Submission 323 - Supplementary Submission
Supplementary Submission to the
Inquiry into National Disability
Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
Senate Community Affairs (Legislation)
Committee
July 2026
Submission 323 - Supplementary Submission
About the HSU
The Health Services Union (HSU) is one of Australia’s fastest growing unions with over 115,500 members working in the health and community services sector across the country.
Our members work in aged care, disability services, community health, mental health, alcohol and other drugs services, private practices and hospitals. HSU members are health professionals (including allied health professionals), paramedics, scientists, disability support workers, aged care workers, nurses, technicians, doctors, medical librarians, clerical and administrative staff, managers, cleaners, security staff and other support staff and health workers.
You can find us at hsu.net.au
For questions regarding this submission, please contact:
Jackson Reynolds
National Policy and Campaigns Officer
Health Services Union
e:
m:
2
Submission 323 - Supplementary Submission
Introduction
The Health Services Union (HSU) provides this supplementary submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee following the extension of the Senate Inquiry, and the passage of the amended National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 through the House of Representatives in July 2026.
The HSU will not accept NDIS reform that comes at the cost of frontline workers or the safety and wellbeing of NDIS participants. Effective reform must protect and strengthen both.
Since our initial submission in May 2026, critical evidence has emerged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS (JSC Inquiry into Integrity), Public Hearings, and this Committee’s own Interim Report. These reports give weight to the structural risks we previously identified and emphasise that the Bill’s current focus on fiscal sustainability overlooks the importance of professionalisation of the workforce.
The HSU maintains that the integrity and long-term sustainability of the NDIS are fundamentally dependent on a stable, skilled and properly supported workforce.
Summary of Recommendations
The HSU calls on the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs to include the following recommendations in their Report to Government:
-
Recommendation 1: Amend the Bill to mandate a comprehensive National Worker Registration Scheme, linked to minimum qualifications and professional standards.
-
Recommendation 2: Guarantee that any future commissioning of Supported Independent Living (SIL) supports includes robust mechanisms – such as the bundling of services, protected “firewalls,” or specific contract deeds – to ensure the safety of 24/7 care arrangements and prevent the creation of unfunded gaps in daytime support.
-
Recommendation 3: Amend the Bill to explicitly state that the availability, cost, and physical accessibility of “appropriate treatment” within a participant’s local geographical region must be considered when determining the permanence of an impairment.
-
Recommendation 4: Explicitly prohibit the use of automated decision-making for any function that can result in the suspension, reduction, or revocation of funding, mandating human-led clinical review for all such adverse actions.
-
Recommendation 5: Harmonise NDIS whistleblower protections with the Corporations Act 2001, as suggested by the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, to specifically protect frontline workers who consult their industrial representatives on concerns of systemic fraud or safety breaches.
-
Recommendation 6: Guarantee that no participant will be removed from the Scheme or have their supports reduced until alternative Foundational Supports are demonstrably funded, staffed, and operationally ready across all jurisdictions.
-
Recommendation 7: Transition final pricing authority to a completely independent, external body with a mandate to reflect the true cost of award-compliant care.
-
Recommendation 8: Ensure the scope of the new statutory review explicitly includes an assessment of workforce stability and retention.
3
Submission 323 - Supplementary Submission
The Case for Worker Registration
The HSU considers the omission of workforce registration from the Committee’s Interim Report to be a significant oversight.
By contrast, we welcome the findings of the recent Integrity of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Report by the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS. We strongly support Recommendation 10 of the Integrity Report, which calls for the implementation of a National NDIS Worker Registration Scheme focusing on mandatory qualifications and professional development.
This is supported by Recommendation 10.8 of the Disability Royal Commission, Recommendation 17 of the Independent Review of the NDIS, and Recommendation 10 of the NDIS Provider Workforce Registration Taskforce; as well as aligning with Recommendation 77 of the Aged Care Royal Commission to establish mandatory registration of for aged care workers – which the Government provided initial funding for in Budget 2026/7.
