Submission 3202 — Ms Fiona Fonti — NDIS Future Generations Bill | External submission

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation

Committee

Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Prepared by Fiona Fonti

Occupational Therapist | NDIS participant | person with lived experience | parent | employer

1 June 2026

Central request

The Bill should not proceed in its current form.
At minimum, the access, planning, reassessment, permanence, support needs assessment, automation, pricing, plan renewal and transitional-rule provisions require substantial amendment before passage.
The legislation must define key terms clearly in the primary legislation and include enforceable safeguards for communication access, informed refusal, procedural fairness, lived-experience co-design, and real-world functional impact.

Page 1 of 22

Contents Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Attachments and supporting materials intended to be lodged with this submission …………………………………………… 3

Purpose of this submission and direct response to the Bill ……………………………………………………………………………. 3 How this submission directly addresses the Bill ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Who I am and why I am writing …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 The core concern I believe these reforms risk missing ……………………………………………………………………………………… 5
Executive summary - what I am asking the Committee to recognise ……………………………………………………………… 5
Summary of recommendations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Direct provision-by-provision response to the proposed Bill …………………………………………………………………………. 7 5.1 Schedule 1 Part 1 - Defining functional capacity …………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 5.2 Schedule 1 Part 2 - Limiting unscheduled plan reassessments………………………………………………………………….. 8 5.3 Schedule 1 Part 3 - Strengthening the link between impairment and need for support ………………………………. 8 5.4 Schedule 1 Part 4 - Support determinations reducing funding …………………………………………………………………. 9 5.5 Schedule 1 Part 5 - Plan renewal and plan end dates …………………………………………………………………………….. 10 5.6 Schedule 1 Part 6 - Reasonable and necessary supports ………………………………………………………………………… 10 5.7 Schedule 1 Part 7 - Plan suspension and revocation where a participant is not contactable ………………………. 11 5.8 Schedule 1 Part 8 - Permanence and appropriate treatment ………………………………………………………………….. 12 5.9 Schedule 1 Part 9 - Eligibility based on access to other services ……………………………………………………………… 13 5.10 Schedule 2 - Fraud measures, information powers, records, claim times and plan management ……………. 14 5.11 Schedule 3 Part 1 - Pricing and maximum payment determinations ……………………………………………………. 15 5.12 Schedule 3 Part 2 - Automation of administrative action …………………………………………………………………… 15 5.13 Schedule 4 - New framework planning and support needs assessments ……………………………………………… 16 5.14 Schedule 5 - Transitional rules ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Concerns about impacts on participants …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18
Concerns about workforce and services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19
Personal impact of the proposed legislation ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Economic and system impact ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20 What Government must understand and recognise ………………………………………………………………………………………. 21
Appendix and supporting material register ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21

Closing statement ............................................................................................................................................... 21

Sources and documents referenced ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22

Page 2 of 22

Attachments and supporting materials intended to be lodged with this submission

Label               Document                                      Purpose in this submission

Appendix A -         Health and System Navigation Barriers; Silos   Provides a real-world example of how systems fail

CONFIDENTIAL      and Impacts. A Documented End-to-End     when navigation, communication access and

Example coordination are not designed in from the beginning.

Appendix B         People See the Performance, Not the Cost     Provides the lived-experience context for invisible

disability, masking, communication fatigue, support scaffolding and why functional output alone is not an accurate measure of support need.

Appendix C -         Serious implications of the proposed         Shows how standard assessment questions can

CONFIDENTIAL      Support Needs Assessments for Deaf         produce inaccurate answers unless communication

individuals - a case example access, Deaf awareness and contextual breakdown are present. This is one example of a broader assessment-risk issue.

Purpose of this submission and direct response to the Bill This submission responds directly to the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 and associated reform directions currently being progressed by Government.

I am aware that the Committee has stated that submissions must directly address the provisions of the Bill. This submission is therefore structured around the Bill schedules and parts, with my personal and professional examples used only to explain the real-world consequences of those provisions.

This is not a general complaint about an individual NDIS matter. I am using lived and professional evidence to explain why the proposed provisions may create foreseeable harm if they pass without clearer definitions, safeguards, review rights, accessibility requirements and co-design.

I am not writing because I am against change. I understand that the NDIS needs to be sustainable. I understand that economic viability matters. I understand that systems need clearer pathways, better accountability, stronger safeguards, and better coordination between disability, health, education, employment, housing, mental health and community supports.

Most disabled people and families understand this too.

But sustainability cannot be achieved by shifting responsibility onto disabled people, families and carers before alternative pathways are actually defined, funded, built, accessible and genuinely navigable. That is my central concern.

This submission is about the proposed 2026 Bill. Where I refer to the current NDIS Act or the current system, I do so only to explain how the proposed Bill would operate on top of the law already in effect and the systems people are already trying to survive inside.

Page 3 of 22

How this submission directly addresses the Bill Bill area Direct issue addressed in this submission Schedule 1 Part 1 Functional capacity definition, exclusion of assistance/assistive technology/modifications, and risk of artificial assessment. Schedule 1 Part 2 Restrictions on participant-requested reassessments and extended decision timeframes. Schedule 1 Part 3 The proposed “directly from an impairment” test and risk for cumulative, interacting and environmental disability impacts. Schedule 1 Part 4 Ministerial support determinations reducing funding for groups of supports. Schedule 1 Part 5 Plan end dates, automatic renewal by force of law, removal of one-off funding and loss of reviewable decision safeguards. Schedule 1 Part 6 Reasonable and necessary supports, value for money, effective and beneficial evidence hierarchy, informal supports, family responsibility and scheme sustainability. Schedule 1 Part 7 Suspension and revocation where a participant is “not contactable”. Schedule 1 Part 8 Permanence, “all appropriate treatment”, informed refusal, bodily autonomy and real world access to treatment. Schedule 1 Part 9 Alternative supports, compensation schemes and risk of people falling between systems. Schedule 2 Fraud measures, civil penalties, information-gathering powers, records, claim timeframe and plan-management provider reforms. Schedule 3 Pricing determinations, maximum amounts, ministerial pricing power and automation of administrative action. Schedule 4 New framework planning, support needs assessments, direct-link requirements, assessor capability, and rules about information that must or must not be considered. Schedule 5 Broad transitional rules and the need for certainty, consultation and safeguards.

