support market, particularly in 32

Submission 272

relation to high intensity supports, thin markets, regional delivery and safeguarding

obligations.

Current price settings already create market distortion by incentivising lower-cost, lower complexity service delivery models while failing to adequately recognise the additional costs associated with quality, workforce capability, supervision, safeguarding and delivery of complex supports. Findings from the Independent Pricing Committee and sector evidence indicate that existing pricing arrangements have contributed to market movement toward lower-cost and lower-oversight models, while providers delivering more complex and higher-risk supports face increasing financial pressure.

NDS is concerned that broader funding reductions and rapid market restructuring measures may intensify these existing distortions. Where participant budgets are reduced, participants may seek to preserve support hours by moving toward lower-cost providers or lower-cost service models. In practice, this risks accelerating movement away from providers investing in governance, workforce capability, supervision and complex support delivery.

This creates a significant risk for participants with high and complex support needs who

rely on providers with the capability, workforce structure and operational capacity to safely deliver these supports. Without appropriate market stewardship, reforms may unintentionally reduce the viability of providers delivering high-intensity, complex or thin market supports, while further incentivising lower-cost models less equipped to manage complexity, safeguarding and continuity of supports.

Without careful sequencing and transitional stewardship, there is a risk that current reforms will increase reliance on lower-cost and lower-oversight models, weaken workforce capability, supervision and practice governance, reduce market

capacity to deliver high-complexity and high-intensity supports, undermine continuity of supports for participants with complex needs, and further destabilise thin and regional markets.

NDS therefore considers differentiated pricing must operate within a broader stewardship framework focused on sustaining participant access to quality services, safeguarding, 33

Submission 272

workforce capability, continuity of supports and long-term market sustainability. In the

short term, differentiated pricing should be used as a stabilisation mechanism to preserve provider capability required to support participants with high and complex support needs during the reform transition period.

Automated decision-making and transparency

Recommendation: The Bill should include stronger safeguards, transparency and

accountability requirements relating to automated decision-making within the NDIS.

Automated or technology-assisted decision-making (ADM) should be subject to:

independent oversight, regular auditing and impact assessment.
clear transparency, notification and publication requirements relating to ADM methodologies and governance frameworks.
a legislated right to meaningful human review and appeal of automated decisions affecting participant funding, planning, claims or payment outcomes.
clear limitations preventing the use of ADM as a substitute for professional judgement in complex, discretionary or high-impact decisions.

Key issues and concerns

NDS recognises that the NDIA requires modern digital systems and automation capability to administer the NDIS at national scale. Automation may support greater efficiency, consistency and timeliness for administrative functions such as claims processing and payment systems.

However, NDS remains concerned about the expansion of automated decision-making (ADM) powers within the Bill, particularly in the absence of a broader whole-of

government legislative or regulatory framework governing the safe use of ADM in public administration.

The Bill authorises the NDIA to use ADM for decisions relating to the payment or rejection of claims and approval of old framework plans through proposed sections 59B and 59C, while also enabling future expansion of ADM through legislative instruments made by the 34

Submission 272

Minister. While the Explanatory Memorandum states ADM is initially intended for more

objective administrative functions, it also foreshadows broader future use associated with new framework planning and other Scheme functions.

NDS is concerned that the scope of future powers to expand ADM is broad and not accompanied by sufficiently clear legislative limitations, safeguards or independent oversight mechanisms. Decisions within the NDIS can have profound impacts on participant wellbeing, continuity of supports, provider operations and workforce arrangements.

Members are particularly concerned about:

unexplained or difficult-to-challenge funding changes.
lack of transparency regarding how automated decisions are reached.
potential errors or inappropriate assumptions within automated systems.
limited visibility of how evaluative judgements are programmed or weighted.
the risk that administrative efficiency objectives override individual circumstances or contextual factors.

NDS considers it critical that participants and providers retain meaningful access to human review and procedural fairness where ADM impacts funding, claims, payments or planning decisions. This is particularly important in disability support environments where individual circumstances are often complex, dynamic and not easily captured through

automated processes or standardised data inputs.

The Bill includes some positive safeguard measures, including requirements for the NDIA to notify individuals where ADM has been used, publish standard operating procedures in certain circumstances, and retain the ability for human override of incorrect decisions.

However, NDS considers further safeguards are necessary given the potential scale and future expansion of ADM powers under the legislation.

Automated decision-making should not operate as a substitute for professional judgement, participant engagement or appropriately skilled human decision-making in areas involving discretion, complexity or significant participant impact. Greater

Submission 272

transparency, independent oversight and ongoing accuracy auditing will be critical to

ensuring automated systems support fairness, accountability and trust within the NDIS rather than contributing to confusion, unexplained decisions or reduced confidence in Scheme administration.

