Submission 3238 — Ms Claudia Kadow-Griffin — NDIS Future Generations Bill

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

31st May 2026

To: Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

Dear Committee,

I write this submission as person who lives with permanent disability, identifies as Culturally Deaf, has family who live with disabilities, works as unpaid carer for family members, and experiences in Australian healthcare and services, prior to National Disability Insurance Scheme.

In addition, I work closely with a various non-verbal, autistic, LGBTQIA+ members, refugee populations, linguistically & culturally diverse, and deaf including deaf blind participants of the NDIS as senior support coordinator, an allied health professional who has trained in audiology and psychology. Some of these clients live rurally.

My professional qualifications include Bachelor of Science (Environmental/ animal science), Master of Audiology (CCP), Bachelor of Psychological Science, Honours (BPsyc Hons) and currently provisional psychologist (Master program student).

I have support roles and regulatory roles where I need to meet the needs of the participants along side their funding for services/ products/ supported living and capacity for social participation. This provides me with a unique opportunity to explore and connect the real-life experiences within the NDIS system.

It’s a difficult type of work, especially with barriers and multiple changes within short time frames for a government-based system that fails to work with those who it represents (disability sector and professionals). It requires lots of continual updates across the sector regarding changes to schedules, pricing, funding cuts, plan reviews, NDIS legislation, rule changes for participants, and additionally most importantly explaining this in language that participants access this information.

Firstly, The Government introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 on 14 May 2026 is covered over 100 pages found online at:

https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/ndis-legislation-changes/amendments

This pace of progress for requests for submissions is alarmingly short – less than 2 weeks and is unreasonable timeframe for real engagement and opportunity for the disability community, their families and professionals to undertake a proper evaluation.

I want to outline the harm this Amendment Bill will cause if it passes Parliament. This Bill is too far-reaching to pass as it stands. I believe the Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds.

FIRST RECOMMENDATION:

This bill be rejected. Instead consider the many responses provided from the Australian public, including the voices of participants, families, carers, advocacy groups, representatives for those with disability provided to you. Present the Ministers with summary and reports to urgently prioritise working with disabled people, families, Disabled respected representatives (and Carer) organisations, providers of services, and community members to provide an appropriate “co-design” to address reform and sustainability of this program. I will also note there has been multiple resources which addresses:

Communication Accessibility, Safeguarding, Assessment Fairness and Human Rights

Implications

These include:

1. Final report from Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability

The Royal Commission has made 222 recommendations on how to improve laws, policies, structures and practices to ensure a more inclusive and just society that supports the independence of people with disability and their right to live free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. This still has not been addressed formally by The Australian Government.

https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/

2. United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In particular their charter:

(b) Recognizing that the United Nations, in the United Nations of Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, has proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind,

(c) Reaffirming the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and the need for persons with disabilities to be guaranteed their full enjoyment without discrimination.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights persons-disabilities

Introduction

I support measures intended to strengthen the long-term sustainability and integrity of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). However, several provisions within the

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future

Generations) Bill 2026 raise significant concerns regarding accessibility, procedural fairness, safeguarding, cultural safety, assessment validity and the protection of people with permanent and significant disability.

My concerns are informed by extensive experience working alongside people with disability, including Deaf and hard of hearing people, Auslan users, autistic individuals, people with intellectual disability, physical disabilities, people with psychosocial disability, First Nations peoples and culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

These concerns are further informed by findings of the Disability Royal Commission, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, United National decree for Human Rights and lessons arising from the death of Ann Marie Smith (April 2020) in Adelaide and subsequent safeguarding failures involving NDIS participants.

1. Access Requirements and the Requirement for “All Appropriate Treatment”

Relevant Bill Provisions

The Bill proposes amendments concerning access requirements and the determination of whether an impairment is likely to be permanent, including consideration of whether all appropriate treatment has been undertaken.

