Responses to proposed reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Provider advocacy) | External submission

Submission 325

Responses to proposed reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) included in the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 and Federal Budget 2026-27

May 2026

Submission 325

About us

JFA Purple Orange is a purpose-led organisation working towards a more inclusive world where people with disability have access to the

same opportunities as everyone else. Our work is characterised by co-design and co-production. Based in South Australia, we undertake

systemic policy analysis and advocacy across a range of issues affecting people with disability and their families. We also host a range of

peer networks for people with disability including people with intellectual disability, physical and sensory disability, younger people,

people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and people in regional South Australia.

To discuss our responses in more detail, please contact Selena Maddeford, Manager – Policy and Projects, JFA Purple Orange, on

or .

104 Greenhill Road

Unley SA 5061 AUSTRALIA

Telephone: + 61 (8) 8373 8388

Email: admin@purpleorange.org.au

Website: www.purpleorange.org.au

Facebook: www.facebook.com/jfapurpleorange

www.purpleorange.org.au 2

Submission 325

understanding, recognition, and diagnosis of disability; rising reduce fear and anxiety for Australians inequality; and ageing carers, among others. with disability.

The proposed cut in participant numbers has created significant uncertainty, anxiety, and fear for people with disability and their families. The Federal Government’s framing of the debate is positioning Australians with disability as a “burden” on society, creating damaging narratives of “deserving” versus “undeserving” citizens, and actively undermining the Scheme’s social licence. This will set back progress on addressing discrimination and exclusion, breaking down stigma, and achieving Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disability.

Unclear what • Alternative supports are not yet available across Australia, and it is Recommendation 4: The Federal

alternative supports unlikely they will be before participants are forced off the NDIS. Government should release detailed

will be available and This is a particular concern regarding regional, rural, and remote information and timelines regarding the

when locations where there are already a lack of quality services and roll out of alternative supports, including

the roll out of alternatives will take longer than in metropolitan Foundational Supports, and plans for how areas. it will make mainstream supports and services fully accessible and inclusive of

The detailed design work for alternative supports has not been people with disability. done so there is an information void in knowing what these will be. National Cabinet has committed $10 billion to Foundational Recommendation 5: National Cabinet Supports, of which $4 billion will be invested in Thriving Kids. should clearly explain how the $6 billion Some information is known about Thriving Kids, but little detail has dollars allocated to Foundational been made public regarding what supports the remaining $6 Supports other than Thriving Kids will be billion of funding will be used for. This underscores that

www.purpleorange.org.au 4

Submission 325

announcing a transition of participants to other support options is invested and what the roll out timelines premature. will be.

Little information is known about the Inclusive Communities Fund Recommendation 6: The Federal other than the commitment of $200 million over three years. It is Government should commit to investing unclear whether this will be a one-off measure that ends after in the Inclusive Communities Fund over three years. To be clear, a one-off measure will simply delay the the long term and not as a one-off full impact of cuts rather than provide genuine alternative options measure. It should also ensure the details over the medium to long term. It is also unclear why this funding is of the Fund are genuinely co-designed being invested in a new grant program rather than boosting the with the disability community. Disability Peer Support and Connections (DPSC) program, which Recommendation 7: The Federal is replacing the Information, Linkages, and Capacity Building (ILC) Government should make a substantial program from July 2027. The Federal Government needs to increased investment in the Disability provide clarity about these matters and commit to genuinely co- Peer Support and Connections (DPSC) designing the details of the new Inclusive Communities Fund. program to reflect its intent for people
As the NDIS Review pointed out, what the Productivity with disability to access supports outside Commission originally envisaged as “tier 2” supports have been the NDIS. chronically underfunded. Funding for the DPSC program is Recommendation 8: The Federal equivalent to about 1 per cent of NDIS expenditure and this is Government should put in place clear symptomatic of policy settings driving people with disability to provisions to ensure no participant is seek individual NDIS plans – the very thing the Federal removed from the NDIS on the basis that Government now considers to be out of control. alternative supports are available until
There is a significant risk that removing participants from the NDIS those supports are verified as will not result in overall cost savings – it will simply shift costs to operational, accessible, high-quality, and other government systems like hospitals and mental health sufficient to meet needs in the location supports, as well as delaying costs until a person reaches crisis where they live. Transition timelines point when their needs will be greater and costs higher. Cost should be tailored to local contexts

