Submission 2985 — Innovative Mentoring — NDIS Future Generations Bill | External submission

Committee Secretary

Senate Standing Committees on Community A3airs

PO Box 6100

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

By email: community.a3airs.sen@aph.gov.au

Dear Committee Secretary,

Submission to the inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

I make this submission as a Support Coordinator Level 2 and on behalf of Innovative Mentoring Pty Ltd and my personal volunteering.

I am happy for my contact details to be made public. I am also willing to schedule an appointment to discuss the contents of this submission in greater detail and provide supporting evidence where appropriate. However, I ask the Committee to note that much of the evidence relates directly to NDIS participants, their families and their personal circumstances. This creates barriers around consent, privacy, conﬁdentiality and the control of participant information. Any further evidence would need to be handled carefully, and in some cases may need to be de-identiﬁed or provided only with participant or family consent.

My submission focuses on the practical operation of the NDIA’s current frontline administrative systems, particularly the national contact centre, Local Area Coordinators, call-back requests, ﬁle notes, action closure, escalation pathways and the impact of these issues on participants, families and Support Coordination funding.

I support measures that genuinely improve the integrity, safety and sustainability of the NDIS. However, I am concerned that the proposed legislative changes place too much focus on participant funding and participant access before the NDIA has properly addressed its own internal ine3iciencies, poor administrative practice, inconsistent knowledge, inaccurate records and failure to complete agreed actions.

In my view, the Bill should not proceed in its current form unless it includes much stronger safeguards around NDIA administrative accountability, accurate record keeping, action tracking, call-back completion, participant communication, correction of records and the use of participant information in decision-making.

Background and experience

I have worked as a Support Coordinator, mentor and family peer mentor for approximately eight years.

I also have lived and family experience of the NDIS. Both of my children have Autism Spectrum Disorder and NDIS plans. My family was involved during the transition from the former State

based Disability Services Commission system into the NDIS. My children also accessed early intervention supports before and during the early NDIS transition period, including supports connected with the FaHCSIA-era / Helping Children with Autism early intervention arrangements. Both of my children attended early intervention programs at Spencer Park Education Support School to prepare them for mainstream schooling.

I have also been involved as a parent representative and board member within education

settings, including Spencer Park Education Support School, Harvey Senior High School and

Australind Senior High School.

My broader work history includes experience across the private sector, State Government and Federal Government. This has given me signiﬁcant experience in risk management, controls, work practice improvement, policy development and the importance of systems that are accurate, accountable and e3icient.

My current caseload through Innovative Mentoring generally ﬂuctuates between approximately 10 and 25 NDIS participants. I also undertake volunteer mentoring and support work with approximately 12 to 15 people per year, and I have recently started volunteering with people who are eligible for My Aged Care, generally around one to three people per month.

The participants I support range from approximately 4 to 68 years of age. Many have complex and interacting disabilities, medical conditions, psychosocial disability, autism, intellectual disability, trauma histories, family stress, carer breakdown risk, housing instability or other complex circumstances.

In these complex cases, contact with the NDIA is often necessary. In my experience, when NDIA contact is required, there is very often a need for repeated follow-up because:

the national contact centre cannot answer the question being asked;
the matter cannot be transferred to the relevant business area;
the wrong business area or person is assigned;
call-back requests are not actioned;
promised actions are not completed;
incorrect information is recorded;
the same issue must be explained repeatedly; and
some matters ars closed with no meaningful outcome. These problems a3ect participants across age groups and disability types. In my work, the issue is not limited to one cohort. However, participants with complex needs are particularly a3ected because many of their requests are time-sensitive and risk-related.

When the matter involves suicide risk, carer breakdown, homelessness, child protection involvement, justice involvement, hospitalisation, loss of services or urgent assistive technology, delays are not just inconvenient. They can cause real harm.

Why this matters to the Bill

The Bill proposes signiﬁcant changes to the NDIS. These include changes to eligibility, planning, reassessments, plan suspension, funding arrangements, compliance, fraud controls, provider regulation, pricing and administrative decision-making.

Before Parliament gives the NDIA greater administrative power, the current administrative system must be made reliable, accurate, transparent and accountable.

The NDIS Act is built around principles of choice and control, dignity, participation, reasonable and necessary supports, accurate communication, and support for people with disability to engage with the Agency. These principles are not upheld when participants, families, nominees, authorised representatives and Support Coordinators cannot rely on NDIA records, cannot get meaningful call-backs, and cannot see whether requested actions have been completed.