Concern

The phrase “all appropriate treatment” introduces substantial ambiguity.

The Bill does not clearly define:

 what constitutes appropriate treatment;

 who determines appropriateness;

 whether participant choice is considered;

 whether cultural considerations are considered;

 whether financial accessibility is considered;

 whether service availability is considered.

For many disabilities, treatment may improve symptoms without eliminating disability.

For example, hearing aid technology and use of surgical devices like cochlear implants may improve hearing capacity but do not eliminate deafness. You remain impacted by hearing loss and inability to “fix” the loss of functions. Both choices also should be personal choice and control for participants and understood in that context.

Speech therapy may improve communication skills but does not remove autism. Psychological treatment may improve coping skills but does not eliminate intellectual

disability. Similarly, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and behavioural interventions may improve functioning while permanent disability remains. These services remain important for stability and maintaining disability status and providing strength for participants disabilities need to be monitored and adjusted as needed in their daily lives.

There is a significant risk that decision-makers may incorrectly interpret treatment gains as evidence that disability is no longer substantial. This approach would be inconsistent with the purpose of the NDIS, which is intended to support individuals whose disability remains permanent despite intervention. There is also concern regarding disabilities for which no universally accepted treatment pathway exists.

Many autistic people, Deaf people, psychosocial disability participants and people with rare conditions may experience disagreement among professionals regarding what constitutes appropriate treatment.

The Bill provides insufficient clarity regarding who ultimately decides whether treatment has been exhausted.

The absence of clear safeguards risks creating inconsistent decision-making and increased appeals. It creates harm by lack of distinction between choices, medical treatments, lack of consideration for diversity and professional management with client centred focus.

Recommendation

The Bill should clarify that:

A disability may remain permanent and significant or fluctuate (one example: Multiple Sclerosis) despite treatment improving functioning.

A participant should not be required to undergo treatment that:

 is unavailable;

 is inaccessible;

 is unaffordable;

 is culturally inappropriate;

 carries unacceptable risk;

 is inconsistent with informed consent principles.

The determination of whether treatment is appropriate should require independent clinical evidence and be reviewable through external merits review processes.

2. Support Needs Assessments and Future Budget Determinations

Relevant Bill Provisions

The Bill establishes the framework for future support-needs assessments linked to participant funding budgets.

Concern

The proposed framework creates significant uncertainty because the details of assessment methodology remain unavailable.

At present the public has not been provided with sufficient information regarding:

 assessment tools (i-Can assessment tool has not been released following modification for use in NDIS functions);

 scoring systems;

 assessor qualifications;

 weighting processes;

 review rights.

This creates particular concern for participants whose disability may not be accurately represented through standardised assessment methods.

For Deaf participants, support needs frequently arise from communication barriers rather than hearing loss/ impairment alone.

Many Deaf people experience the long-term effects of language deprivation, reduced access to education, reduced health literacy and reduced access to government services. These barriers may not be adequately captured through generic functional assessments. First Nations participants and CALD communities, cultural differences may affect assessment outcomes if culturally appropriate assessment processes are not embedded.

The Disability Royal Commission repeatedly identified failures arising when systems applied standardised approaches without adequate recognition of cultural, linguistic and disability specific needs.

Recommendation

The Bill should require publication and independent validation of all support-needs assessment methodologies prior to implementation.

Assessment tools should be independently tested with:

 Deaf participants;

 Auslan users;

 autistic participants;

 First Nations communities;

 CALD communities;

 participants with psychosocial disability.

3. Communication Accessibility and Procedural Fairness

Relevant Bill Provisions

The Bill expands provisions relating to participant contact, reassessment, compliance and plan suspension.

Concern

The Bill assumes communication between the NDIA and participants is effective.

This assumption is not supported by the lived experiences of many participants.

Deaf participants continue to report receiving:

 telephone calls;

 voicemail messages;

 complex English correspondence;

 inaccessible administrative communications.