Who I am and why I am writing I am writing not only as:

a profoundly Deaf person
an Autistic person (Level 2)
a person with severe ADHD and neurological disability
a person with epilepsy and complex chronic health conditions
an occupational therapist
a business owner
an employer
a parent but, also as someone living the exact realities these reforms risk misunderstanding.

I must acknowledge that my experience is not universal. Everyone is different. Disabled people are not a homogenous group, and disability impacts people differently across different diagnoses, communication styles, cultures, socioeconomic circumstances, genders, life stages, support systems, and levels of visible or invisible impairment.

I cannot speak for every disabled person or every disability experience. However, I do know that many disabled Australians - including people with physical disability, intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, Deafness, Deafblindness, acquired brain injury, chronic illness, neurological conditions, complex medical conditions, neurodivergence, degenerative conditions, communication disability and multiple intersecting disabilities - are expressing profound fear and uncertainty about the current reform direction.

I also write as an Occupational Therapist and provider working with people with complex disability support needs. My professional concern is that the proposed Bill relies on concepts that may look administratively neat, but that do not

Page 4 of 22

capture the real-life complexity of support needs, communication access, fluctuating capacity, family systems, environmental barriers, workforce realities or system navigation burden.

The core concern I believe these reforms risk missing My concern is that current reform discussions continue to rely on simplified assumptions about disability, communication access, independence, functioning and “capacity” that do not reflect how many disabilities are actually experienced in real life.

In particular, I am concerned that the proposed reforms risk:

underestimating invisible and fluctuating disability
overestimating people’s ability to self-navigate fragmented systems
reducing preventative supports that keep people stable and employed
shifting burden onto families and mainstream systems that are already inaccessible
penalising people who mask or overcompensate to survive within inaccessible environments
unintentionally increasing long-term social and economic costs by destabilising people before crisis thresholds are reached

I know this submission is detailed. However invisible, cumulative and compounding disabilities are often misunderstood precisely because their impacts cannot be accurately communicated in simplistic terms.

Executive summary - what I am asking the Committee to recognise The issue is not only what the reform intends. The issue is what will actually happen when disabled people and families are expected to navigate multiple disconnected systems, unclear pathways, changing rules, new programs, new eligibility criteria, reassessment processes and support needs assessments while already living with disability, caring responsibilities, financial strain, communication barriers, trauma, burnout and exhaustion.

We do not just need reform. We need reform that builds the scaffolding first.

We need clear pathways.
We need accessible entry points.
We need one system that can see across silos.
We need navigation support that removes the burden from disabled people and families to figure everything out themselves.
We need foundational supports that are defined, funded, available, accessible and co-designed with the people who will actually need to use them.
We need lived experience embedded at the centre of solution design - not consulted after decisions have already been made.

Without the scaffolding in place first, these reforms risk causing significant harm to many disabled Australians, particularly people whose disabilities are invisible, fluctuating, cumulative, communication-based, sensory, neurodevelopmental, psychosocial, neurological, energy-limiting, or difficult to measure through simplified functional assessment models.

Page 5 of 22

Summary of recommendations i. Do not pass the Bill in its current form. Split, withdraw or substantially amend the provisions that restrict access, reassessment, plan flexibility, communication access, support needs assessments, plan renewal, automation and pricing. ii. Define critical terms in the primary legislation, not only in future rules, instruments, operational guidance or agency documents. iii. Amend the definition of functional capacity so it measures real-world functional impact, including communication access, fatigue, masking, cognitive load, sensory load, environmental barriers, support scaffolding and sustainability over time. iv. Protect participant-requested reassessments and urgent plan reviews where there is risk, functional decline, carer burnout, family breakdown, communication breakdown, housing instability, health deterioration or service failure.

v. Remove or substantially constrain the proposed power to reduce funding for groups of supports by Ministerial determination unless there is individual assessment, reasons, review rights, safety safeguards and no reduction to protective supports. vi. Do not allow plan renewal by force of law to replace participant engagement, individual assessment or reviewable decision-making. vii. Ensure social, community, capacity-building, communication, regulation and navigation supports are recognised as protective supports, not expendable extras. viii. Amend the “appropriate treatment” provisions to protect informed refusal, bodily autonomy, cultural identity, communication identity, trauma, risk, side effects, access barriers, cost, geography and individual circumstances. ix. Do not exclude or revoke access based on theoretical availability of other service systems unless equivalent support is actually available, accessible, timely, funded and sustainable.

x. Ensure fraud and integrity measures do not punish participants or small providers for disability-related administrative barriers, communication barriers or inaccessible systems. xi. Do not automate evaluative or rights-affecting decisions unless there is transparency, human review, accessible reasons, error correction, independent audit and no disadvantage to complex or communication-disabled participants. xii. Pause implementation of new framework planning and support needs assessments until assessment tools, assessor competencies, communication access requirements, appeal rights and disability-community co-design are complete. xiii. Ensure every notice, request, assessment, review and decision process is accessible in the person’s language, communication mode and cognitive access needs. xiv. Build foundational and mainstream supports first, and prove they are accessible, operational, funded and available before shifting responsibility away from NDIS supports.

Page 6 of 22

Direct provision-by-provision response to the proposed Bill The following section is deliberately structured around the Bill provisions. Each part identifies the relevant proposed provisions, my concern, the likely real-world impact, and the safeguard or amendment I recommend.

5.1 Schedule 1 Part 1 - Defining functional capacity

Relevant Bill provisions

Items 1-11. Proposed section 9B defines functional capacity as a person’s ability to undertake an activity without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications, and in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of environmental and personal circumstances. Items 5-9 amend disability and early intervention requirements to apply this concept and to consider each activity “as a whole”.

