Submission 293
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Final Draft
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDI$ for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by:
** Organisation:** Dr Darryl SelIowood, Chalrperson, on behaIf of the Board of AGOSC! Inc. **AGOSCl Inc. - Australia’s national peak body for people who may not rely on speech aione ** Date:**to understand or be undenstood by others May 2026
Submission 293
Executive summary
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 should be withdrawn and re-developed through genuine co-designAGOSCI submits that with the disability community, including people who may not rely on speech alone to understand or be understood by others and AAC users. The Bill is publicly framed as a response to fraud and as a way to “secure the NDIS”. In practice, itrestructures access, planning, funding, compliance and decision-making in ways that shift risk and costaway from government and onto participants, while concentrating significant new powers in the hands ofthe Minister and the NDIA. It embeds scheme-level financial sustainability into planning, enables fundingcuts and cohort caps, narrows functional capacity, restricts reassessment, expands compliance burdens,and permits automated decision-making without guaranteed human oversight.For people with communication disabilities, the Bill is especially dangerous. Such people can rely on AAC,communication-focused therapy, support workers, support coordination and accessible processes tocommunicate, participate and remain safe. The Bill weakens each of those foundations.
96 28 usable responsesAGOSCI’s rapid community survey, conducted over hours, produced from AAC 27 unique postcodes Twenty-sevenusers, family members, carers, disability advocates, support workers, allied health professionals, of 28 respondents deeply concernededucators and providers across in multiple Australian jurisdictions. 17 respondents “No, not at all” 7 “I said they were about the proposed changes. Asked whether the am very 24 writtenchanges had been explained clearly enough, said and a further said comments 22 comments 26 confused”. The survey also generated substantial qualitative evidence, including comments each about feelings regarding the Bill, on what remains missing or unclear, and about likely ripple effects and the consequences of reducing social and communitysupports.
Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
AGOSCI Inc. May 2026 Page 2 of 13
Submission 293
Table 1. AGOSCI community survey responses
| Measure | Number | Total number of usable responses |
|---|---|---|
| Unique postcodes | 27 | |
| Respondents who reported they were “deeply concerned” | 27 | |
| Respondents who said the changes had not been explained clearly enough, “No, not at all” | 17 | |
| Respondents who said “I am very confused” | 7 |
AGOSCI does not oppose NDIS reform. The organisation supports strong action against criminal fraud affecting the NDIS, better NDIA governance and administration, and reforms that improve accessibility, clarity and procedural fairness. However, this Bill targets participants and their safeguards rather than the systemic failures and misconduct by unscrupulous operators that require attention. It does so in ways that pose particular risks for people who may not rely on speech alone to understand or be understood by others, whose ability to understand, navigate and challenge NDIA decisions depends on accessible communication, AAC and skilled support.
AGOSCI’s primary recommendation is that the Bill be withdrawn in its entirety and replaced with a genuinely co-designed reform process. If Parliament proceeds despite these concerns, AGOSCI recommends substantial amendment to the provisions dealing with functional capacity, reassessments, ministerial funding cuts and caps, plan renewal, plan suspension, permanence, alternative supports, civil penalties and automation.
About AGOSCI
AGOSCI Inc. is Australia’s national peak body for people who may not rely on speech alone to understand or be understood by others, and for everyone who supports their inclusion. Established in 1981, AGOSCI is a community-driven, not-for-profit organisation that advocates for the rights of people who do not rely on speech alone to communicate, including people who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems.
AGOSCI’s community includes AAC users and other people with communication disability, family members and carers, speech pathologists and other allied health professionals, educators, disability support workers, service providers, advocates, researchers and students. Its work includes advocacy,
Submission 293
professional development, conferences, resources and community events designed to advance communication access and inclusion.
all communicators are recognised, supported and AGOSCI’s vision is that
countless people who may not rely on speech alone to understand or be understood by others can exercise choice and control, participate in education and employment, build relationships, and engage in community life on an equal basis with others.
AGOSCI is making this submission because the NDIS is a central mechanism through which many members of its community obtain the supports that make communication possible in practice, including AAC devices, communication-focused therapy, skilled support workers and communication-accessible coordination. For people who do not rely on speech alone, these are not optional extras. They are the means by which people express preferences, make decisions, direct their support, participate in relationships, access study and employment, and remain safe.
The Bill directly affects eligibility, planning, funding, compliance, review rights and the security of ongoing supports. AGOSCI therefore has a responsibility to bring the perspective of people with communication disability to the Committee’s attention.
Evidence from the AGOSCI Community
96In response to the Bill, AGOSCI conducted a rapid online survey to capture evidence from its community.
28 usable Survey data was collected over hours. After excluding one dummy entry and retaining completed
27 unique postcodes responses suitable for analysis, the survey produced responses. All respondents provided postcode, representing across multiple Australian jurisdictions.