Ministerial powers, rulemaking and implementation oversight

Key issues and concerns

Schedule 5 introduces temporary rule-making powers that would allow the Minister to

modify the operation of the NDIS Act during implementation of the reforms. While these powers are time-limited, they represent a significant expansion of Ministerial discretion and reduce the usual level of Parliamentary scrutiny applied to major Scheme changes.

NDS recognises the intent to support implementation flexibility and respond quickly to operational issues during rollout. However, combined with the substantial operational detail still deferred to future rules and instruments, these powers create significant uncertainty for participants, providers and the broader disability support market.

NDS is also concerned about the pace and sequencing of reforms, particularly given the interconnected nature of pricing, planning, integrity, regulation and safeguarding changes. Without clear implementation safeguards, transparent mandatory consultation processes and independent monitoring of market and participant impacts, there is a significant risk that reforms may unintentionally destabilise parts of the disability support market before impacts are fully understood or mitigated.

Submission 272

Part Two

Schedule 1: Access, planning and support reforms

NDS acknowledges the intent of the Bill to improve consistency, equity and sustainability within the NDIS. Greater transparently and consistency in access and funding decisions are important objectives and reflect longstanding concerns raised across the disability sector regarding variability in planning outcomes and participant experience. It is also

important that the Scheme continues to meet community expectations by supporting

those it was designed for—people with lifelong and significant disability.

Functional capacity, permanence and access pathways

Functional capacity definition – Section 9B

Recommendation: Government should adopt a functional capacity assessment framework aligned with contemporary disability and human rights principles,

including recognition of the interaction between impairment, environmental, social and personal circumstances. The definition and framework should be informed by

advice from the Technical Advisory Group.

Key issues and concerns

The proposed definition of functional capacity in section 9B (1) defines a person’s functional capacity as their ability to undertake an activity “in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances”.

There is concern that this approach represents a significant departure from contemporary

disability assessment frameworks and may narrow access to the Scheme in ways that do not accurately reflect the lived experience of people with disability.

While the intention is for environmental and contextual factors to be considered separately through the Support Needs Assessment (SNA) under New Framework Planning arrangements, the proposed functional capacity assessment will operate as an eligibility

Submission 272

gateway to the Scheme, determining access decisions before a support needs

assessment takes place. This may result in important aspects of a person’s lived experience and day-to-day functioning not being adequately considered when determining access to the NDIS.

Modern disability frameworks recognise that disability does not arise solely from impairment itself, but from the interaction between impairment, supports, social environments and broader contextual factors. The World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (WHO-ICF) reflects this understanding, acknowledging that a person’s functioning cannot be meaningfully

separated from the environment in which they live.

For many people with disability, functional capacity is highly dependent on external supports and environmental conditions. This is particularly relevant to individuals with fluctuating conditions and episodic impairments, such as psychosocial disability. A person’s ability to communicate effectively, regulate behaviour, engage safely in the community or complete every day activities may vary significantly depending on factors such as sensory environments, familiarity of routines, trusted relationships, access to

informal supports or community inclusion. This approach may inadvertently disadvantage people whose disability-related impacts are more apparent in real-world settings and

social environments rather than in controlled assessment contexts.

The proposed definition of section 9B appears to move away from this social model of disability toward a narrower and more medicalised interpretation of disability and places increased emphasis on treatment and remediation.

With policy intent to create equity in access and funding decisions, these determinations may further widen inequities in access to the Scheme and the availability of funded

supports.

In addition, concerns are held regarding the operational implementation of the proposed assessment framework and the potential for inconsistent-decision making. The Bill and

Explanatory Memorandum provided limited details regarding the assessment methodology tools or safeguards that will underpin the functional capacity assessment. 38

Submission 272

The Government has indicated a Technical Advisory Group will be established to provide

expert and independent advice on appropriate thresholds and assessments.

Given the scale and significance of these reforms, there is a clear need for transparency, co-design, independent evaluation and operational readiness within the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) prior to the proposed commencement date of January 2028.

Funding and planning approaches must adequately account for complexity, co-occurring conditions, socio-economic disadvantage and regional context.

Permanence

Key issues and concerns

NDS is concerned that the proposed amendments place increasing emphasis on

permanence, treatment history and remediation before a person can access the Scheme. While consistency in access decision-making is important, disability permanence cannot always be assessed through rigid medical or treatment-based thresholds.

For many people with disability, particularly those with psychosocial disability, neurodevelopmental disability or fluctuating conditions, the concept of permanence is complex and does not always neatly align with static medical evidence. Functional

impacts may fluctuate over time yet still result in substantial and lifelong disability-related support needs.

There is concern that increasing expectations for participants to demonstrate that all available and appropriate treatment options have been explored may:

disadvantage people unable to access specialist treatment pathways,
create inequitable outcomes in regional and remote communities,
disproportionately impact First Nations communities and people experiencing social-economic disadvantage,
delay access to essential supports while individuals pursue lengthy diagnostic or treatment processes, 39

Submission 272

create pressure to engage in treatments that may not be clinically appropriate, culturally safe or accessible.