Many Auslan users identify Auslan as their primary language and may experience significant barriers understanding complex written English. A participant cannot be said to have received meaningful notice if communication was not accessible. This concern extends beyond Deaf communities.

Participants with intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, cognitive impairment, limited literacy, CALD backgrounds and First Nations language needs may similarly experience barriers.

The proposed suspension provisions create a significant risk that participants may lose access to supports despite never having received genuinely accessible communication.

The Disability Royal Commission identified communication barriers as a recurring contributor to exclusion, neglect and vulnerability.

Recommendation

The Bill should require the NDIA to demonstrate that communication occurred in the participant’s preferred communication format before any suspension or adverse administrative action can occur.

Communication accessibility should be recognised as a safeguarding obligation rather than a customer service issue.

4. Plan Suspension and Safeguarding Obligations

Relevant Bill Provisions

The Bill introduces mechanisms allowing participant plans to be suspended following unsuccessful contact attempts.

Concern

The death of Ann Marie Smith demonstrated that vulnerable participants can remain invisible to systems despite being funded and known to government agencies.

The Disability Royal Commission found that violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation frequently occur where participants experience social isolation and limited oversight.

Many participants at greatest risk of neglect are also those most likely to experience communication barriers.

Suspension of supports may increase vulnerability rather than reduce risk.

Participants who:

 live alone;

 depend upon paid supports;

 experience communication barriers;

 experience social isolation

Should not be subject to administrative suspension without a documented safeguarding assessment.

Recommendation

The Bill should require a formal safeguarding review before any plan suspension occurs. Special protections should apply to participants identified as vulnerable or at risk of neglect.

5. Ministerial Determinations Reducing Categories of Supports

Relevant Bill Provisions

The Bill permits future determinations affecting categories of participant supports.

Concern

Many supports categorised as social or capacity-building supports directly contribute to participant safety, wellbeing and community participation.

The Disability Royal Commission repeatedly identified social isolation as a significant risk factor for abuse, neglect and exploitation.

For Deaf participants, community participation supports frequently provide access to:

 Deaf culture;

 peer support;

 interpreter-supported participation;

 social inclusion.

These supports cannot be viewed solely as discretionary activities.

Reducing such supports may increase isolation and reduce safeguarding protections.

Recommendation

The Bill should require independent disability impact assessments prior to any determination reducing categories of funded supports.

6. Thriving Kids and Foundational Supports

Relevant Bill Provisions

The Bill supports implementation of broader Foundational Supports reforms.

Concern

The Committee should be cautious about transferring children from established NDIS supports into systems that remain under development.

There is no public list yet of every service/support item affected. What is known is that the Bill enables ministerial determinations to reduce funding for groups of supports, and the fact sheet specifically names social, civic and community participation and capacity building daily activities as areas where budgets may be reset.

Many families currently rely upon NDIS-funded supports because equivalent services do not exist elsewhere.

The Bill provides insufficient assurance regarding:

 workforce capacity;

 service availability;

 waiting times;

 continuity of support.

Recommendation

No participant should lose access to NDIS-funded supports until replacement services are fully operational, accessible and demonstrably equivalent.

Conclusion

Reject this bill due to the:

 The objective of securing the future sustainability of the NDIS is important and broadly supported.

However, sustainability must not be achieved through reforms that inadvertently weaken accessibility, safeguarding, procedural fairness or participant protections.

The lessons arising from Ann Marie Smith’s death, the findings of the Disability Royal Commission, and continuing safeguarding failures across disability systems demonstrate the importance of ensuring that administrative efficiency never replaces meaningful engagement, accessible communication and participant safety.

The Committee should amend the Bill to strengthen protections relating to communication accessibility, support-needs assessments, safeguarding obligations, cultural safety and participant review rights before the proposed reforms proceed.