Concern

I am concerned that the proposed definition of functional capacity may result in an artificial assessment of disability. It risks measuring a person stripped of the very supports, technology, modifications, communication access and environmental adjustments that make functioning possible. That is not a fair or accurate way to assess disability impact. It also risks confusing “can do once in a controlled setting” with “can do safely, repeatedly, sustainably and in real life”.

Likely real-world impact

People who mask, compensate or push through may be assessed as having lower support needs than they actually have.
Communication access needs may be missed if assessment focuses only on observable performance rather than the cost of accessing, processing and responding to information.
The phrase “considering each activity as a whole” is not defined clearly enough and may lead to inconsistent decisions.
Excluding environmental and personal circumstances risks removing the real-world context that creates disability barriers and support needs.
The definition may particularly disadvantage people with Deafness, Deafblindness, autism, ADHD, psychosocial disability, neurological disability, fluctuating conditions, chronic illness and complex/interacting impairments.

Requested amendment or safeguard

Amend section 9B so functional capacity includes real-world performance, sustainability, safety, fatigue, communication access, sensory load, cognitive load, recovery time, environmental barriers and the support required to participate.
Do not assess functional capacity by excluding assistance, assistive technology, modifications or communication access where those supports are part of how the person functions in real life.
Define “whole activity” in the Act and require assessment of initiation, planning, sequencing, communication, execution, recovery, risk, reliability and sustainability.
Require assessors to consider masking, compensatory effort and invisible support scaffolding.
Require accessible assessment processes, including Auslan, Deaf interpreting, communication support, plain language, written summaries, pacing and support persons where required.

Page 7 of 22

5.2 Schedule 1 Part 2 - Limiting unscheduled plan reassessments

Relevant Bill provisions

Items 12-27. Proposed section 48A limits participant-requested reassessments to circumstances involving significant and ongoing changes to ongoing support needs, significant changes in functional capacity resulting in substantial reduction in ability to perform daily activities, or unanticipated significant and ongoing changes in living, education, work or informal support arrangements. Item 19 changes the decision timeframe from 21 days to 90 days where the conditions are satisfied.

Concern

I am concerned that the proposed restrictions on participant-requested reassessments may result in people being trapped in inadequate or unsafe plans. In real life, support needs can change because of burnout, communication breakdown, carer collapse, service withdrawal, mental health escalation, housing instability, health deterioration, injury, medication changes, sensory overload, family crisis or sudden loss of informal support. These may not fit neatly into the proposed criteria or may not be recognised quickly enough.

Likely real-world impact

Participants may wait up to 90 days for a decision about whether a reassessment will occur, even where support instability is already escalating.
The terms “significant”, “ongoing”, “substantial reduction” and “unanticipated” are not defined clearly enough.
People with fluctuating disabilities may be told their change is not ongoing enough, even where repeated episodes create predictable support need.
People may be forced into crisis before the system recognises need.
Participants may avoid requesting reassessment because the process itself is confusing, exhausting or inaccessible.

Requested amendment or safeguard

Retain a timely, accessible participant right to request reassessment when a plan is inadequate, unsafe or no longer fit for purpose.
Keep a shorter decision timeframe for urgent or safety-related reassessments.
Define the key terms and include examples covering carer burnout, communication access failure, health deterioration, psychosocial risk, service withdrawal, housing instability and family breakdown.
Provide interim supports where delay would create risk.
Do not use reassessment requests as a trigger to move a person to new framework planning without proper safeguards, accessible notice, reasons and review rights.

5.3 Schedule 1 Part 3 - Strengthening the link between impairment and need for support

Relevant Bill provisions

Items 28-33. These provisions amend the planning and reasonable and necessary support framework, including replacing “arising from an impairment” with “arising directly from an impairment or impairments”.

Concern

I am concerned that the proposed “directly from” test may result in support needs being rejected because they arise from cumulative, interacting or compounding disability impacts rather than a single neat impairment pathway. Many people do not experience disability in separate boxes. Multiple impairments interact with each other and with environment, communication access, family systems, trauma, health, fatigue and social context.

Likely real-world impact

People with multiple disabilities may have needs incorrectly split apart or dismissed as not directly linked enough. Page 8 of 22

Supports that prevent deterioration may be treated as too indirect, even though they are essential to stability.
Environmental and communication barriers may be treated as outside the NDIS even where they are inseparable from disability support needs.
People with invisible, psychosocial, neurodevelopmental, sensory and neurological conditions may be disproportionately affected.

Requested amendment or safeguard

Amend the provision so support needs may arise from an impairment, from interacting impairments, or from the functional impact of disability in real-world environments.
Include cumulative and compounding disability impacts explicitly.
Require decision-makers to consider how multiple impairments interact, rather than assessing each impairment in isolation.
Do not remove supports merely because the need also involves environmental, communication, family, health or system-navigation barriers.

5.4 Schedule 1 Part 4 - Support determinations reducing funding

Relevant Bill provisions

Item 34. Proposed section 34A allows the Minister, for financial sustainability, to determine a percentage reduction to funding component amounts for specified groups of supports in old framework plans. The Bill states the determination has effect even if the funding provided is less than the total cost of the support or supports.

Concern

I am concerned that this provision allows group-based funding reductions without individualised assessment of need. The proposed safeguard that the Minister must “have regard to the safety of participants” is not strong enough. Safety is not the only relevant issue. Participation, communication access, regulation, independence, employment, parenting, carer sustainability and prevention of deterioration also matter.

Likely real-world impact

Participants may have funding reduced for entire groups of supports even where those supports are protective and preventative.
The provision expressly contemplates funding being less than the actual cost of supports.
Participants may be left with plans that say a support is needed but do not fund the support adequately.
Social, civic, community participation and capacity-building supports may be especially vulnerable to blunt reductions.
The cost may shift to hospitals, mental health, families, unpaid carers and crisis systems. Requested amendment or safeguard
Remove proposed section 34A or narrow it substantially.
Do not permit funding reductions without individual assessment, reasons, review rights and demonstrated absence of harm.
Require the Minister to consider participation, communication access, informal support sustainability, employment, parenting, health, mental health, safety and long-term cost shifting.
Do not reduce funding below the actual cost of supports unless there is evidence an equivalent accessible support is available and funded.
Require public impact analysis, disability community consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny before any reduction determination.