Treatment options should be accessible, available and affordable to an individual in their circumstances to be considered as an appropriate option.

Consideration should be given to adopting a more streamlined permanence pathway, like manifest disability approaches used within the Disability Support Pension framework, where certain conditions with well-established lifelong functional impairment do not require repeated reassessment or extensive evidentiary burden.

Reasonable and necessary supports and direct impairment links – Section 34

Recommendation 7: Amend section 34 to ensure reasonable and necessary support decisions remain holistic and person-centred, and responsive to the full complexity of a participant’s support needs, including secondary, co-occurring and emerging

needs.

Proposed amendments to the reasonable and necessary supports framework embed Scheme sustainability considerations into individual funding decisions, including through

a stronger emphasis on aligning funded supports with a participant’s primary impairment. NDS acknowledges the intent to improve equity in funding decisions, however, a key concern is that these changes risk progressively narrowing the connection between

assessed need and funded supports in practice.

Key issues and concerns

By anchoring support decisions primarily to a person’s identified primary impairment, the

amendments risk reinforcing a segmented approach to planning, where supports are

required to be directly linked to a single impairment category, rather than reflecting the full complexity of a person’s disability. These amendments may weaken the integrity of holistic and person-centred planning.

The narrowing of focus raises concerns regarding how secondary, co-occurring or emerging needs will be considered in determining reasonable and necessary supports.

Submission 272

The practical effect of these changes is likely to be a more constrained approach to

planning and funding, with supports increasingly limited to those considered to arise directly from a participant’s primary qualifying impairment.

This may reduce the Scheme’s capacity to respond flexibly to the real-world interaction between disability, health, environment, living circumstances and functional capacity. Participants with complex or intersecting needs may experience greater difficulty accessing supports that help prevent escalation, maintain stability or sustain community participation where those supports are not viewed as directly connected to the original qualifying impairment.

Over time, this risks shifting the Scheme away from early intervention, prevention and capacity building approaches toward a narrower crisis-response model, where supports are only provided once needs have significantly escalated. This may ultimately increase participant risk, reduce continuity and effectiveness of supports, and create greater downstream costs and pressure across the NDIS and other service systems.

The proposed amendments also provide that the level of funding considered reasonable

and necessary may be lower than the actual cost of delivering the support. Proposed

subsection 34(1A-1D) requires the CEO to consider whether comparable supports are available at a lower cost and whether those alternatives represent better value for money.

NDS supports value-for-money principles in the delivery of supports, but there is a risk that when combined with broader funding reductions and tighter planning settings, these provisions may incentivise participants toward:

lower-cost unregistered providers.
lower-quality supports.
engagement in supports that is not appropriate to the participant’s support needs.
support arrangements that may increase risks to participant safety, safeguarding and continuity of supports.

Submission 272

This is particularly concerning for participants with complex, high-intensity or fluctuating

support needs, where lower-cost models may not provide the workforce capability, supervision, governance or safeguarding arrangements required to safely deliver supports.

Where participant support needs remain stable but funded amounts reduce following reassessment, providers may face increasing pressure to absorb unfunded support delivery to maintain continuity and participant safety.

Principles relating to plans – Section 31

Recommendation 8: Retain and strengthen the core planning principles currently contained within Section 31 of the Act, ensuring they continue to apply alongside any sustainability considerations introduced through amended section 17B.

Financial sustainability should remain one of several considerations relevant to planning and funding decisions and must not override the foundational principles of participant choice and control, individualised planning, reasonable and necessary supports, participant direction, inclusion and recognition of the role of families and carers.

Key issues and concerns

NDS is concerned about the repeal of Section 31 of the Act and the broader shift in planning principles introduced through amended section 17B relating to Scheme sustainability. Section 31 has historically embedded core principles underpinning the NDIS, including:

participant choice and control.
individualised and participant-led planning.
flexibility in how supports are delivered.
recognition of participants’ goals and aspirations.
support for social and economic participation.
recognition of the role of families, carers and informal supports.
the importance of reasonable and necessary supports responding to individual circumstances.

Submission 272

The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that some principles from Section 31 are

intended to be reflected within amended section 17A. However, NDS is concerned that the legislative restructuring significantly elevates financial sustainability as a central consideration in planning and funding decisions across both old and new framework plans, while weakening the visibility and legislative weight of participant-centred planning

principles.

The practical effect of these changes may be a shift away from the original intent of the NDIS as an individualised support scheme built around participant goals, choice and long term outcomes. The removal of explicit planning principles risks narrowing planning

approaches, reducing flexibility and placing greater emphasis on budget management and cost containment over individual outcomes and support needs.