I am concerned that, if the current administrative problems are not ﬁxed ﬁrst, expanded NDIA powers will increase the risk that participants are a3ected by inaccurate ﬁle notes, misunderstood complaints, closed actions, delayed escalations, poor record keeping and decisions based on incomplete or incorrect information.

National contact centre ineFiciencies and inaccurate records

A recurring problem is that the national contact centre is often the only available entry point, but it is not able to resolve many of the issues being raised.

This creates an ine3icient cycle:

the participant, family or Support Coordinator calls the national contact centre;
the call centre operator cannot answer the question or resolve the issue;
a request is sent to another team;
the request is assigned incorrectly, recorded incorrectly or closed without action;
no meaningful response is received;
the Support Coordinator follows up;
the same information must be repeated;
further call-back requests are made;
the matter remains unresolved; and

participant funding is spent chasing the NDIA instead of implementing supports. This is poor use of Scheme funds. It is also poor public administration.

The current 2026–27 NDIS Pricing Schedule lists Level 2 Support Coordination at $100.14 per hour nationally. In one matter, I spent upwards of 15 hours following up NDIA process failures. At the Level 2 Support Coordination rate, this is approximately $1,502.10 of participant plan funding. This ﬁgure does not include unpaid time I completed in my own time, nor the wage cost of NDIA sta3, contact centre operators and team leaders involved in repeated calls that did not resolve the matter. There is additionally the organisational costs for systems and business related expenses.

This is one example only. If this is occurring across Australia, the cost to participants and the Scheme is signiﬁcant.

Example 1 — complaint mis recorded as disagreement with eligibility decision

On or about 15 June 2026, I raised a complaint about the actions of a NDIS representative during an interaction with a participant’s child representative.

My concern was not about the eligibility decision itself. The complaint was about the conduct of the NDIS representative and how they dealt with the child representative during an extreme and distressing situation. In my view, the NDIS representative did not recognise that the child representative was dealing with an extreme situation and did not conﬁrm with the child representative the information was not properly understood that what was being relayed to her.

However, when the complaints o3icer contacted me approximately three days later, the complaint had been recorded as dissatisfaction with the outcome of the eligibility decision.

This meant the complaints o3icer focused on the decision and possible decision pathways, rather than the conduct issue that had been raised.

It took signiﬁcant time to correct the complaints o3icer. Even then, my concern was not properly taken on board. The only outcome advised to me was that the matter would be raised with the relevant business area.

This meant there was no real outcome, no resolution and no proper response to the actual issue. The family had already experienced a failure in communication, and the complaint process repeated the same problem: the person raising the concern was not being accurately heard.

Example 2 — planner follow-up and review matters wrongly combined

On or about 24 November 2025, following a planning meeting, the planner requested information about low-cost assistive technology. The planner also said she would send a breakdown of the plan development and advised that any questions arising from the planning meeting could be directed to her directly.

Multiple attempts were made to contact the planner by email and by leaving call-back requests through the national contact centre.

At the same time, there was a separate Review of a Reviewable Decision lodged regarding errors made in the development of the plan. This was a separate issue from the operational questions needed for plan implementation.

Despite expressly advising the national contact centre not to assign the operational enquiries to the review matter, enquiries were repeatedly assigned to the review instead of the planner.

Over time, multiple phone calls were made to the NDIA. Some calls lasted two to three hours. I had to retell the same information, correct recorded information and repeat the distinction between the review process and operational implementation questions. This occurred with both call centre operators and team leaders.

I never had the opportunity to speak with the planner. The requested actions were not properly actioned. The planner did not follow up as expected.

This wasted signiﬁcant Support Coordination time and delayed the participant’s ability to implement the new plan. It also demonstrates a failure to understand that an internal review and plan implementation can be separate matters occurring at the same time.

Example 3 — LAC allocation and First Nations support confusion

In February 2026, I contacted APM to book an appointment with a Local Area Coordinator. I was advised that APM did not have the participant on ﬁle, even though the NDIA had told me APM was the LAC provider.

Later, after contacting the NDIA First Nations Strategy team, I received no return contact from the NDIA. I then received a message from an APM LAC who did not properly introduce who they were or why they were contacting me. The LAC provided some general information about Aboriginal NDIS services, but the information did not address my original enquiry.