www.purpleorange.org.au 5

Submission 325

impacts should be considered in a holistic and long-term way; not especially where there are thinner through a misleading short-term budget savings lens. markets, such as in regional, rural, and remote areas. • Additionally, we are very concerned about a possible return to block-funded, closed-system, and/or segregated services funded Recommendation 9: The Federal through Foundational Supports and/or the Inclusive Communities Government should commit to ensuring Fund. There is a risk that more people with disability will be that all alternative supports will be funnelled into segregated, often purposeless, day programs where genuinely inclusive and not perpetuate or they only interact with other people with disability. This is return to exclusionary, segregated, or exclusion, not genuine inclusion. This outcome would be highly congregated service provisions. Robust detrimental for people with disability, set back progress that has audit and accountability measures must already been made toward creating a more inclusive Australia, underpin all supports provided under and increase costs over the long term, especially given this Foundational Supports, including Thriving approach will be increasingly untenable as community attitudes Kids, the Inclusive Communities Fund, continue to change. Evidence to the Disability Royal Commission and the Disability Peer Support and also demonstrated that segregated, congregated, and closed Connections (DPSC) program to ensure settings involve higher rates of violence, abuse, neglect, and genuine inclusion. exploitation of people with disability.

Risks of automated   • There will be 669 job losses at the NDIA in the next financial year.  Recommendation 10: The Federal

decision making        This is likely to worsen Participant Service Guarantee results, the   Government should cancel NDIA job cuts

and artificial             majority of which are already failing to meet targets.                  at least until all targets in the Participant

intelligence Service Guarantee are being consistently

Artificial intelligence and other automated technologies will be met and participants receive timely and used not just for routine administrative tasks but for decision appropriate resolution of their matters. making despite there being little to no evidence to support the efficacy of these for this purpose. Given the impact of these Recommendation 11: The Federal decisions on people’s lives are immense, this risks very Parliament should remove all provisions

www.purpleorange.org.au 6

Submission 325

New definition of      • Excluding a person’s environmental and personal circumstances   Recommendation 13: The Federal

functional capacity     as far as possible from assessments of functional capacity will      Parliament should amend the Bill to

create a Scheme that no longer considers “the whole person, not include, not exclude, the impact of a just their impairment”, as former Minister for the NDIS Bill Shorten person’s environmental and personal described the intent of the NDIS during the last parliamentary circumstances in the definition of term. functional capacity to ensure the “whole person” is considered per the intent of the

As the Social Model of Disability describes, people are disabled by Scheme. It should thoroughly examine barriers in their environment; not by “impairments” in isolation of how provisions in the Bill could lead to the environment, as the outdated Medical Model would suggest. unequal and unfair outcomes and What matters is a person’s functional capacity to, for example, address these. have a shower using the only shower available to them in real life; not some other theoretical shower, especially if the real-world Recommendation 14: The Federal shower is inaccessible while the theoretical shower is imagined to Parliament should ensure all aspects of be more accessible. Stripping away context to impose one-size- the Bill reflect the Social Model of fits-all gatekeeping on the NDIS risks the wellbeing and safety of Disability and not outdated medical, people with disability. charity, or similar conceptualisations of disability.
The greatest impact of excluding considerations of environmental and personal circumstances will be on participants for whom these Recommendation 15: The Federal realities are the furthest from the theoretical ideal; in other words, Government should engage the disability people experiencing low socio-economic circumstances. To community and subject matter experts in extend the shower example, a person living in a modern well- a genuine co-design process to develop, appointed house is more likely to have a shower that is sufficiently trial, and evaluate any new eligibility accessible to ensure they have the functional capacity to shower Rules and assessment tool/s before independently. But if the same person is relegated to, say, an old implementation. To be clear, Rules should rundown public housing rental with an inaccessible shower-over- always be developed before tools; not bath combination, they may no longer have the functional capacity force-fitted later.

www.purpleorange.org.au 8

Submission 325

to shower, as a direct result of their changed environment, not of their “impairment”. Therefore, a person living in the latter circumstance will be more impacted by the pursuit of systemic consistency thereby resulting in systemic classism.