NDS supports the importance of Scheme sustainability. However, sustainability should operate alongside, not replace, the foundational principles that distinguish the NDIS from previous block-funded or program-driven disability systems. Retaining strong participant centred planning principles within the legislation remains critical to maintaining confidence in the Scheme and ensuring planning decisions continue to support genuine

inclusion, independence, choice and control.

Reassessments, variations and plan review processes

Recommendation 9: Delay the implementation of the updated reassessment criteria

to align with New Framework Planning.

Recommendation 10: Establish clear emergency reassessment criteria and expedited review pathways including a 14-day determination timeframe for urgent reassessment requests.

Key issues and concerns

Proposed amendments to Section 48A introduce more prescriptive conditions for when a participant may request a reassessment of their plan as well as extending the period from 21 days to 90 days for the NDIA to decide whether a plan reassessment will be conducted.

Submission 272

The proposed criteria requiring “significant and ongoing” change in functional capacity or

circumstances before a reassessment can occur may leave participants and providers in extended periods where existing plans are no longer adequate or safe, but no timely mechanism exists to seek adjustment.

This is particularly concerning for participants experiencing:

psychosocial fluctuation.
gradual functional decline.
carer breakdown.
workforce collapse.
behavioural escalation.
cumulative support failure. The absence of an explicit emergency reassessment mechanism means that participants experiencing sudden deterioration, crisis situations, or urgent escalation in support needs may be unable to obtain timely plan adjustments. This creates a risk that providers will be required to deliver essential supports without confirmed funding, or that supports will be withdrawn or reduced, creating potential safety risks for participants.

Review and reassessment settings must allow participants to seek timely redress when plans are no longer adequate or safe.

Implementing these changes prior to the New Planning Framework creates additional risk.

Providers continue to report instances where participants are receiving insufficient funding to meet assessed support needs, with resulting impacts on quality and safeguarding.

Where existing (old framework) plans contain errors or include inadequate funding, tighter

reassessment criteria may further increase risks to participant safety where reassessment cannot be accessed in a timely manner.

Submission 272

Schedule 2: Fraud, integrity and provider regulation reforms

Provider visibility and universal risk-proportionate registration

Recommendation: Government should implement a whole-of-market, risk proportionate provider visibility and regulatory framework across the NDIS.

Future implementation should:

establish clear legislative visibility and accountability across the whole provider market.
apply layered and proportionate obligations based on participant and service risk.
preserve participant-directed and genuinely self-directed arrangements where appropriate.
ensure high-risk classifications are evidence-based, transparent and subject to consultation.
include staged implementation supported by sufficient NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission capability, provider transition support and sector readiness.

Key issues and concerns

NDS supports the proposed amendments in Schedule 2 of the Bill that strengthen visibility and oversight across the NDIS provider market, including the proposed new definition of a NDIS provider under section 10C.

NDS has consistently advocated for a clear legislative definition of a NDIS provider to establish visibility across the market and support a more effective safeguarding and

integrity framework. The proposed amendments are an important step toward addressing long-standing visibility gaps identified through the Disability Royal Commission, the NDIS Review and the NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce.

Submission 272

The Explanatory Memorandum explicitly states that the amendments to the definition of a

NDIS provider are intended to “enable improved regulation of the NDIS” and are consistent with the advice of the Registration Taskforce.

NDS also notes that the Impact Analysis and Supplementary Analysis recognise that integrity and safeguarding risks exist across the whole market and that the NDIS Commission currently has limited ability to proactively intervene in relation to unregistered providers.

Importantly, the Government’s preferred reform option outlined in the Impact Analysis

proposes expansion of mandatory registration requirements to providers delivering the “highest risk supports only”, including Supported Independent Living (SIL) and digital platform providers.

NDS supports the broader direction of a risk-proportionate regulatory framework and acknowledges the rationale for prioritising regulatory effort toward higher-risk supports and service environments. However, Government should remain committed to broader universal provider visibility across the market, consistent with the recommendations of

both the NDIS Review and the Registration Taskforce.

The NDIS Review proposed a graduated risk-based registration framework, while the Registration Taskforce recommended refining the definition of provider and establishing layered obligations across the market, including visibility mechanisms for providers who may not require advanced registration.

NDS continues to support a model where oversight across the market is universal, while obligations remain proportionate to participant and service risk.

Universal visibility does not mean universal advanced registration under the current

registration model. NDS does not support applying the existing advanced registration

framework uniformly across the entire market. Rather, NDS supports layered obligations across the market based on:

participant risk and vulnerability.
support type. 46

Submission 272

service environment.
the nature of the provider’s role within the Scheme. NDS considers it important that all providers delivering NDIS-funded supports remain visible within the regulatory system and subject to appropriate baseline obligations, including worker screening, codes of conduct and basic integrity requirements.