In June 2026, through a complaints process, I requested that an LAC contact me because the participant was being forced to exit the NDIS. The LAC did not appear to understand their role in assisting the participant to connect with appropriate cultural and community services after NDIS exit. The LAC had no meaningful involvement in the previous six months and appeared to have no practical understanding of the exit process.

The LAC stated they were unable to help the participant after the participant’s NDIS end date had been reached. I was later advised by the NDIA eligibility team that this was incorrect.

This example raises serious concern about the knowledge, training and clarity of LAC duties, particularly where a participant is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, exiting the NDIS, or needing connection to culturally appropriate mainstream and community supports.

Example 4 — LAC interaction regarding my children’s plans

In my personal experience as a parent, my children’s NDIS plans were changed from intensive to standard streaming and we were assigned LACs after previously being agency managed.

The ﬁrst interaction with the LAC was not appropriate. I was told words to the e3ect that my children were “just normal kids with autism”, that I did not know what I was talking about, and that I could not change the decisions.

I found these statements o3ensive and concerning. At that time, there were three NDIS participants living in the same home. In my understanding, this should have supported intensive streaming under the relevant NDIS guidance.

I escalated the issue through APM and the NDIA. After signiﬁcant escalation, I spoke with a senior APM manager or executive-level sta3 member in Queensland. I explained the situation and requested that the decisions be reversed. I received multiple apologies, and the decisions were reversed. My children were returned to the previous streaming arrangement and remained agency managed.

This example shows how incorrect or poorly informed frontline decisions can be corrected, but only after signiﬁcant persistence, escalation and stress. Many participants and families would not have the capacity, conﬁdence or knowledge to push back in this way.

Example 5 — Early childhood partner not recognising consent and family context

In February 2026, I attended a pre-planning meeting with a family at their request. The family had signed a NDIS consent form specifying my details and level of consent granted.

The early childhood partner resisted my attendance, despite the family’s consent. I attended because the family had asked me to support them.

Documents I had prepared were not meaningfully considered. The LAC or early childhood partner did not properly engage with me when I assisted the family to clarify points. When we requested supports that were relevant within the NDIS pricing arrangements, I was disregarded. In my view, the sta3 member did not understand the context of the supports being requested.

The sta3 member also said words to the e3ect that the funding was not about the parents and only about the participant. This failed to consider that, for children, supports often need to safeguard the stability, sustainability and functioning of the family and carer environment. If parent capacity and family stability are ignored, the participant’s safety and developmental outcomes are a3ected.

General concerns about Local Area Coordinators

I have worked with some good LACs, particularly those who transitioned from the former Disability Services Commission system. However, my general experience is that many LACs do not understand their role deeply enough.

In my experience, LACs may quote policies or guidelines but often do not demonstrate a wider understanding of the NDIS Act, the broader governing framework, administrative fairness, disability rights, risk, safeguarding or the practical realities of complex participants.

I do not want to make unsupported allegations. However, I have experienced situations where information passed on to me has appeared inaccurate, inconsistent or unsupported.

The core issue is that LACs appear to have limited authority, inconsistent knowledge and unclear escalation duties. This is particularly concerning where participants are in crisis, exiting the Scheme, seeking culturally appropriate services, dealing with complex family arrangements or needing urgent plan implementation support.

Impact on participants and families

These administrative failures cause real harm.

The immediate concern is that Support Coordination funding is being used to chase the NDIA. This reduces the funding available for proper plan implementation, budgeting, safeguarding, risk management, provider connection, future planning, crisis planning and other duties a Support Coordinator is expected to perform.

Participants then experience unacceptable delays in receiving answers or progressing requests. When actions are assigned to the wrong person or wrong business area, delays increase further. This leads to more Support Coordination follow-up, more participant distress and more wasted public money.

In crisis situations, these delays can be dangerous.

Where there is imminent suicide risk, carer breakdown, homelessness, hospital admission, child protection involvement, justice system involvement or loss of critical supports, action needs to happen that day or, at the latest, the next day. In my experience, even where I have requested priority escalation and followed up repeatedly, matters can still be delayed. The escalation must ﬁrst be accepted, then the participant or representative must wait for contact, and in some cases the call is closed without contact. The process then must start again.

I have had a participant become homeless and be admitted to hospital, with their child cared for by Child Protection, where delays in communication from the NDIA contributed to the inability to progress urgent support needs in time.

This is not acceptable in a scheme designed to support people with permanent and signiﬁcant disability.