6 people who may not rely on speech The survey reflects a broad cross-section of AGOSCI's community. Because respondents could select more
alone to understand or be understood by others / AAC 16 family members, partners, friends than one category, the figures overlap. Respondents included or 7 disability advocates or support 4 speech pathologists or allied health users, 1 teacher or 1 registered 1 respondent identifying as an NDIS carers, workers, participant / person with lived experience of disability and NDIS 1 part-time AAC professionals, educator, provider, processes, and user.
Submission 293
Twenty-seven of 28 respondents deeply concerned 1The level of concern expressed was overwhelming. said they were about the proposed changes, and respondent selected neutral. The survey also 17 respondents “No, not at 7 “I am veryshowed that the Bill has not been understood as clearly or accessibly explained. Asked whether the 3 “Yes, 1changes had been explained clearly enough, said all”, saidconfused”, said completely”, and said “Partially”. 27 responses 24 written commentsThe survey generated substantial qualitative evidence alongside these headline figures. There were 22 comments to the question about what the NDIS means in people’s daily lives, 26 responses eachabout feelings regarding the Bill, on what remains unclear or missing from theGovernment’s explanation, and on likely ripple effects and the impact of reducedsocial and community supports.Those responses consistently described the NDIS as a lifeline. Respondents referred to it as “my link to theworld”, “a life”, “a lifeline” and the support that finally allowed them or their family member tocommunicate, leave the house, engage in education or employment, and live with dignity and safety. Thequalitative material also showed consistent fear that the Bill would increase isolation, reducecommunication supports, intensify family burnout, and push people towards crisis, seclusion orinstitutional responses.The survey also suggests that many community members wanted AGOSCI to carry their concerns into the Fifteen respondents 10parliamentary process because they lacked the time, energy or capacity to make separate submissions. 1 indicated that they were happy to be included in AGOSCI’s submission, said they 2were planning to submit on behalf of themselves, a family member or a friend, indicated they weresubmitting on behalf of another organisation, and left that item blank.
Overarching concerns with the Bill
The NDIS was established as a rights-based, needs-based entitlement designed to ensure that people withpermanent and significant disability receive reasonable and necessary supports based on individual needrather than budget-capped programmes or discretionary grants. The Bill alters that foundation byembedding financial sustainability and comparative equity principles into planning and by enablingsystem-level funding cuts and caps that can override individual assessment.For people who may not rely on speech alone to understand or be understood by others and AAC users,this shift is especially dangerous. Many have high and atypical support profiles involving AAC,communication-focused therapy, support workers, support coordination and environmental adjustments.TheirSubmission:needs doNDISnot fitAmendmentneatly within(Securingcohort averagesthe NDISor standardisedfor Future Generations)assumptions.BillA system2026 that
AGOSCI Inc.
May 2026 Page 5 of 13
Submission 293
increasingly relies on broad comparisons, caps and cost-control mechanisms is likely to disadvantage exactly those people whose communication needs are most complex. The Bill also targets participants more than the underlying system problems it claims to address. Although it is framed as a response to fraud, much of the Bill focuses on restricting access, limiting reassessments, expanding compliance obligations, increasing ministerial powers, and enabling automation. Survey respondents repeatedly questioned why people with disability and their families appeared to be carrying the burden of reform while fraud committed by criminals within and around the scheme, NDIA mismanagement and inaccessible processes remained under-addressed. AGOSCI is also concerned that the Bill has not been developed through genuine co-design with disabled people, including people who may not rely on speech alone to understand or be understood by others and AAC users. The survey evidence indicates that the Bill has not been explained clearly or accessibly to the people it most affects. Reform of this scale should not proceed without accessible exposure drafts, sufficient time for consultation, and direct engagement with representative organisations and communities affected by communication barriers.