Contexts, circumstances, and environments are crucial to accurately determining functional capacity within the life that a person is actually living. Excluding these will detach functional capacity assessments from reality.
Among the groups for whom this change is likely to have a greater impact are those with fluctuating and/or episodic disability, such as psychosocial disability, fatigue-impacted disability, and similar.
People with disability with lower capacity for self-advocacy and without informal supporters, such as parents, who are well-versed in navigating complex government systems will continue to be disadvantaged.
Any new eligibility assessment tool/s should be genuinely co- designed with lived experience and subject matter experts to ensure they are fit for purpose. The process should require that new Rules are drafted in a transparent co-design process that identifies the purposes and tasks the tools need to perform, and the parameters for their desired outputs, before progressing to any commissioning and/or developing of the tools needed to meet these specifications.

www.purpleorange.org.au 9

Submission 325

Tighter definition of   • The new approach to requiring treatment options to be exhausted  Recommendation 16: The Federal

permanence              prior to accessing the Scheme sets a low bar with reference to      Parliament should amend the Bill to

alleviating the impact of disability. “Alleviate” is not defined, remove references to “alleviate”, or, at a although “improve” is also included in the clause, so alleviate is minimum, to include a definition of this something less than improve. There is a threshold of “materially”, term in reference to what treatments must which the Explanatory Memorandum suggests would mean be undertaken before accessing the noticeably or significantly alleviate. It is easy to imagine vastly NDIS. different interpretations of how this applies in practice. Recommendation 17: The Federal

While the current availability provision for treatment has been Parliament should amend the Bill to interpreted as requiring that a person can in fact access the include, not exclude, the impact of a treatment owing to circumstances like geographic location and person’s circumstances in financial position, the Bill will now exclude consideration of this considerations of what treatment context. This has the same effect as excluding context from options must be exhausted before assessments of functional capacity, as mentioned above. accessing the NDIS. It should thoroughly Imposing a one-size-fits-all approach on treatment requirements examine how provisions in the Bill could risks the wellbeing and safety of people with disability, especially lead to discrimination, coercion, or unfair those experiencing low socio-economic circumstances or outcomes and address these. geographic disadvantage due to thin markets.
Additionally, it could result in discrimination against those who live in locations without availability of treatment options, especially people living in regional, rural, and remote areas, including remote First Nations communities. It could have the effect of forcing people to leave their communities resulting in isolation from familial, cultural, and informal support networks.

www.purpleorange.org.au 10

Submission 325

Narrowing of         • Currently, supports can be funded if the need arises from a       Recommendation 19: The Federal

reasonable and           disability for which a participant is eligible for the NDIS. This will     Parliament should amend the Bill to

necessary supports    become “directly” arises from in order to tighten what supports can  include, not exclude, the impact of a

be funded. person’s environmental and personal circumstances, medical conditions,

The Bill will also remove reference to environmental factors, and any interaction of other medical conditions, and any interaction of other disabilities for disabilities for which a participant is which a participant is not eligible. Again, this focuses on removing not eligible in determining their participants from their real-world context and no longer support needs to ensure the “whole considering the “whole person”. Disability is experienced person” is considered, per the intent of holistically, not through isolated diagnostic silos. This reform may the Scheme. significantly impact people with disability who are neurodiverse, experience mental ill-health or trauma, have a chronic illness, or similar. Without sufficient safeguards, this change could have serious consequences for participants who could be unable to access crucial supports they rely on.

More demands on • The Bill increases the reliance on parents, families, and other Recommendation 20: The Federal

families and other informal supporters to provide unpaid supports for participants Parliament should remove provisions in

informal supporters with the intention of reducing NDIS plan budgets for formal the Bill that further increase demands on

supports. Anecdotally, these expectations are already applied parents, families, and other informal unevenly among informal supporters of NDIS participants. supporters through reductions in plan Additionally, this unpaid work disproportionately falls to women budgets if someone in a person’s life can across our society. be deemed responsible for providing a support. Instead, it should require the

Extra demands are likely to encourage some parents, families, Federal Government to undertake a and other informal supporters to step away altogether, which will specific independent review of what are mean the NDIS will need to cover additional costs of formal

www.purpleorange.org.au 12

Submission 325

support. It could also increase demand for public guardianship reasonable expectations of informal arrangements and the number of young people with disability supports, how these can be applied fairly, being placed in aged care facilities; both of which are examples of what legislative provisions would best cost shifting. There is no indication that the impact of this change support positive outcomes for participants has been modelled to determine whether there will be any overall and informal supporters, and how to cost saving, let alone to better understand the effect on families. mitigate consequences that simply shift responsibilities and costs away from the • While the ordinary demands and expectations of parenting are NDIS. cited as a justification in relation to children, the Bill fails to consider whole-of-family needs, for example when parents have multiple children with disability. Given media reporting of multiple cases of filicide involving children with disability in Australia this year, the risks cannot be overstated and, therefore, the potential consequences need thorough scrutiny.