Impact on Support Coordination funding

Support Coordination for complex participants is already di3icult because the duties expected of Support Coordinators are broad. NDIA material describes Support Coordinators as helping participants:

understand and use their NDIS plan;
connect with NDIS providers, community, mainstream and other government services;
build conﬁdence and skills to coordinate their own supports;
plan and coordinate supports;
establish and maintain supports;
communicate funded supports;
identify barriers to goals;
develop crisis plans;
choose providers;
design schedules of supports;
evaluate support e3ectiveness;
navigate multiple providers;
negotiate service agreements;
monitor budgets;
track progress;
help participants navigate NDIS systems and processes;
support crisis planning; and
prepare implementation, progress and reassessment reports. These duties are rarely funded adequately, especially for participants with complex needs.

When Support Coordination time is spent repeatedly following up NDIA errors, call centre delays, closed actions, incorrect records and unassigned enquiries, the participant loses capacity-building support. The Scheme also pays twice: once through participant plan funding for the Support Coordinator to chase the NDIA, and again through NDIA operational costs for sta3 to take repeated calls that do not resolve the issue.

Even the process of verifying an unregistered Support Coordinator with the national contact centre can take approximately 5 to 12 minutes per attempt. When combined with wait times before speaking with someone, this creates real cost. At approximately $100 per hour, repeated veriﬁcation and waiting time alone creates unnecessary waste.

This is an area where signiﬁcant savings could be achieved without reducing participant supports.

Systemic problem: the NDIA is not measuring its own avoidable costs

The Bill appears to focus heavily on Scheme sustainability, participant funding and provider control. However, sustainability should not be assessed only through participant supports.

The Committee should ask whether there is a clear public breakdown that separates:

funding paid directly for participant supports;
NDIA administrative and sta3ing costs;
call centre costs;
LAC contract costs;
costs caused by rework;
costs caused by internal errors;
costs caused by poor planning decisions;
costs caused by reviews and change of situation requests that could have been avoided if the ﬁrst plan was developed correctly; and
costs caused by NDIA delays, miscommunication and failed action tracking. In my view, the NDIA should be required to measure and publicly report the cost of avoidable rework. This should include repeated contact centre calls, incorrect action closure, complaint rework, call-back failures, repeated uploads of evidence, and Support Coordination funding used to correct NDIA administrative failures.

Fraud, provider integrity and participant funding

I support stronger fraud detection, fraud mitigation and prosecution of deliberate fraud by providers, including registered providers where appropriate.

However, I do not support reform that treats vulnerable participants and families as the main cause of NDIS sustainability problems. Participants are not responsible for system design failures, poor planning, weak provider regulation, inadequate fraud controls, inconsistent NDIA decision-making or ine3icient administration.

The people supported by the NDIS are among the most vulnerable people in the community. Many need support to be recognised, included and safe. The services they require are not their fault.

The Bill should focus more strongly on:

fraud detection and prosecution;
provider integrity;

registered provider compliance;
NDIA internal e3iciency;
accurate planning;
better sta3 knowledge and training;
reducing administrative rework;
preventing avoidable reviews and change of situation requests;
consistent use of high-quality functional evidence; and
improving the quality of decision-making. Participant funding models should not be the ﬁrst area targeted. In my view, participant funding changes should be addressed last, after the NDIA has demonstrated that its own systems are accurate, e3icient and safe.

Planning inequity and functional impact evidence

The Bill should address inequity across participant plans. In my experience, many reviews and change of situation requests are created because plans are not developed correctly at the start, with the appropriate involvement of the participant or their representatives to establish the context of the situation.

Planners should take more time to develop plans properly and understand the participant’s functional needs, risks, family context and support environment. Better planning at the front end would reduce later reviews, complaints, crisis escalations and requests for reassessment. Even improved communication, if not repeated communication with the participant or their nominated representative.

The Scheme should also move toward a high-quality, nationally consistent and evidence based method for quantifying functional impact. This should not be a blunt instrument that reduces people to a score. It should be a world-standard functional assessment approach that properly considers real-world function, environmental context, family capacity, risk, ﬂuctuating needs, psychosocial disability and the interaction between disability and medical conditions.

Automated or administrative decision-making

I am strongly concerned about any use of automated administrative action or decision-making where the information relied on is inaccurate, incomplete, unveriﬁed or disputed.

In my experience, NDIA records can be wrong. Complaints can be misclassiﬁed. Action requests can be assigned to the wrong business area. Call-backs can be closed without meaningful contact. Information can be recorded in a way that does not reﬂect what was actually said.