NDS remains concerned that current market settings may continue to advantage lower

oversight operating models over providers carrying higher safeguarding, workforce and compliance obligations. Decisions regarding which supports, service models and provider

types are classified as “high-risk” will have significant implications for participant choice and control, provider viability and market structure. Careful consideration must therefore be given to how high-risk categories are defined and implemented.

Registration reform should therefore be implemented in a way that supports quality and

integrity across the market, rather than unintentionally reinforcing incentives for participants and providers to shift toward lower-cost, lower-oversight arrangements.

Successful implementation of any expanded registration framework will depend on the

operational capability and capacity of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. The staged implementation approach identified through the Impact Analysis reflects the practical reality that rapid expansion of advanced registration across the market may not

currently be operationally feasible.

NDS continues to support the position advanced through its submission to the NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce that genuinely self-directed supports, including services-for-one arrangements, should not form part of the initial rollout of mandatory advanced registration requirements for higher-risk supports. These

arrangements should instead be meaningfully considered through the design and implementation of any future risk-proportionate registration model to ensure that

participant choice and control are appropriately balanced with safeguarding objectives.

Submission 272

Investigative powers, civil penalties, fraud prevention and regulatory overlap

Recommendation: Government should strengthen legislative safeguards,

proportionality and inter-agency coordination requirements across NDIS compliance and enforcement frameworks

NDS recommends that the Bill include explicit safeguards requiring the NDIA and NDIS Commission to coordinate compliance and enforcement activity, including consideration of whether another regulator is already investigating, or has acted in relation to the same conduct.

Future legislative and implementation arrangements should:

clearly define the respective compliance and enforcement responsibilities of the NDIA and NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, including coordinated investigation and enforcement processes across agencies.
include safeguards against unnecessary duplication of investigations, penalties or enforcement action.
require proportionate considerations before significant compliance or civil penalty action is taken.
distinguish deliberate fraud from administrative complexity and human error.
ensure providers have access to procedural fairness, accessible review mechanisms and clear operational guidance.

Key issues and concerns

NDS recognises the importance of strong integrity, compliance and fraud prevention measures across the NDIS. However, NDS is concerned that amendments proposed

through Schedule 2 of the Bill, particularly Part 2 (Civil penalties and regulatory powers)

and Part 3 (Information gathering powers) may create significant overlap between the compliance, investigative and enforcement functions of the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.

Submission 272

In particular, the proposed expansion of NDIA information gathering powers, civil penalty

provisions, payment compliance mechanisms, banning order arrangements and inter agency information sharing powers may result in providers being subject to:

parallel investigations.
overlapping information requests.
duplicate penalties.
inconsistent compliance expectations arising from the same operational issue, payment activity or administrative error.

NDS notes that similar concerns regarding overlap, proportionality and procedural fairness have also been raised through broader safeguarding and regulatory reform processes.

NDS is particularly concerned that large providers processing extremely high transaction volumes may face increased exposure to enforcement action arising from administrative complexity or human error rather than deliberate fraud or exploitation. Integrity frameworks must appropriately distinguish between organised fraud and inevitable administrative or operational errors occurring within a highly complex Scheme

environment.

NDS also considers it important that implementation of new integrity and enforcement arrangements is accompanied by practical operational guidance, education and transition support to assist providers to comply with evolving requirements during a period of significant system reform and change.

Claims, payment systems and provider enrolment

Recommendation: Government should implement claims, payment system and provider enrolment reforms in a staged, risk-proportionate and operationally ready manner that strengthens fraud prevention without creating disproportionate burden

or unintended continuity risks for participants and compliant providers.

Implementation should:

Submission 272

include staged onboarding and transition periods for providers.
ensure claims and payment controls are proportionate to provider risk and compliance history.
include continuity of support and participant safeguards before payment suspension, enrolment restriction or compliance action occurs.
provide clear dispute resolution and escalation pathways for providers impacted by payment or claiming issues.
publicly release implementation sequencing, testing, operational readiness and transition plans before commencement.

Key issues and concerns

NDS supports measures intended to strengthen fraud prevention, provider visibility and integrity across the NDIS, including reforms relating to provider enrolment, claims processing and payment oversight. Schedule 2 of the Bill introduces significant changes relating to the definition of a NDIS provider, new compliance and enforcement powers, mandatory record retention requirements, a 90-day claims limit, and new provider enrolment arrangements.

While NDS supports the intent of these reforms, members remain concerned about the practical implementation impacts on compliant providers and the potential for unintended disruption to continuity of supports. NDS notes the Explanatory Memorandum itself anticipates procurement delays and operational readiness risks. Disability providers regularly continue delivering supports during disputes, payment delays or system failures to safeguard participants and avoid service disruption. In practice, this means providers

frequently carry workforce, rostering and cashflow risks while administrative, procurement or payment issues are resolved.