Page 9 of 22

5.5 Schedule 1 Part 5 - Plan renewal and plan end dates

Relevant Bill provisions

Items 35-59. These provisions introduce end dates for old framework plans and proposed section 50A, which renews an old framework plan as a new plan by force of law immediately after the end date. The renewed plan is the same except for alterations including a new end date, removal of one-off funding, and any other alteration determined by instrument. The Bill states the new plan does not require a new statement of participant supports and does not involve a reviewable decision.

Concern

I am concerned that automatic plan renewal by force of law may normalise plan rollover without proper reassessment, participant engagement or reviewable decision-making. It may look administratively efficient, but it risks locking people into inadequate plans or quietly removing important supports without genuine participation.

Likely real-world impact

A plan can be renewed without a new statement of participant supports being prepared with the participant.
The making of the new plan is not a reviewable decision.
One-off supports may be removed even where the participant still needs a clear plan pathway for equipment, access, setup, transition or implementation.
Participants may not understand that a reassessment date has effectively become an end date.
People with communication barriers, cognitive disability, psychosocial disability or executive functioning impairment may not be able to respond quickly enough or understand the consequence of automatic renewal.

Requested amendment or safeguard

Do not allow automatic renewal to replace meaningful participant engagement and individualised review.
Make any renewed plan or alteration to a plan a reviewable decision with accessible reasons.
Require accessible notice well before a plan end date, using the participant’s communication mode and support network.
Do not remove one-off or time-limited supports without assessing whether the support remains needed or whether the need has simply not yet been implemented.
Include safeguards for participants awaiting reviews, evidence, assistive technology decisions, home modifications, communication supports or provider availability.

5.6 Schedule 1 Part 6 - Reasonable and necessary supports

Relevant Bill provisions

Items 60-76. These provisions change the objects and principles relating to NDIS supports, add proposed section 17B on scheme sustainability, amend support funding considerations, allow maximum amounts/intensity/worker participant ratios, add “more appropriately provided or funded” by other systems, insert additional value for money provisions, insert an evidence hierarchy for effective and beneficial supports, and add family/informal support considerations.

Concern

I am concerned that these provisions may shift the reasonable and necessary framework away from individualised functional need and toward cost containment, theoretical alternatives, informal support reliance and evidence thresholds that do not reflect lived reality. Financial sustainability matters, but it should not override disability rights, communication access, family sustainability or prevention of deterioration.

Likely real-world impact

Lower-cost comparable supports may be preferred even where they are not communication-accessible, culturally safe, locally available or appropriate for the participant.

Page 10 of 22

The evidence hierarchy may disadvantage supports that are effective in practice but not strongly represented in peer-reviewed research, including communication, participation, regulation and neurodivergent supports.
Family and informal support provisions may increase unpaid caring burden and ignore carer burnout.
Supports may be rejected as more appropriately provided by other systems even where those systems are unavailable, inaccessible, underfunded or not disability competent.
Social and community participation supports may be treated as less essential even though they prevent isolation, deterioration, vulnerability and crisis.
The phrase “day-to-day living costs” risks being applied too broadly unless it is clearly defined in disability-specific context.

Requested amendment or safeguard

Retain individualised assessment of reasonable and necessary supports and do not subordinate it to broad sustainability language without safeguards.
Define “comparable”, “more appropriately provided”, “day-to-day living costs”, “effective and beneficial”, “value for money” and “informal support” in the Act. Define that “day to day” items or supports for individuals without disability, can also be reasonable and necessary supports that address the functional impairments of people with disability.
Require decision-makers to consider lived experience evidence, treating clinician evidence, functional outcomes, prevention of deterioration, communication access and participant-specific circumstances.
Do not assume family or informal supports are available, sustainable, safe or appropriate.
Recognise social, community, communication, regulation and capacity-building supports as protective supports, not optional extras.
Require evidence that another system is actually available, funded, accessible, timely and equivalent before refusing NDIS support on that basis.

5.7 Schedule 1 Part 7 - Plan suspension and revocation where a participant is not contactable

Relevant Bill provisions

Items 77-87. Proposed subsection 30(1A) allows the CEO to revoke participant status where reasonable attempts have been made to contact a participant and the participant is not contactable, or where the participant’s plan has been suspended under proposed section 40A for at least 90 days. Proposed section 40A allows plan suspension where the participant is not contactable.

Concern

I am concerned that these provisions may punish people for disability-related barriers to contact. Many people are not reliably contactable because of communication disability, Deafness, cognitive disability, psychosocial disability, homelessness, hospitalisation, family violence, trauma, executive functioning impairment, digital exclusion, low literacy, unstable housing or lack of support.

Likely real-world impact

A person may lose their plan or participant status because the communication method used by the Agency was not accessible to them.
A participant may not understand a notice or request, or may be unable to respond without support.
The Bill allows pre-commencement contact attempts to be considered, which may compound historic communication failures.
Suspension may itself increase risk by removing the supports that enable the person to remain contactable.
People most likely to be “not contactable” may be the people most in need of proactive support and outreach. Page 11 of 22

Requested amendment or safeguard

Define “reasonable attempts to contact” to require accessible, multi-modal, trauma-informed and disability- aware contact methods.
Require use of the participant’s preferred language, mode of communication, nominee, support coordinator, advocate or other trusted person before suspension.
Do not suspend or revoke where non-contact may relate to disability, crisis, communication access, hospitalisation, homelessness, family violence or lack of support.
Require independent review before suspension or revocation takes effect.
Do not rely on pre-commencement contact attempts unless they met current accessibility standards.
Require urgent reinstatement and backdating where contact failure was caused by accessibility or disability- related barriers.