If automated or administrative decision-making relies on poor data, the outcome will also be poor. This creates a risk that participants will lose access, funding, supports or review opportunities because of inaccurate NDIA records.

No automated or administrative decision-making process should rely on inaccurate, unveriﬁed or disputed ﬁle notes.

Recommendations

I ask the Committee to recommend that the Bill not proceed in its current form unless it includes stronger participant safeguards and NDIA accountability measures.

I recommend that:

Every national contact centre contact should generate a written summary that is available to the participant, nominee or authorised representative and emailed immediately.
Each requested action should have an owner, due date, reference number and clear status.
Call-back requests should not be closed unless a meaningful call-back has occurred or a reasonable written contact attempt has been made. Everyone is busy and cannot take a phone call immediately, so a system that recognises this and a scheduled appointment is made to ensure both parties have the appropriate time available for a meaningful conversation to occur.
If the participant, nominee or representative is unavailable due to work days, illness, leave or other reasonable limits, the matter should not simply be closed. An appointment should be scheduled to allow a meaningful conversation to occur.
Participants, nominees and authorised representatives should have a simple pathway to request correction of inaccurate or disputed NDIA ﬁle notes.
The NDIA should publish service standards for call-backs, escalations, action closure and response times.
Complex participant matters should have a named NDIA o3icer or team, rather than requiring repeated re-entry through the national contact centre. There should also be a qualiﬁed Crisis assistance team part of the national contact centre for immediate triage of crisis priority escalated cases and provide guidance and assistance appropriate to the situation.
LACs should have clearer authority, training and escalation duties.
LACs should receive stronger training in the NDIS Act, disability rights, cultural safety, psychosocial disability, autism, child and family context, crisis risk, medical

compounding factors, participant exit planning and mainstream/community service connection.

Call centre and LAC errors should be tracked as systemic quality and safeguarding issues.
The NDIA should report publicly on administrative error trends, including incorrect action closure, call-back failure, complaint misclassiﬁcation, incorrect assignment and repeated contacts.
The NDIA should measure the cost of avoidable rework, including participant plan funding spent by Support Coordinators correcting NDIA administrative failures.
The NDIA should be required to consider reimbursement or restoration of Support Coordination funding where a signiﬁcant portion of a participant’s funding has been used because of NDIA administrative error or delay.
No automated or administrative decision-making should rely on inaccurate, unveriﬁed or disputed ﬁle notes.
Any automated decision-making framework should include a clear human review process, correction pathway and participant-accessible explanation.
The Bill should place stronger focus on provider fraud, provider integrity and NDIA internal e3iciency before reducing participant supports.
Participant funding changes should be delayed until the NDIA can demonstrate that its own planning, communication, escalation and record-keeping systems are accurate, e3icient and safe.
Planners should be required to take enough time to develop plans properly, using sound functional evidence, so that avoidable reviews and change of situation requests are reduced.
The Scheme should adopt a nationally consistent, high-quality method for assessing functional impact that reﬂects real-world function, risk, environment, family context, ﬂuctuating needs and complex disability.
The Bill should be amended to better recognise that NDIS participants are people with rights, dignity, families, risks, goals and lives. Reform should not treat vulnerable people as the cause of Scheme unsustainability.

Conclusion

I support the need for a sustainable NDIS. I also support stronger action against fraud and deliberate misuse of Scheme funds.

However, sustainability must not be achieved by reducing participant rights while leaving NDIA administrative ine3iciency unaddressed.

In my experience, the current frontline system is not reliable enough to safely support expanded administrative powers without stronger safeguards. Participants, families and Support Coordinators need accurate records, clear action tracking, meaningful call-backs, knowledgeable LACs, proper escalation pathways and the ability to correct inaccurate information.

The NDIS supports people whose lives are directly a3ected by administrative decisions. These are not abstract policy issues. They a3ect housing, safety, family stability, child wellbeing, suicide risk, carer breakdown, service access and a person’s ability to live with dignity.

The Bill should be amended so that it focuses not only on participant funding and provider compliance, but also on the NDIA’s own internal e3iciency, accountability and administrative accuracy.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Long

Support Coordinator Level 2

On behalf of Innovative Mentoring Pty Ltd

Email: Mobile:

NDIS Provider

Work Days: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, 10:00am–2:00pm

My time is ﬂexible between these hours and I may not always be available.

Innovative Mentoring Pty Ltd

Unit 15

32 Hulme Court

Myaree WA 6154

Website: www.imonline.au