The Bill may improve consistency and reduce fraud, but it also gives government broad levers to tighten access, reduce support budgets, shift children into not-yet-operational state systems, automate administrative decisions, and centralise pricing. For Deaf, autistic, First Nations and CALD communities, the central advocacy issue is not only “what does the Bill say?” but what protections, culturally safe pathways, communication access, review rights and alternative services will actually exist before supports are reduced or people are redirected.

If you are asking as someone who has worked extensively with disability communities and who understands how policy changes can have unintended consequences, then I would say:

There are reasons to be concerned, but not reasons to panic.

The key issue is that much of the real-world impact depends on rules, assessment processes, implementation decisions and state-funded services that either do not yet exist or have not yet been fully described.

What concerns me most

1. The shift toward assessment-based budgets Historically, many participants have obtained supports through a combination of diagnosis, functional evidence, allied health reports and planning discussions.

The reforms move toward a more standardised assessment approach linked to support budgets.

That creates risks because:

 assessment tools can underestimate invisible disability;

 communication barriers may be misunderstood;

 fluctuating conditions can appear less severe on a single assessment day;

 cultural factors may affect how needs are expressed;

 some autistic people, Deaf people and people from CALD backgrounds may “present better” than they function in daily life.

The question is not whether i-CAN is a good tool.

The question is whether a tool can accurately capture:

 Deaf communication needs;

 Auslan interpreter requirements;

 sensory overload;

 masking in autism;

 executive functioning difficulties;

 cultural obligations;

 remote community realities;

 psychosocial fluctuations.

We simply do not know enough yet.

2. Thriving Kids may become a bottleneck In principle, many disability advocates support better early childhood services outside the NDIS.

The concern is timing.

Governments are proposing:

“Move some children away from NDIS”

While simultaneously saying:

“The replacement service system will be built over the next few years.”

Advocates generally worry whenever a funding stream is reduced before the replacement system is proven.

The key question is:

Will families actually receive equivalent or better support?

That remains unknown.

3. Increased administrative burden Many participants already struggle with:

 invoices;

 plan management;

 evidence gathering;

 reviews;

 provider shortages.

The reforms introduce:

 tighter claim timeframes;

 record keeping requirements;

 suspension provisions;

 increased compliance obligations.

For highly organised participants this may be manageable.

For people with:

 intellectual disability;

 acquired brain injury;

 psychosocial disability;

 autism;

 homelessness;

 language barriers;

It could become a significant challenge.

4. Community participation funding This is one area that many advocacy organisations are watching closely.

When governments talk about:

 “reasonable and necessary supports”

 “budget sustainability”

 “capacity building”

 “community participation”

there is often pressure to prioritise essential daily supports over broader social participation.

Yet for many people:

 community access,

 peer groups,

 Deaf community engagement,

 cultural activities,

 social supports,

are exactly what prevent isolation and mental health decline.

What makes me less worried

There are also safeguards.

The Senate inquiry

The Bill is currently being scrutinised.

Disability organisations are lodging submissions.

Many issues are being publicly raised.

Strong disability sector attention

Unlike some previous reforms, this legislation is being examined closely by:

 disability representative organisations;

 autism groups;

 Deaf organisations;

 First Nations disability advocates;

 legal advocacy centres;

 state disability councils.

Government is unlikely to be unaware of the concerns.

Existing participants may not immediately lose supports

Many changes require:

 rules;

 assessments;

 implementation processes;

 transition arrangements.

The system cannot realistically switch overnight.

I strongly recommend for the committee to consider that If the system tightens access, increases administrative obligations, suspends plans, reduces supports or shifts people into less-developed alternative systems without strong safeguards, the risk of neglect may increase for the very people least able to self-advocate. The legislation appears to create a threshold

that may be interpreted differently by clinicians, NDIA delegates, assessment contractors and review bodies, yet it provides limited guidance on who ultimately decides when treatment has been sufficiently exhausted.

I thank you for your time in reading this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Claudia Kadow-Griffin.