Members have also highlighted the need for clear guidance, provider education, transition support and operational readiness planning before new claiming, payment and enrolment requirements commence. Previous NDIS reform implementation, such as PACE, has relied on rapid operational change with limited system readiness, compressed procurement and onboarding timeframes, inconsistent communication, evolving

Submission 272

guidance and insufficient time for providers to adapt business systems, workforce

arrangements and service delivery processes.

Providers have consistently reported that implementation risks are amplified where reforms are introduced before supporting systems, digital infrastructure, dispute pathways and transition arrangements are fully operational or tested in practice. This creates challenges in disability service environments where providers must maintain workforce continuity, participant safeguards and ongoing service delivery regardless of administrative or system disruption.

The NDIS Review emphasised the importance of careful transition planning, implementation sequencing and staged reform delivery over a multi-year period. NDS considers these principles essential to the successful implementation of claims, payment and provider enrolment reform. Without deliberate pacing, operational testing and provider readiness support, reforms intended to improve integrity may instead create unnecessary disruption for compliant providers and the participants who rely on them.

Commissioning, plan management, support coordination and market stewardship

NDS is supportive of the broader reform direction relating to commissioning, plan management and support system redesign. NDS recognises the need for stronger stewardship, improved integrity arrangements and more coordinated responses in areas

where the market is not functioning effectively.

Future commissioning arrangements should be carefully designed and implemented to ensure stronger stewardship does not come at the expense of continuity, provider diversity or participant choice and control.

Recommendation: Government should work with the disability sector to design commissioning and market stewardship arrangements that protect continuity of supports, provider diversity and participant choice and control.

Future commissioning and market stewardship arrangements should:

Submission 272

recognise the diversity of service models and participant preferences across plan management, support coordination and SIL.
preserve access to smaller, specialist and community-based providers alongside larger organisations, including maintenance of specialist capability, local expertise and continuity of relationships.
avoid unintentionally incentivising congregate or overly centralised service models.
include transparent criteria and public reporting for identifying market failure and stewardship intervention thresholds.
include continuity protections for participants and providers during transition periods.

Key issues and concerns: Plan management

NDS recognises the integrity concerns identified by Government in relation to the plan management market, including conflicts of interest, fraud risks and payment oversight. Overall, NDS supports stronger governance, visibility and integrity requirements for plan management providers.

NDS notes that proposed new section 73EA would require registered plan management

providers to operate under a deed of arrangement with the NDIA and comply with specified integrity, governance, staffing, technology and conflict management requirements. The Explanatory Memorandum states that these arrangements are intended to “limit the size of the plan management market to a smaller number of providers with more stringent standards”.

NDS recognises the policy intent behind these reforms and the Government’s objective of strengthening integrity and accountability within the plan management market. However,

the proposed framework also represents a significant shift toward a more contract and deed-based market control model and may signal the direction of future commissioned or provider panel approaches across other parts of the Scheme.

Implementation and transition arrangements will therefore be critical to ensuring continuity for participants and maintaining a diverse provider market that includes quality providers of different sizes and business models. NDS notes that the proposed deed of 52

Submission 272

arrangement framework and associated registration conditions may significantly reshape

the market over time, including through increased market consolidation.

Key issues and concerns: Support Coordination

NDS recognises longstanding concerns regarding inconsistency in support coordination quality, role clarity and variation in capability across parts of the market. NDS is therefore supportive of reforms aimed at strengthening navigation, coordination and local system access.

However, multiple previous reviews and reform processes, including the NDIS Review,

have identified the need to strengthen capability, workforce development, practice quality and role clarity across the support coordination and navigation ecosystem, rather than simply centralising or absorbing functions into broader system structures.

NDS also notes previous joint work undertaken by NDS and Disability Advocacy Network

Australia (DANA) regarding the proposed Navigator role, which emphasised the importance of navigators being independent, locally connected and appropriately skilled to support people with disability across complex service systems. This work highlighted the importance of maintaining specialist capability, strong local knowledge and continuity

of relationships, particularly for participants with psychosocial disability, complex support needs and those living in regional, rural and remote communities.

Significant uncertainty remains regarding the future interaction between support coordination, navigator functions, Local Area Coordinators (LACs) and commissioned service arrangements, including how specialist coordination capability, independence and local expertise will be maintained through transition.

NDS is concerned that support coordination functions may increasingly be absorbed into

broader LAC or commissioned navigation structures without sufficient local capability,

disability expertise or continuity protections for participants with complex support needs.

This risk may be particularly significant in regional, rural and remote communities and for participants with psychosocial disability, complex support arrangements or involvement across multiple service systems. 53

Submission 272

NDS considers that navigation and coordination reforms should strengthen capability and

connection across the ecosystem rather than simply consolidating functions into more centralised administrative structures.