5.8 Schedule 1 Part 8 - Permanence and appropriate treatment

Relevant Bill provisions

Items 88-94. These provisions insert “appropriate treatment” and proposed section 25A. They provide that an impairment is not permanent or likely to be permanent unless the person has undertaken all appropriate treatment, any other treatment is unlikely to materially improve, reverse or alleviate the impact of the impairment, and the impairment is likely to persist for the person’s lifetime. Proposed section 25A defines appropriate treatment as evidence-based, reliably expected to materially improve/reverse/alleviate impact, and regularly undertaken or performed in Australia. It also states treatment may be appropriate regardless of whether individual circumstances restrict access, including financial circumstances and geographical location.

Concern

I am concerned that this is one of the most serious and under-defined parts of the Bill. It risks turning “permanent disability” into a test of whether a person has undertaken treatment that someone else believes they should have undertaken. It does not sufficiently protect informed refusal, bodily autonomy, trauma, treatment burden, side effects, risk, culture, communication identity, financial access, geography, health literacy, or real-world availability.

Likely real-world impact

A person could be treated as not permanent because they have not undertaken a treatment they cannot realistically access due to cost, geography or system barriers.
The Bill protects inability to undertake medical treatment for medical reasons, but does not clearly protect informed refusal for broader reasons such as risk, trauma, culture, identity, side effects, quality of life or personal autonomy.
The terms “appropriate treatment”, “materially improve”, “reverse” and “alleviate the impact” are not sufficiently precise.
This could create coercive pressure across many disability groups, not only one diagnosis or one example.
For Deaf people, cochlear implantation is one example that illustrates the broader problem: invasive treatment should never be implied as a condition of being considered permanently disabled. The same principle applies to medication, surgery, therapy, psychiatric treatment, behavioural intervention or other treatments across disability communities.

Requested amendment or safeguard

Amend proposed section 25A so treatment is only “appropriate” if it is clinically suitable, accessible, affordable, available in the person’s real circumstances, culturally safe, trauma-informed and acceptable to the person after informed consent.
Explicitly state that informed refusal of treatment, surgery, medication, therapy or intervention does not prevent a person from meeting permanence criteria.

Page 12 of 22

Explicitly exclude invasive, irreversible or high-risk treatment from being treated as required for NDIS access.
Require consideration of treatment burden, side effects, risk, trauma, communication access, cultural identity, disability identity, health literacy and quality of life.
Clarify that ongoing treatment or therapy to maintain function does not mean a disability is not permanent.
Do not apply the new permanence test to existing participants without individual safeguards, accessible evidence processes, reasons and review rights.

5.9 Schedule 1 Part 9 - Eligibility based on access to other services

Relevant Bill provisions

Items 95-101. These provisions insert alternative support requirements and excluded impairments, including impairments caused by motor vehicle accidents, work-related injuries and impairments for which rules declare alternative supports. They also allow participant status to be revoked if the person does not meet alternative support requirements.

Concern

I am concerned that this provision assumes other systems can provide equivalent support simply because they exist. In practice, compensation, workers compensation, motor vehicle accident, health, education, housing and community systems are often adversarial, time-limited, underfunded, geographically inconsistent, difficult to navigate and not designed around disability access.

Likely real-world impact

People may fall between systems where each system says another system is responsible.
Workers compensation and motor accident schemes may not provide lifetime disability supports equivalent to the NDIS.
Participants with multiple impairments may have some needs linked to compensation and other needs that are not, leading to complex disputes.
Revocation based on alternative support requirements may remove the safety net before the alternative support is actually available and accessible.
This risk is particularly serious for people with low literacy, communication disability, cognitive disability, psychosocial disability and limited advocacy support.
Refer to an actual practical example in Appendix C, and documents this exact risk end-to-end, as observed, witnessed and navigated within my own clinical practice. This is one example of many.

Requested amendment or safeguard

Do not exclude or revoke NDIS access unless an equivalent, timely, funded, accessible and sustainable alternative support is actually available to the person.
Require written confirmation of alternative support availability, scope, duration and accessibility before exclusion.
Preserve NDIS access as a safety-net where another scheme is delayed, disputed, inaccessible, temporary, insufficient or unable to meet disability support needs.
Provide review rights, transition support and no-gap handover before any revocation.
Do not declare alternative supports by broad rules without full disability-community consultation and impact assessment.

Page 13 of 22

5.10 Schedule 2 - Fraud measures, information powers, records, claim times and plan management

Relevant Bill provisions

Schedule 2 Parts 1-6. These provisions amend provider definitions and registration, insert civil penalties and regulatory powers, strengthen information-gathering powers, create record-retention requirements for providers, participants and others, reduce claim times from two years to 90 days, and introduce registered plan management provider/deed arrangements.

Concern

I support efforts to address fraud, exploitation and unsafe provider behaviour. However, fraud control must not be designed in a way that punishes participants, families, small ethical providers or communication-disabled people for administrative barriers created by the system itself. Integrity measures must be accessible, proportionate and disability-aware.

Likely real-world impact

Participants may be required to retain records for 3 years and may incur debts where records are not kept, even where record-keeping failure is linked to disability, communication barriers, cognitive load or lack of support.
Providers may be required to retain records for 7 years and face penalties, increasing administrative burden especially for small and specialist providers.
The reduction of claim time to 90 days may disadvantage participants and providers where delays arise from plan management, hospitalisation, trauma, executive functioning barriers, complex invoices, access issues or communication delays.
Expanded information-gathering and compliance powers may be intimidating or inaccessible without strong communication safeguards.
Plan-management provider changes may reduce choice, create transition disruption or affect small providers unless implemented carefully.

Requested amendment or safeguard

Retain fraud and safety measures, but embed disability-access safeguards into every notice, request, record- keeping requirement and compliance process.
Provide reasonable-excuse protections for disability-related inability to keep records or meet deadlines.
Do not create participant debts where failure to retain records arose from disability, support breakdown, communication barriers, system error or provider failure.
Extend or create flexible exceptions to the 90-day claim limit where delay is outside participant/provider control or relates to disability access.
Provide plain-language, Auslan-accessible, accessible-format guidance for participants, nominees, providers and plan managers.
Ensure plan-management reform does not reduce participant choice, provider diversity, rural/regional availability or specialist provider viability.