- Detailed concerns: communication and AAC lens
5.1 Functional capacity definition The Bill introduces a statutory definition of “functional capacity” that requires ability to be assessed without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications, and in a context that excludes the impact of environmental and personal circumstances as far as possible. Rules may later prescribe methods, criteria, classifications and thresholds. For AAC users and people who may not rely on speech alone to understand or be understood by others, this is conceptually flawed. Communication for many people in AGOSCI’s community occurs with and through devices, communication partners, environmental supports and adapted timing. Assessing capacity without those supports does not measure real-world functioning. It measures an artificial, de-contextualised state that bears little relationship to actual support needs. AGOSCI is concerned that this definition could be used to minimise recognised communication needs, narrow eligibility, or justify reductions in AAC, therapy and support worker funding by treating supports as external to capacity rather than intrinsic to communication access. AGOSCI recommends that these provisions not proceed in their current form and that any future approach recognise a person’s capacity with Submission: appropriate NDIS supports, Amendment (Securing technology and NDIA for Future Generations) Bill 2026
AGOSCI Inc. May 2026 Page 6 of 13
Submission 293
Reassessments and the removal of advocate/support coordinator triggers
The Bill narrows the circumstances in which participants can request unscheduled reassessment, requires changes to be “significant” and “ongoing”, extends the NDIA’s response timeframe to 90 days, and removes the ability of support coordinators and advocates to request reassessment on a participant’s behalf. For people with communication disabilities and AAC users, these changes remove essential safeguards.Many rely on support coordinators, family members, advocates and therapists to recognise and document changes in their needs and to navigate NDIA processes. Tight thresholds and longer response periods increase the risk that people will be trapped in plans that no longer meet their communication, safety or living needs.AGOSCI recommends that support coordinators and recognised advocates retain the ability to request reassessment on behalf of participants with communication disabilities, that reassessment criteria capture acute as well as ongoing changes, and that urgent pathways exist where communication access, safety or continuity of supports is at risk.
Ministerial funding cuts and cohort caps
The Bill gives the Minister power to reduce funding component amounts across groups of supports and to impose cohort-level caps on funding, intensity and worker-to-participant ratios. These provisions create the possibility of across-the-board cuts to supports central to communication and participation, including AAC, communication-focused therapy, support coordination and support worker hours, without individual reassessment.For people who may not rely on speech alone to understand or be understood by others, this is a direct threat to communication access and safety. Survey respondents repeatedly expressed fear that cuts to therapy, AAC or support worker hours would leave them isolated, unable to attend appointments, study, work or maintain community participation.AGOSCI recommends that these provisions be removed. Communication-critical supports should not be subject to ministerial cuts or cohort caps imposed without individual assessment and Parliamentary scrutiny.
Submission 293
Plan renewal and unspent funds
The Bill introduces automatic plan renewal without a new statement of supports and without areviewable planning decision, and allows plans to renew even while suspended. For people who may notrely on speech alone to understand or be understood by others, this creates a risk that reduced orinadequate plans will simply roll over year after year without meaningful review. The Bill also creates a serious problem for approved but undelivered supports, including AAC equipmentand therapy. In practice, communication equipment and specialist therapy often involve delays due tosupply chains, workforce shortages and complex procurement. If funding disappears at renewal,participants may lose access to approved supports, providers may be left unpaid, and participants may beexposed to liability. AGOSCI recommends that automatic renewal be limited to situations where the participant has providedinformed consent or where renewal operates only as a short continuity mechanism pendingreassessment. Approved but undelivered AAC and communication-related supports should remainfunded, and participants should not be personally liable for costs extinguished by automatic renewal.
“Not contactable” suspensions
The Bill allows the CEO to suspend a participant’s plan if “reasonable attempts” to contact the participanthave failed and the participant is considered “not contactable”. It does not define “reasonable attempts” ina way that requires accessible communication or contact via known supporters. For AAC users and people with communication disabilities, this is especially high risk. Communicationmay depend on devices, support workers, family members, support coordinators and accessible formats.A participant may fail to respond because the communication was inaccessible, because their devicefailed, or because they were in hospital or crisis, not because they were disengaged. AGOSCI recommends that this provision not proceed in its current form. At minimum, any suspensionpower must require multiple accessible contact attempts, mandatory contact via known supporters, clearnotice, urgent review rights, and specific protections for people with communication disabilities, cognitivedisabilities, hospitalisation or crisis circumstances.
Submission 293
Permanence and alternative supports
The Bill tightens the definition of “permanent” impairment by requiring that “appropriate treatment” be undertaken, even where treatment may not be realistically accessible because of cost or geography. It also introduces broad powers to declare “alternative supports” in other systems, allowing denial or revocation of NDIS access.
For people who may not rely on speech alone to understand or be understood by others, these changes create a risk that lifelong communication disabilities will be treated as insufficiently permanent because of theoretical treatment options, or that participants will be pushed into other systems that lack AAC expertise and communication capacity.
AGOSCI recommends that permanence be assessed in light of real-world access to treatment, and that alternative support provisions be tightly constrained and based on strong evidence that other systems can actually meet communication needs.
Civil penalties, record-keeping and reduced claim times
The Bill expands civil penalties, tightens record-keeping obligations and reduces claim time limits. For participants with communication disabilities and their families, these measures increase the risk of unfair penalties where people rely on others to manage paperwork, cannot easily interpret NDIA correspondence, or miss deadlines because communication processes are inaccessible.
AGOSCI supports accountability, but not in a way that punishes people for communication or administrative barriers beyond their control. Any expansion of compliance obligations affecting participants must be matched by accessible information, reasonable adjustments, funded advocacy and legal support, and realistic timeframes.