Key issues and concerns: Supported Independent Living

NDS supports targeted and evidence-based commissioning approaches where there is clear evidence of market failure, continuity risks or safeguarding concerns. This is particularly relevant in Supported Independent Living (SIL), shared support environments, regional and remote communities, and for participants with high-intensity or highly

specialised support needs.

NDS notes that there has been no decision to commission SIL at this stage, and that current proposals relate to consultation only. This provides an important opportunity to work collaboratively with the sector to design an approach that strengthens market stewardship, supports continuity of care, quality provider viability and delivers improved outcomes for participants.

A well-designed commissioning approach for SIL has the potential to enhance stability in thin or complex markets while maintaining the core principles of the NDIS. It will be

important to ensure that any approach continues to uphold participant choice and control, supports a diverse and sustainable provider market, and builds on support arrangements that are already working well for participants.

Consistent with the NDIS Review, future commissioning settings should strike an appropriate balance between strengthened stewardship and safeguarding in SIL, and the rights of participants to make decisions about where and how they live. This includes supporting contemporary, individualised living approaches and avoiding unintended

incentives toward institutional or congregate models that do not reflect participant preferences. This is particularly important given the viability pressures already facing many SIL and complex support providers. The Impact Analysis itself recognises risks relating to market transition, provider exits and continuity impacts associated with

broader reform implementation.

Submission 272

NDS also considers it critical that future commissioning approaches continue to

recognise the importance of provider diversity across the market, including the role of smaller, specialist and community-based organisations alongside larger providers. Transition arrangements and commissioning settings should support continuity and retain quality providers within the market rather than unintentionally driving provider exits or

reducing participant choice and control.

Schedule 4 – New Framework Planning

NDS acknowledges the intent of New Framework Planning to improve consistency,

transparency and equity in participant funding decisions through a more structured support needs assessment framework. Greater consistency and visibility in planning decisions are important objectives of NDIS reform.

However, significant concerns remain regarding the breadth of powers proposed under Schedule 4, the extent of operational detail deferred to future Rules and instruments, and the potential for future budget methodologies to disconnect assessed participant need from funded supports in practice. NDS is particularly concerned that proposed budget

methodologies, funding caps and impairment-linked funding rules may progressively narrow funded supports and reduce flexibility and individualisation within participant plans.

Recommendation 15: Government should not implement New Framework Planning until support needs assessment methodologies, budget methodologies, operational safeguards and trial outcomes have been publicly released, independently evaluated and tested in practice.

Implementation should:

maintain alignment between assessed participant need and funded supports,
preserve flexibility and individualisation within participant plans.
ensure support needs assessments appropriately recognise cumulative, preventative, fluctuating and co-occurring support needs.

Submission 272

include transparent publication of funding methodologies, assessment tools and operational guidance prior to implementation.
include independent evaluation of assessment consistency, participant outcomes and market impacts before broader rollout.

Budget methodologies and direct impairment funding

Key issues and concerns

Schedule 4 establishes the operational funding architecture that will determine how

assessed support needs translate into participant budgets in practice.

The proposed amendments to sections 32K and 32L would allow future budget methodologies, determined through NDIS Rules, to specify funding amounts that may be “more than, equal to or less than” the actual cost of providing supports. The amendments also permit funding caps for particular supports or classes of supports.

While framed as mechanisms to support consistency and Scheme sustainability, these provisions create significant uncertainty regarding the relationship between assessed participant need and the funding ultimately made available within participant plans. NDS

is concerned that participants may have support needs formally recognised through the assessment process without receiving funding sufficient to safely and sustainably meet those needs in practice.

Under the proposed framework, participants may undergo comprehensive support needs assessments identifying support requirements, while final funding allocations remain subject to budget methodologies, pricing assumptions and capped funding arrangements determined through delegated legislation. This represents a significant shift away from

individualised delegate-led funding decisions toward a more rules-based and methodology-driven planning framework.

These concerns are heightened by the interaction between Schedule 4 and broader

reforms elsewhere in the Bill, including tighter reassessment criteria, reduced delegate discretion and expanded powers to impose funding restrictions and spending controls.

Submission 272

Collectively, these reforms create a risk that participants may become locked into

inadequate funding outcomes while facing increasingly constrained pathways to seek timely reassessment or substantive reconsideration of funding adequacy.

Amendments to section 32L also require funded supports to “directly arise” from the impairment for which a participant meets access criteria. The Explanatory Memorandum further clarifies that funded supports must have a “direct causal connection” to the relevant impairment. NDS is concerned this may progressively narrow the scope of funded supports, particularly where support needs arise through cumulative functional impacts, co-existing conditions or preventative support requirements rather than a single isolated

impairment pathway.

This creates particular concern for:

participants with psychosocial disability, where support needs are often fluctuating, episodic and shaped by environmental and social factors.
people with multiple or co-existing disabilities, where functional impacts are cumulative and interconnected.
early intervention and preventative supports.
participants requiring supports intended to prevent escalation into crisis, hospitalisation, homelessness, justice involvement or family breakdown.