Page 14 of 22

5.11 Schedule 3 Part 1 - Pricing and maximum payment determinations

Relevant Bill provisions

Schedule 3 Part 1. Proposed section 45C allows the Minister to determine maximum amounts or methods for NDIS supports where funding is plan-managed or Agency-managed. It also permits different provision for supports, providers, participants and circumstances, and may incorporate documents as existing from time to time. Proposed section 34B relates to increasing funding under old framework plans to reflect changes in maximum amounts.

Concern

I am concerned that ministerial pricing and maximum payment determinations may reduce the viability of quality, specialist, rural, communication-accessible and complex-support services if prices do not reflect the real cost of safe and effective provision. Pricing is not just a budget mechanism; it determines whether supports actually exist.

Likely real-world impact

Specialist, niche and experienced providers delivering high quality, tailored and effective supports and services, may become financially unsustainable if maximum prices do not reflect complexity, preparation, communication access, travel, interpreter coordination, documentation, safeguarding and case coordination.
Participants with complex or communication-based needs may lose access to experienced providers if pricing forces providers to withdraw.
Rural and regional participants may be disproportionately affected if pricing does not account for workforce availability and travel realities.
Determinations can incorporate documents that are updated over time and are not legislative instruments, reducing transparency and scrutiny.
Quote requirements may create additional barriers for participants who already struggle with administration and system navigation.

Requested amendment or safeguard

Require independent pricing advice, transparent methodology, public consultation and disability/provider impact analysis before pricing determinations.
Ensure maximum amounts include loading for complexity, communication access, cultural safety, rural/regional delivery, interpreter coordination, support coordination and provider sustainability.
Do not set prices in a way that makes high-quality, tailored, specialist support unavailable.
Make incorporated pricing documents transparent, accessible, stable and subject to consultation and review.
Provide exemptions from quote/process requirements where they create unreasonable disability-related burden or delay essential supports.

5.12 Schedule 3 Part 2 - Automation of administrative action

Relevant Bill provisions

Schedule 3 Part 2. Proposed sections 59B-59E allow the CEO to arrange for computer programs to take administrative action under designated provisions, including actions involving discretion, evaluative judgement or a state of mind being formed. Listed provisions include section 33, section 45, section 45A and section 45C, and further provisions may be specified by instrument.

Concern

I am concerned that the proposed automation provisions are far broader than ordinary administrative processing. They expressly include evaluative judgements, discretion and formation of a state of mind. These are the very areas where human understanding, disability nuance, communication context and individual circumstances matter most.

Page 15 of 22

Likely real-world impact

Automated systems may not detect invisible disability, masking, communication fatigue, fluctuating capacity, carer burden or cumulative disability impact.
A computer program may treat incomplete, inaccessible or inaccurate data as reliable.
Participants may receive decisions or payment outcomes without understanding whether automation was involved or how to correct errors.
The Bill states that failure to comply with some safeguard requirements does not affect validity of administrative action, which weakens accountability.
Automation is at high risk of amplifying existing inequities if data reflects previous under-assessment of Deaf, Deafblind, neurodivergent, psychosocial, cognitive, culturally diverse or rural participants.

Requested amendment or safeguard

Do not permit automation of evaluative, discretionary or rights-affecting decisions unless there is human review before the decision takes effect.
Require clear notice when automation is used and accessible reasons explaining the decision logic in plain language.
Provide an easy, fast, accessible pathway to human review and correction.
Require independent algorithmic audit, bias testing, publication of standard operating procedure instruments and disability-community oversight.
Ensure failure to comply with automation safeguards affects validity or at least creates enforceable remedies.
Do not automate decisions involving access, supports, plan content, payment refusal, suspension, revocation, debt or reassessment where individual circumstances are material.

5.13 Schedule 4 - New framework planning and support needs assessments

Relevant Bill provisions

Schedule 4. These provisions amend new framework planning, including budget methods, support levels, maximum funding amounts, support needs assessments, information that assessors must or must not consider, who may undertake assessments, and incorporation of Agency documents such as questionnaires, manuals, prices or pricing benchmarks as in force from time to time.

Concern

I am deeply concerned about the proposed support needs assessment framework. A standardised assessment may appear objective, but if it is not disability-aware, communication-accessible and capable of capturing real-world support needs, it will produce inaccurate results with serious consequences. This is not theoretical. My professional practice working with D/deaf and hard of hearing, Deafblind and Neurodivergent individuals has many examples of how standard questions can produce completely misleading answers unless the person has communication support, contextual explanation and someone able to identify when the person has not understood the question. This risks incorrectly assumed shared understanding, inaccurate responses, detrimental health and safety risks, and completely inaccurate assessment of support needs.

Likely real-world impact

Assessments may be completed by people who do not understand Deafness, Deafblindness, Auslan, communication access, neurodivergence, masking, psychosocial disability or complex disability interaction.
Rules may prescribe information that must or must not be considered, creating risk that treating evidence, family evidence, allied health reports or lived-experience evidence may be excluded.
Budget methods may reduce complex support needs into levels, classes and maximum amounts that do not reflect actual cost or individual context.

Page 16 of 22

The Bill expressly allows funding amounts to be less than the actual cost of supports in new framework planning.
Agency documents such as questionnaires or manuals may be incorporated and updated over time, which may make the assessment framework difficult to scrutinise.
Communication barriers can cause participants to answer inaccurately, appear more independent than they are, or nod along without understanding.

Requested amendment or safeguard

Pause rollout of new framework planning and support needs assessments until co-design, validation, assessor training, accessibility standards and review mechanisms are complete.
Require that assessors have disability-specific competence relevant to the participant’s disability and communication needs.
Require Auslan, Deaf interpreting, Deafblind interpreters, plain language, communication support provided by professionals who have worked with the individual and understand their communication needs, pacing, multiple screens for online meetings or in person meetings where online meetings are inaccessible, written summaries, breaks, assessments over multiple sessions, and support persons where required.
Guarantee that treating professional reports, family/carer evidence, participant statements and real-world examples can be considered.
Do not permit rules to exclude relevant evidence without strong safeguards and review rights.
Make assessment tools, manuals, scoring methods and budget methods public, accessible, independently evaluated and subject to allied health professional, disability advocacy organisation with lived experience understanding, and Parliamentary scrutiny.
Do not allow funding levels to be less than actual support cost where that creates unmet need, risk, service unavailability or cost shifting.