Workforce registration is essential to professionalising the disability support workforce, improving workforce retention, and recognising disability support work as a profession with clear standards and accountability. It would strengthen protections for participants by ensuring workers meet minimum standards of competence, conduct and ongoing professional development. Registration frameworks are a longstanding and successful feature of Australia’s health and care systems, delivering stronger public safeguards and greater professional recognition. There is no compelling reason why disability support workers should be excluded from a reform that has proven effective across comparable sectors.
Recommendation 1: Amend the Bill to mandate a comprehensive National Worker Registration Scheme, linked to minimum qualifications and professional standards.
SIL Funding Gap
The HSU acknowledges the Government’s agreement to firewall certain support categories – including Daily Living, Transport, and Home Modifications – from Ministerial cuts under Section 34A. However, the power to make Support Determinations remains a central pillar of the Bill, specifically targeting “social, economic and community participation” (SCCP) and “improved daily living skills”.
This creates a significant operational risk for participants in Supported Independent Living (SIL). Evidence from the Committee’s Public Hearings confirms that SIL budgets typically only cover 18 hours of care per day, with the 9 am – 3 pm daytime window funded through SCCP budgets.
The HSU rejects outright the Government’s Impact Analysis and its contention that SCCP supports are “not essential to participant health and safety”. For participants with 24/7 care needs, these supports are not discretionary – they are indispensable. SCCP funding is frequently the only mechanism through which daytime staffing can be provided. The Government’s position ignores the practical realities of service delivery and the critical role these supports play in keeping participants safe, supported and able to live with dignity.
Halving these budgets will create hours of unfunded care, forcing HSU members into situations where they must provide unpaid labour or leave participants in high-risk, under-staffed environments. This unmet need significantly increases the incidence of occupational violence and aggression as stable routines for participants with complex needs are disrupted. As consultation for SIL commissioning begins in July 2026, the Government must ensure that the funding architecture for 24/7 care is protected from arbitrary, horizontal budget resets.
Recommendation 2: Guarantee that any future commissioning of Supported Independent Living (SIL) supports includes robust mechanisms – such as the bundling of services, protected “firewalls”, or specific contract deeds – to ensure the safety of 24/7 care arrangements and prevent the creation of unfunded gaps in daytime support.
4
Submission 323 - Supplementary Submission
Access & Permanence
The JCHR Report characterises the new “all appropriate treatment” test for permanence as a potentially “retrogressive measure”. The HSU is deeply concerned that the Bill explicitly mandates that geographic and financial circumstances are irrelevant to whether a treatment is “appropriate”. This requirement effectively punishes regional and low-income Australians who face structural specialist shortages beyond their control, transforming NDIS access into a “reverse means-test” based on postcode or bank balance.
While we welcome the amendment ensuring that treatments must be available in the public healthcare system and cannot involve harmful restrictive practices (such as chemical restraint), the core inequity remains. For many HSU members working in regional settings, the treatments the Bill now demands as a prerequisite for support are simply not physically accessible to their clients.
Recommendation 3: Amend the Bill to explicitly state that the availability, cost, and physical accessibility of “appropriate treatment” within a participant’s local geographical region must be considered when determining the permanence of an impairment.
Automated Decision Making
The Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum attached to the amended legislation attempts to provide a narrative of “human oversight” over automated decision-making (ADM), claiming computer programs will not be used for “subjective action”. However, the primary text of the Bill still permits the automation of “evaluative determinations” which includes the “forming of a state of mind”.
The HSU concurs with the JCHR in warning that authorising discretionary automation without human-rights guardrails causes serious harm. Removing the human element from complex disability assessments risks irrational – and even unsafe – outcomes and mirrors the architecture that led to the Robodebt scandal. Transparency measures, such as publishing Standard Operating Procedures, are not a substitute for human clinical review.
Recommendation 4: Explicitly prohibit the use of automated decision-making for any function that can result in the suspension, reduction, or revocation of funding, mandating human-led clinical review for all such adverse actions.