Automation of administrative decisions
The Bill enables the NDIA to automate administrative actions and decisions. Automated systems are not well suited to the complexity of communication supports for people who may not rely on speech alone to understand or be understood by others and AAC users, whose situations are often highly individual and context-dependent.
Survey respondents explicitly expressed fear of “robodebt-style” harms and concern that algorithmic systems will not understand their disability, communication needs or life circumstances. AGOSCI shares those concerns.
NDIS Amendment (Securing Access for Future Generations) Bill 2026
AGOSCI Inc. May 2026 Page 9 of 13
Submission: NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
AGOSCI Inc. May 2026 Page 10 of 13
6. Consequences for families, workers and community participation
Families and carers in the AGOSCI community report that the NDIS has provided critical relief from unsustainable caring roles, while allowing relatives with communication disability to communicate, participate and live in the community. Many respondents described themselves as already burnt out, traumatised or financially stretched. If the Bill reduces supports or shifts more responsibility onto “informal supports”, families will be expected to absorb additional unpaid care and advocacy in circumstances where many are already at breaking point.
Support workers, therapists and educators also warned of serious workforce consequences. Funding cuts, pricing pressure, cohort caps and increased administrative burden are likely to push experienced practitioners out of the sector, including those with AAC expertise. Without a stable, skilled workforce, communication devices and therapy plans become much less effective in practice.
Respondents consistently feared increased isolation if social and community supports are reduced. Many said they or their family member would be unable to leave the house, attend appointments, study, work or maintain friendships. For AAC users, this means not only less participation but fewer opportunities to communicate in real-world settings and increased risk of effective silencing. Families and providers warned that reduced supports may push people back towards seclusion, crisis responses and institutional settings.
Submission 293
Recommendations
Primary recommendation
Recommendation 1: Withdraw the Bill in its entirety.
Co-design a replacement
Recommendation 2: Develop any future NDIS legislative package through genuine co-design with disabled people, including people who may not rely on speech alone to understand or be understood by others and AAC users, families, carers and representative organisations. This process should include accessible exposure drafts, a consultation period of at least 90 days, andconsultation materials in plain language, Easy Read and AAC-friendly formats.
Target the real problems
Recommendation 3: Focus reform on criminal fraud affecting the NDIS, NDIA governance, staff capability, accessible communication and sustainable market stewardship.
Minimum amendments if Parliament proceeds
If Parliament proceeds despite these concerns, AGOSCI recommends at minimum that:
-
the functional capacity provisions be removed or fundamentally rewritten to recognise capacity - with supports, assistive technology and environmental adjustments; support coordinators and recognised advocates retain the ability to request reassessment on behalf
- of participants with communication disabilities; ministerial powers to reduce funding and impose cohort caps on communication-critical supports
- be removed; automatic renewal be limited and accompanied by protections for approved but undelivered
- supports and participant liability; “not contactable” suspension powers be removed or tightly constrained by strong communication-
- access safeguards; permanence and alternative support provisions be narrowed so that decisions reflect real-world access and actual service capacity;
Submission 293
-
civil penalties and compliance rules be accompanied by accessible information, reasonable - adjustments and funded advocacy/legal support; and any automated decision-making be subject to mandatory human oversight, a right to human review, and transparency and auditing obligations.
7.5 Communication disability safeguard principle
Recommendation 12:
Insert a specific safeguard principle recognising that people with communication disabilities are entitled to accessible communication, communication supports and decision-making processes that recognise AAC and communication partners as legitimate and necessary means of participation. No participant should lose access, funding or plan continuity because the NDIA failed to communicate in away the participant could access and use.
Submission 293
Conclusion
For AGOSCI’s community, the NDIS is a communication, inclusion and safety lifeline. It funds the AAC,therapy, support workers and coordination that make it possible for people who may not rely on speechalone to understand or be understood by others to express themselves, direct their own lives, learn, work, build relationships and participate in their communities.This Bill would weaken that lifeline. It narrows how capacity is understood, makes reassessment harderto access, permits ministerial cuts and caps, enables suspension on “not contactable” grounds, tightensaccess and exit rules, expands compliance burdens and opens the door to opaque automated decisions.For AAC users and people who may not rely on speech alone to understand or be understood by others, these are not merely technical amendments. They create direct risks to communication, independence,safety and rights.AGOSCI urges the Committee to recommend that the Bill be withdrawn and replaced with a genuinely co-designed reform process that addresses criminal fraud affecting the NDIS and governance failures withoutstripping rights and safeguards from the people the NDIS was created to support.
Due to the extremely limited timeframe for submissions and the profound significance of this Bill for people with disability, AGOSCI used artificial intelligence tools to assist with analysing materials and drafting this submission. All positions, arguments and recommendations have been reviewed by human representatives of AGOSCI and approved as an accurate reflection of AGOSCI’s views.