5.14 Schedule 5 - Transitional rules

Relevant Bill provisions

Schedule 5. The Minister may make transitional rules, including rules prescribing saving or application provisions and rules modifying how provisions of the NDIS Act or transitional provisions operate, for up to 12 months. The rules cannot create offences or civil penalties, impose a tax, directly amend an Act, or provide arrest, detention, entry, search or seizure powers.

Concern

I am concerned that broad transitional rule-making may create uncertainty for participants, families and providers during an already unstable reform period. Transitional provisions often determine what actually happens to people in practice. If they are unclear, inaccessible or made without meaningful consultation, participants may not understand what law applies to them, when their rights change, or how to challenge a decision.

Likely real-world impact

Participants may be transitioned between frameworks without clear accessible explanation.
Providers may be required to implement changed rules quickly without adequate guidance.
People with communication, cognitive and executive functioning barriers may not understand transitional notices or new obligations.
Rules can change how provisions operate during the most confusing implementation period.
Unclear transitions increase risk of error, dispute, missed deadlines and support gaps. Page 17 of 22

Requested amendment or safeguard

Require public consultation with disabled people, families, providers and advocates before transitional rules are made.
Require all transitional rules and guidance to be accessible, plain-language, Auslan-accessible and available before commencement.
Do not use transitional rules to create adverse practical outcomes without review rights and participant safeguards.
Require clear individual notices explaining how each participant is affected, what action they need to take, and how to seek review.
Publish implementation impact reports and monitor harm, support gaps, complaints, review rates, suspensions, revocations and hospital/crisis outcomes during transition.

Concerns about impacts on participants I am concerned that the proposed changes in the legislation may result in people losing supports, being found ineligible, being denied timely reassessment, or being shifted into systems that are not ready, accessible or funded. This is especially concerning for people whose disabilities are invisible, fluctuating, cumulative, communication-based, sensory, neurodevelopmental, psychosocial, neurological, energy-limiting or difficult to measure through simplified functional assessment models.

The proposed Bill may affect participants by:

reducing access to supports that prevent deterioration, crisis, isolation, carer burnout, hospitalisation and workforce exit;
making it harder to request reassessment when plans become unsafe or inadequate;
making access depend on unclear treatment, permanence and functional capacity tests;
increasing reliance on families, carers and informal supports that may already be exhausted;
requiring participants to navigate more complex rules, records, notices, assessments, claim timeframes and appeal processes;
penalising people whose functioning is maintained only through masking, preparation, communication support, family labour, assistive technology and recovery time;
increasing the risk of downstream pressure on hospitals, mental health systems, housing, schools, families and crisis services.

Policy existing on paper is not the same as access in real life. Many systems already fail because they are siloed, difficult to navigate, inconsistent across locations, dependent on professionals knowing what to do, dependent on families knowing what to ask for, inaccessible to people with communication, cognitive, sensory or executive functioning barriers, and not designed with the people most affected from the beginning.

Appendix A provides an end-to-end example of this. The point of the example is not that one case is unique. The point is that the barrier was not capacity. The barrier was system design. Once communication access, navigation and coordination were provided, functional capacity improved. Without that navigation, the person would likely have been framed as disengaged, non-compliant, complex or low capacity.

Page 18 of 22

Concerns about workforce and services As an Occupational Therapist, business owner and employer, I am also concerned about the impact of the Bill on the disability workforce, allied health services, small providers and participants who rely on experienced specialist providers.

I am concerned that the proposed changes may:

reduce access to allied health supports, especially preventative, capacity-building, communication, regulation and participation supports;
reduce viability of small specialist providers if pricing, administrative burden, record retention, registration or plan-management changes are not proportionate;
increase workforce instability and discourage experienced clinicians from continuing in NDIS work;
make rural and regional service delivery more difficult;
discourage preventative and capacity-building work because it becomes harder to fund or justify;
shift pressure onto unpaid carers, schools, hospitals, GPs, mental health systems, social prescribing, community organisations and other mainstream systems;
increase professional time spent on documentation, compliance and dispute navigation rather than actual participant support.

The Committee should consider whether the Bill’s pricing, evidence, record-keeping, registration, plan-management and support-determination provisions will unintentionally reduce the availability of safe, skilled and disability-aware providers. If experienced providers leave, the cost does not disappear. It becomes participant risk, family burden, delayed intervention, hospital escalation and workforce loss.

Personal impact of the proposed legislation My disabilities are permanent. They are lifelong. What fluctuates is not whether I am disabled. What fluctuates is how much effort, support, recovery time, technology, environmental adjustment, masking, camouflaging, assimilation and unpaid family labour is required for me to function. That distinction matters enormously.

Too often, systems assume that if a person can work, speak, parent, advocate, run a business or appear articulate, then they must therefore have lower support needs. That assumption is profoundly inaccurate and causes significant harm.

I live with multiple disabilities and health conditions that interact and compound each other, including profound Deafness, Autism Level 2, severe ADHD combined type/AuDHD profile, epilepsy and neurological conditions, chronic health conditions, significant sensory processing impacts, and substantial communication and sensory-access impacts that are often invisible because I can speak and can appear “high functioning”.

These conditions and functional impacts do not exist separately. Everything interacts. The impact is cumulative and exponential, not additive. I can appear highly capable in one area while simultaneously experiencing major functional impairment in another. This is one of the realities of invisible disability that systems consistently fail to understand.

I must explicitly address communication access because this is one of the areas where policy and lived reality are currently most disconnected. I am profoundly Deaf, yet I also experience severe sensory overload from sound. I can speak because this was the only pathway offered to my parents when I was a child, and I did not access Auslan until my late teenage years. I currently rely on a single cochlear implant after having my right implant surgically removed in 2025 because wearing it triggered seizures. Auditory input itself can become neurologically exhausting and

Page 19 of 22

dysregulating. Spoken communication is not a reliable or sustainable access method for me across many environments.

