My brother has been a NDIS Participant since March 2019, and I am very concerned that the changes proposed in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 ”Bill” if passed in its current format, will negatively impact not only my brother but the wider disability sector.
I was appalled when I read Minister Butler’s comments that “The Fraud Fusion Taskforce … has identified eight recurring design failures in long standing Government programs, making them susceptible to fraud - the NDIS has all eight. It also identified seven fundamental building blocks for high integrity programs. The NDIS has none of them.”
Whilst the above is a disgrace, more disgraceful is that it has taken in excess of 12yrs for meaningful action to be taken on the rorts facilitated by the Government’s own design failures, and the greatest disgrace - in the intervening years placing blame for NDIS cost blowouts on participants and therefore constantly changing the access and support goal posts subjecting the disability community to constant uncertainty, vulnerability and mental harm. You, the Government (both sides), failed the disability community from Day 1.
The “Bill” contains 5 Schedules, and I would like to see the Legislation split in 2.
To be dealt with now:
-
Schedule 2 - Fraud and Integrity Measures
-
Schedule 5 – Transitional Rules To be delayed providing sufficient time for proper consultation with the Disability Community:
-
Schedule 1 – Access and Planning Matters
-
Schedule 3 – Governance Arrangements
-
Schedule 4 – New Framework Planning
Schedule 2: Fraud and Integrity Measures
I am my brother’s Plan Nominee and as such I manage his plan funding. From 2011-2016 the Queensland Public Trustee was appointed as my brother’s Financial Administrator. Having experienced the ‘all care, no responsibility’ attitude of staff at Public Trust, it was a no-brainer for me that I would not engage the services of a Plan Manager to facilitate the payment of his NDIS supports. Being Agency Managed was never an option given that in addition to his Intellectual Impairment, my brother is deaf and non-verbal, so I was determined that he be exposed to providers that had staff who communicated via Auslan. This is a niche market, and the only registered provider that had support workers who communicate via Auslan had very few staff located in our local area, hence my brother’s day-to-day support needs are currently met by unregistered providers.
The NDIS design failures have enabled plan management providers to commit fraud and this needs to be addressed urgently. I fully support the intent of the proposed legislative changes as outlined in Schedule 2. To ensure appropriate providers of plan management services are selected, members of the disability community should be included on the selection panel for the approved plan management providers.
Schedule 5 – Transitional Rules
No comment
Page 1
Further consultation with disability sector required
Schedule 1: Access and Planning Matters
Part 1 - Defining functional capacity
Further consultation with disability community required
Part 2 - Unscheduled plan reviews
Subsection 48(3) and Subsection 48(4) – I don’t support the increase of timeframe from 21days to 90day. Extension to 45days more appropriate.
Part 4 – Support determinations
Further consultation with disability community required. This will have a significant impact on my brother given that his SCP supports allow him to participate in Disability Tenpin Bowling Leagues, volunteer weekly at Meals on Wheels, gain hands-on experience in mechanical skills and attend NRL games. Reduction in his SCP will result in the return to social isolation that my brother experienced when supported through Disability Services Queensland (Block Funding).
The ability of the Minister of the day to be able to carte blanche cut funding to some, or all, plans for whatever reason is totally unacceptable. Across the board reduction of plan funds directly impacts not only participants but also the workers employed in the disability sector. Disability sector employees are more likely to be women employed on a casual basis. Loss of work hours will lead to more households experiencing financial stress. If workers lose all hours, the social cost will be transferred from NDIS to JobSeeker.
Inclusive Communities Fund
The Budget announcement to establish the $200 million ‘Inclusive Communities Fund’ (the “Fund”) to rebuild capacity among community organisations to host genuine participation activities undermines participant Choice and Control that was to be the underlying principle for the NDIS. The “Fund” represents a return to the pre-NDIS State Block Funding arrangements – arrangements that failed participants miserably. No doubt it is the intent of the Government to go out to tender for the allocation of these funds, and I can imagine that Conglomerates will be awarded the funding with a not insignificant amount of the funds ending up being spent in establishing structures and not in the face to-face delivery of programmes.
The establishment of the “Fund” totally ignores that one size does not fit all. Pre NDIS, I observed my brother at 2 different State Block Funding programs. At the first, all staff were in the office at the front of the building, and all participants were in a back room. No-one was supervising or providing direction to the group. My brother was doing Word Search puzzles and there was little to no interaction between any of the others. The other provider at least had an established program and staff involvement, but given my brother’s communication needs, there was little interaction between him and others so again he was keeping himself busy doing puzzles. With his SCP funding he is involved in Disability League Bowling, volunteering and attending activities with other deaf people through his NDIS Provider – a provider servicing the small, niche deaf community market – a provider unlikely to receive any funding through the “Fund”. Any SCP funding reduction imposed on my brother will result in increased hours spent alone at home in front of the TV since it is highly unlikely nothing provided via the “Fund” will meet his needs. Page 2
Schedule 3: Governance Arrangements
I do not support Part 1 – Decision making on pricing or Part 2 - Automation of administrative action.
Part 1 - Decision making on pricing
Whilst paragraph 118(1)(baa) requires the Agency to provide advice about pricing of supports, the Minister is given unilateral powers to set prices. Cost pressures are already impacting providers resulting in the closure of services that are no longer financially viable reducing the availability of supports for participants. I believe the setting of prices needs to be by committee and include input from the Provider Market/Fair Work Ombudsman (to reflect Award wage movements).
Part 2 – Automation of administrative action
Has the Government learned nothing from RoboDebt? Automation introduced in Aged Care continues to result in funding decisions that do not reflect the needs of people. If algorithms cannot deliver appropriate funding packages for elderly Australians, how can they resolve the funding needs of people with disability given the complexity of impacts of the wide range of both singular and comorbid impairments.
Part 3 – Minor Amendments
The change to Paragraph 20(2)(a) extending the timeframe for decision making from 21days to 90days is excessive. Any extension for decision making should not exceed 45days.
Schedule 4: New Framework Planning
Subsection 32L(4) Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(4) The assessment: (a) must have regard to any information and reports requested under subsection 36(2) for the purposes of the assessment; and (b) must have regard to any information prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this paragraph; and (c) must not have regard to any information prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this paragraph. This subsection makes no sense since b) must have regard and c) must not have regard effectively cancel each other out.
Subsection 32L(4A) – concern re assessor skills and their understanding of the impact of specific disabilities on a participant’s day to day functioning (esp. for episodic impairments). Further consultation with the disability community required.
Page 3