Whistleblower Protection Gap
The HSU condemns the Government’s rejection of an amendment during the House of Representatives debate on 1 July that would have protected disclosures made to unions, professional associations and legal practitioners. The Government’s position unnecessarily weakens whistleblower protections and undermines workers’ ability to safely report concerns. The NDIA’s admission that a disclosure “solely to a union would not qualify as a protected disclosure” under the NDIS Act1 is particularly troubling, as it excludes one of the most trusted and accessible avenues through which workers seek advice, representation and support when raising concerns about participant safety, misconduct and regulatory breaches.
Frontline support workers are the eyes and ears of the Scheme, yet many fear for their livelihoods if they report fraud or safety breaches. Prohibiting them from seeking preliminary advice from their industrial representatives creates a chilling effect that allows systemic fraud to remain hidden. It is crucial that workers must have a protected pathway to turn to their unions to verify their rights and organise safe evidence for the regulator.
1 National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). Answers to Questions on Notice. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/NDISFutureGenBill/Additional_Documents
5
Submission 323 - Supplementary Submission
Recommendation 5: Harmonise NDIS whistleblower protections with the Corporations Act 2001, as suggested by the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, to specifically protect frontline workers who consult their industrial representatives on concerns of systemic fraud or safety breaches.
Intergovernmental Buck-passing
The HSU is gravely concerned by the formal statement from State and Territory Disability Ministers that they are “not in a position, and have made no agreement, to deliver like-for-like services to people who are exited from the NDIS”2.
Ministers have warned that state systems – including health, education, and justice – are not equipped for the increased demand that will follow projected participant exits, and that there is a significant risk that people with disability will be supported by settings “inappropriate or unable to meet their needs, or have no access to services at all”.
We recognise that this inter-governmental tension may be politically frustrating for a Federal Government attempting to curb expenditure. However, it is unacceptable for the Scheme – and the lives of the people who depend on it – to be used as a political football in a game of fiscal chicken between jurisdictions. Tightening eligibility based on the theoretical availability of other systems risks triggering a wave of cost-shifting that leaves participants caught in bureaucratic limbo.
Recommendation 6: Guarantee that no participant will be removed from the Scheme or have their supports reduced until alternative Foundational Supports are demonstrably funded, staffed, and operationally ready across all jurisdictions.
Statutory Review and Independent Pricing
Although the HSU welcomes amendments introducing a Statutory Review and requiring the publication of NDIA pricing advice, we remain deeply concerned that the Bill ultimately centralises pricing authority with the Minister. This is not a faithful implementation of the NDIS Review’s recommendation for an independent pricing authority akin to IHACPA. Rather, it represents a clear and concerning departure from the Review’s intent, preserving political control over pricing decisions while creating the appearance of independent oversight.
Recommendation 7: Transition final pricing authority to a completely independent, external body with a mandate to reflect the true cost of award-compliant care
Recommendation 8: Ensure the scope of the new statutory review explicitly includes an assessment of workforce stability and retention.
Conclusion
The response to this legislation since its introduction in May has made clear that the disability community and workforce remain deeply alarmed by its potential consequences. Although the Government has introduced technical safeguards and procedural protections, these measures do not resolve the more fundamental concern that the Bill enables the rationing of care and support through structural mechanisms that remain largely unchanged.
The HSU urges the Committee to recommend that the Bill only proceed if it includes the National Worker Registration Scheme, a legislated “human-in-the-loop” for adverse decisions, and a protected whistleblower pathway that recognises the essential role of unions in maintaining Scheme integrity. Further, while detailed consultation and design of the reforms can and should commence urgently, the HSU urges the Government to provide an unequivocal commitment that no
2 Submission by State & Territory Disability Ministers (Submission 508). https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/NDISFutureGenBill/Submissions
6
Submission 323 - Supplementary Submission
participant will be removed from the Scheme before the full suite of Foundational Supports is fully operational and demonstrably capable of meeting participants’ needs.
These reforms must be co-designed with all parts of the disability sector: workers in their unions, participants through their representative organisations, and providers via their peak bodies.
The HSU continues to stand ready to support the Federal Government, in collaboration with the States and Territories, to make meaningful changes to the NDIS that will ensure the sustainability of the Scheme, while improving the working conditions of thousands of NDIS workers, in turn improving the quality of supports for the participants.
We would welcome an opportunity to speak at any future public hearings this committee conducts.
7