Communication supports I need are not optional. They include real-time transcription, visual communication systems, written summaries, assistive technology, communication pacing supports and Auslan interpretation when required. These supports are disability access supports. Without them, I miss critical information, cannot reliably process complex conversations in real time, experience rapid cognitive overload, experience shutdown and loss of functional capacity, and have reduced ability to safely participate.

One of the greatest misconceptions affecting Deaf and neurodivergent people is the assumption that if someone can speak or articulate themselves in written communication, they therefore have adequate communication access. That is not true. Speech and articulation do not equal access.

The supports that allow me to continue functioning, parenting, working, communicating and contributing are the scaffolding that prevents overload, shutdown and collapse before crisis occurs. These supports include communication support and facilitation, interpreter coordination, appointment support, NDIS paperwork/review support, prompting around basic self-care during overload, meal preparation support, cleaning and home organisation support, prioritisation and task management support, cognitive offloading, written summaries and support recognising early signs of burnout.

These supports are not about dependence. They are the exact supports helping me remain employed, contributing economically, parenting, participating socially, connected to community, and out of hospital and crisis systems.

Appendix B explains this in my own words: “People see the performance, not the cost”. They may see someone working, speaking, parenting, advocating and showing up. They do not see the masking, adjustments, preparation, shutdown, cognitive load, sensory overload, communication effort, technology, supports, family labour and sheer amount of energy it takes just to hold things together.

This is why I am concerned that the proposed Bill’s functional capacity, support needs assessment, reasonable and necessary, permanence, reassessment, plan renewal and automation provisions could misunderstand people like me and many others.

Economic and system impact Too often, disability reform discussions focus narrowly on reducing direct NDIS expenditure without adequately accounting for the broader economic consequences when disabled people and families become destabilised. When supports become inadequate or inaccessible, the costs do not disappear. They shift elsewhere.

Reduction or instability in supports Downstream economic and social impact Reduced preventative supports Increased hospitalisations, crisis presentations and emergency interventions. Delayed plan reviews or inadequate plans Functional decline, carer burnout and increased system complexity. Increased reliance on unpaid carers Workforce exit, lost productivity and reduced household income. Communication access barriers Delayed healthcare, increased risk, avoidable escalation and inaccurate decisions. Fragmented systems and excessive Increased administrative costs, service duplication and people falling navigation burden through gaps. Loss of workforce participation supports Reduced tax contribution, increased welfare reliance and long-term economic disengagement.

Page 20 of 22

The question cannot simply be: “How do we reduce NDIS expenditure?” The question must also be: “What are the long-term human, economic and societal costs when disabled people, carers and families are pushed beyond sustainable capacity?”

What Government must understand and recognise

invisible disability is still disability;
fluctuating capacity is not temporary disability;
communication access is essential, not optional;
support needs do not disappear because someone appears articulate or externally capable;
social and community participation are protective supports, not expendable extras;
fragmented systems disproportionately harm those with the highest support needs;
reducing supports does not remove need - it shifts cost and risk elsewhere.

Appendix and supporting material register The following documents should be lodged with, or made available to, the Committee to support this submission. They are included to demonstrate the real-world consequences of the Bill provisions, particularly those relating to functional capacity, support needs assessments, communication access, foundational supports, reassessment, mainstream-system reliance and navigation burden.

Attachments How it supports this submission Appendix A - Health and System Supports Schedule 1 Parts 6 and 9, Schedule 4 and the concerns about shifting people Navigation Barriers; Silos and into mainstream/foundational systems before those systems are accessible. Shows Impacts - CONFIDENTIAL why navigation is a harm-prevention function, not an optional support.

Appendix B - People See the Supports Schedule 1 Part 1, Schedule 1 Part 6 and Schedule 4 by explaining hidden Performance, Not the Cost functional cost, invisible disability, masking, communication fatigue and why observable functioning is not an accurate measure of support need. Supporting Attachment C - Supports Schedule 1 Part 1 and Schedule 4 by showing how standardised questions Serious implications of proposed and inaccessible assessment processes can produce inaccurate answers and Support Needs Assessments for understate support needs. Deafness is used as one example of a broader assessment Deaf individuals - risk issue.

CONFIDENTIAL

```
Closing statement
```

I respectfully ask the Committee to recommend that the Bill not proceed in its current form.

If Parliament proceeds with reform, it must do so in a way that builds the scaffolding first. That means clear definitions, accessible systems, genuine co-design, review rights, communication access, safeguards against coercive treatment interpretations, protection of preventative supports, and proof that alternative systems are actually available before supports are shifted away from the NDIS.

I have worked extraordinarily hard to rebuild my life and regain function, but this is not possible without support. Even with support, it is still hard. I do not want to go backwards. I know this is the same for many others, including many people who are not even receiving the most basic supports they need.

Page 21 of 22

If the current reform direction proceeds without genuinely understanding these realities, I am deeply concerned that many disabled Australians and families already operating at the edge of collapse will be pushed further into crisis.

Please protect the NDIS as a system that enables people to live, participate, work, parent, contribute and remain connected to their communities. Please ensure disabled people with lived experience are not only consulted after decisions are made, but meaningfully included as part of designing the solutions.

Sincerely,

Fiona Fonti

Occupational Therapist

OCC0001723243

Sources and documents referenced

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, as introduced.
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry page: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The page states that submissions must directly address the provisions of the Bill and that personal experiences must specifically address aspects of the Bill.
Department of Health, Disability and Ageing participant FAQs and fact sheet regarding the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
Appendix A - Health and System Navigation Barriers; Silos and Impacts. A Documented End-to-End Example, Fiona

Fonti. CONFIDENTIAL

Appendix B - People See the Performance, Not the Cost, Fiona Fonti.
Appendix C - Serious implications of the proposed Support Needs Assessments for Deaf individuals - a case

example, Fiona Fonti. CONFIDENTIAL

Page 22 of 22