Submission 2936 — Communicate and Connect Speech Pathology — NDIS Future Generations Bill

Jade Munro

Certified Practicing Speech Pathologist, MSPA

1/6/26

Attn to: Committee Secretary

Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs

PO Box 6100

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Submission regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the

NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Dear Committee Members,

I am writing to you as a speech therapist, parent, tax-payer, active community member, advocate and person with lived experience of disability.

You will no doubt be inundated with submissions relating to various persons lived experiences, fear of uncertainty for the future and what their lives may look like should this bill be passed without considerable further amendments. I have no doubt this will account for less than 5% of

the true number of individuals who will be entirely affected but do not possess the means or capacity to have their voices heard.

This should be the primary focus of conversation within parliament, and led by disabled people themselves.

I sincerely hope the hundreds of thousands of words written on the pages of these submissions are felt, sincerely, and not lost in the fast paced, bureaucratic processes that do not equitably

embody the ruthless, bone-crushing exhaustion felt by the millions of Australians impacted by disability.

I oppose the amendment bill as it stands currently.

I also feel there has been insufficient time allowed for adequate responses to this submission. I have noted what I can with the limited resources I have in order to represent myself, my family, my community, my clients and every other Australian individual impacted by disability, who only want to be able to live a safe and equitable life.

I do understand there has been cases of fraud and media scrutiny amplified these concerns. I also understand that prior to the NDIS rolling out initially, these concerns were raised by hundred of therapists, disability specialist workers and families themselves. Safeguards were called for initially, and these frameworks were not established in time. The results, now seem to be spun back on participants and providers (the very same who warned of loopholes in the beginning), and the reforms do not address these issues at their core.

Key Concerns and Recommendations to Current Amendments:

• Change to the definition of ‘permanent disability’

• Access to ‘treatment’ of a disability that is not geographically or financially available

• Definition of appropriate treatment as a broad term and not individually considered

• Improving symptoms that are related to the disability but not considered in a wholistic term of functional impacts for the individual

  • Creating ‘functional capacity’ tools that are not individualised, specialised, and

designed with serious ethical flaws

• These tools should not consider rating scales such as ‘mild, moderate, severe’ with respect to fluctuating capacity, where environments and external factors

significantly contribute to the impact of a persons disability throughout their lifespan and where there is little choice (i.e. attending school)

2

• The tools that are currently provided by registered professionals such as

occupational therapists, require extensive insight and training (along with unpaid labour) and should be utilised as a minimum standard, and not reduced to simplification that serves budgetary purposes in a short sighted manner

• The underlying premise of this change to ‘remove participants’ without allowing for choice or control, or access to individualised services at a high standard is unethical and violates the Disability Discrimination Act 1992

• Thriving Kids as an alternative will not provide the same level of outcomes that will inadvertently LESSEN the financial ‘burden’ claimed by the government as the current supports have been repeatedly shown to do

§ There is also limited time and resources that have been spent to accurately and reliably measure long term progress and outcomes from participants that have been supported by the NDIS since their youth into adulthood. § These studies would prove vital to prevent short term cost cutting that inevitably leads to increased burden and pressure on health care, cascading to mental health, detention and intergenerational poverty

and trauma that follows

• Ministerial Powers to Cut Funding without Appeal

• This change also violates the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, whereby a person has a right to equal and equitable access to government support

• This change does not represent the acknowledgement of the burden families and individuals face in seeking support services ‘in informal support networks’ where

  support is simply unavailable without providing financial remuneration that is

otherwise impossible when self-funding § This area of self-managed funding should be safeguarded in a way that continues to honour choice and control, safety and allow individuals to decide those who provide the most intimate of care to them

3

• Recommendations
• It is recommended that considerations to short term cost cutting for long term benefit be considered within areas of budgetary management i.e. multiple models

that have shown areas for possible increase of revenue, § Long term projections of welfare and loss of taxation revenue from those ‘mild-moderate’ participants should be considered

-  Consider why  there  is such a high proportion  of ‘low-moderate’ needs

individuals accessing the scheme, and consider impacts of social disability models, where changes to environments, advocacy in attitudes and cultural norms

create the biggest barriers for people § These people, given the amount of support the NDIS currently can provide, can go on to seek employment, innovative job opportunities and psycho social wellbeing, that would otherwise fail and lead to further medical and judicial burdens

• Consider the real life impacts that will have flow on affects – if this was seriously considered, then the bill would be focusing on how to adapt § Increased revenue to fund a vital service § Honouring the needs of people with disability as a right and not a privilege

  § Funding programs that can exist permanently in schools, community

  programs and therapy clinics, that will allow specialised, dedicated

community members & practitioners to continue to provide the same individualised service with less loopholes to jump through.

I remain available for further consultation as needed regarding this matter.

Warmest,

Jade Munro

Communicate and Connect Speech Pathology

Certified Practising Speech Pathologist, MSPA

4