Psychosocial disability and fluctuating support needs

NDS is particularly concerned about the implications of Schedule 4 for participants with

psychosocial disability. The proposed New Framework Planning model combines structured support needs assessments, direct impairment-linked funding requirements and prescribed budget methodologies to determine participant funding outcomes.

Psychosocial disability often involves fluctuating functional capacity, episodic support needs and significant interaction between disability, trauma, housing stability, social

connection and informal supports. NDS is concerned that these forms of support needs may be more difficult to accurately capture within structured assessment and methodology-driven funding models, particularly where supports are preventative, 57

Submission 272

relational or intended to maintain long-term stability rather than respond to acute

functional impairment.

NDS is also concerned that where funding outcomes are closely tied to assessment methodologies and prescribed budget rules, participants may become caught in cycles of reassessment without meaningful reconsideration of funding adequacy where the underlying issue relates to limitations in the methodology itself rather than factual inaccuracies in the assessment process.

Given the absence of publicly available operational detail regarding assessment

methodologies, funding translation models and validation outcomes, NDS considers additional safeguards, transparency and staged implementation are necessary before New Framework Planning is applied to participants with psychosocial disability.

Implementation readiness, transparency and operational uncertainty

NDS is concerned that significant operational detail underpinning New Framework Planning remains unavailable despite the breadth of legislative powers established under Schedule 4. The NDIA has indicated that elements of the Support Needs Assessment

(SNA) and New Framework Planning model are currently being trialled and tested. However, there remains limited publicly available information regarding the assessment methodology, funding translation model, validation outcomes, operational safeguards or

implementation findings arising from these activities.

At present, participants, providers and Parliament do not have sufficient visibility of:

how assessment outcomes will translate into funded budgets in practice.
how budget methodologies will operate across different disability cohorts and support environments.
how consistency and fairness will be monitored.
what safeguards will exist where assessment outcomes do not align with participant need.
how the framework will operate for participants with fluctuating, episodic or complex support needs. 58

Submission 272

As written Schedule 4 establishes broad legislative powers and implementation pathways

ahead of the publication, independent evaluation and real-world testing of the operational framework that will ultimately determine participant funding outcomes.

Given the scale and significance of these reforms, greater transparency, staged implementation and independent evaluation will be critical to maintaining participant confidence, provider stability and broader Scheme legitimacy throughout rollout.

Conclusion

NDS supports the intent of reforms that strengthen the sustainability, integrity and long term effectiveness of the NDIS. The Scheme must remain capable of delivering high

quality supports to people with permanent and significant disability, while maintaining public confidence and ensuring resources are directed to where they are most needed. The objectives of improved safeguarding, stronger market oversight, better fraud prevention and clearer planning arrangements are important and necessary.

However, the scale, pace and breadth of the proposed reforms create significant implementation, operational and participant risks if not carefully sequenced, tested and

supported. Across this submission, NDS has consistently highlighted that legislative

design cannot be separated from implementation realities. The interaction between pricing, registration, planning, funding flexibility, market stewardship, provider viability and participant outcomes is critical. Reforms introduced in isolation, or without sufficient transition planning, risk shifting instability and unmanaged risk onto participants, providers and the workforce.

The NDIS Review itself recognised that sustainable reform depends on a connected

ecosystem of supports, strong implementation architecture, genuine co-design and a

carefully managed transition process. The Review also warned against fragmented reform approaches and emphasised that governments must balance urgency with certainty, engagement and implementation discipline. NDS considers these principles essential to the successful implementation of this Bill.

Submission 272

The proposed powers relating to funding reductions, provider oversight, eligibility,

reassessments and market controls represent some of the most significant structural changes to the Scheme since its establishment. As currently drafted, several provisions rely heavily on future Rules, determinations and administrative implementation that remain undefined. This creates substantial uncertainty for participants, providers and

workers at a time when the sector is already experiencing reform fatigue, workforce strain and financial pressure.

NDS urges the Parliament and Government to ensure that:

reforms are implemented in a staged and sequenced way.
transitional safeguards and continuity protections are embedded.
pricing and market stewardship reforms occur alongside expanded regulatory obligations.
transparency and accountability mechanisms are strengthened.
consultation on Rules and operational design is genuine, timely and evidence based.

The success of these reforms will not ultimately be judged by legislative passage alone,

but by whether people with disability continue to receive safe, high-quality and sustainable supports in practice. A sustainable NDIS requires not only financial sustainability, but also a stable provider market, a capable workforce, effective safeguards, and a disability support ecosystem that genuinely enables inclusion, participation and choice and control.

Contact

Michael Perusco

CEO - National Disability Services

Monday 1 June 2026