Ministerial            • The new power for the minister of the day to set maximum funding  Recommendation 21: The Federal

maximum funding      amounts, support levels, and/or worker-to-participant ratios within   Parliament should remove the ministerial

amount or support      plans will significantly reduce the tailoring of supports to individual  power to set maximum funding amounts

level determinations    needs and could have serious consequences for participant safety  and levels for supports in NDIS plans

and wellbeing. These determinations will hamper the capacity of from the Bill, or, at a minimum, amend the Scheme to respond when a participant experiences a sudden provisions in the Bill to ensure there is a change of circumstances or crisis because there will be much less mechanism to respond to the individual scope to make individually tailored support decisions. needs of a participant experiencing a sudden change in circumstances or

Ministerial setting of arbitrary ratios is particularly problematic crisis. because these depend on there being other participants with the same ratio and similar needs in the same location to access Recommendation 22: The Federal support together. In locations with lower population densities, Parliament should remove the ministerial

www.purpleorange.org.au 13

Submission 325

making support arrangements that match a one-size-fits-all power to set worker-to-participant ratios requirement may be very difficult. Indeed, we emphasise that for supports in NDIS plans from the Bill ratios for NDIS supports have always undermined core tenets of because these decisions require the Scheme to enable individual choice and control, circumstantial nuance rather than one independence, and inclusion. size-fits all requirements.

Ministerial            • The new power for the minister of the day to determine a         Recommendation 23: The Federal

support budget         percentage by which all Old Framework Plan budgets for a group   Parliament should remove the ministerial

determinations           of supports will be reduced for all, or a specific cohort of,          power to reduce Old Framework Plan

participants is extremely broad. There is no way of knowing how budgets for a group of supports by a this could be applied in the future or what the consequences will nominated percentage because it be. The recent delay in the commencement of New Framework constitutes legislative overreach and Planning underscores that the period of time during which Old unacceptably expands ministerial Framework Plans continue to be used could be much longer than power. is currently stated. Additionally, the timing of New Framework Recommendation 24: If proceeding with Planning for participants under 18 is yet to be determined with no the ministerial power to reduce support appropriate assessment tool that can be used for children budgets, the Federal Parliament should, identified and tested. at a minimum, change the maximum

The power allows cuts of up to 100 per cent meaning a minister percentage to 30 per cent and strengthen will be able to effectively remove an entire group of supports from the safety constraint requiring decisions the Scheme simply by cutting all budgets by the highest to protect participants from harm. To be percentage allowable. If there is no intention to use the power in clear, a minister should not have the this way, the Bill could state a lower percentage, for example 30 power to effectively eliminate support per cent. Hence, the consequences of naming 100 per cent in the groups from the Scheme using a 100 Bill needs to be thoroughly scrutinised. Any power to remove an per cent budget reduction determination.

www.purpleorange.org.au 14

Submission 325

entire group of supports should be reserved for Federal Recommendation 25: If proceeding with Parliament and not the arbitrary action of one minister. the ministerial power to reduce support budgets, the Federal Parliament should • The requirement that a minister must have “regard for” the safety require the Federal Government to of participants when making a determination is ill-defined and redesign how it will be implemented to unclear. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that to “have ensure it treats all participants equally regard for” simply means to “consider”, which does not require any and that all individual plans clearly state change of a decision even if there are consequences for the accurate amount of funding available participant safety. Safety is also not defined and no threshold is for use to avoid confusion. applied. It is an extremely weak constraint on the use of this new broad ministerial power.

Applying percentage cuts to plan budgets that come into effect on or after a particular date will result in very different treatment of participants based solely on a date, not on need or circumstances. This ignores the principle that all like cases should be treated alike and will result in a “calendar lotto” of unequal and unfair outcomes.
A ministerial determination will not alter what is written in individual plans. As such, plans continue to state the original budget amount for the support even though a designated percentage of this budget cannot be used. This will be confusing for participants and providers and likely lead to an increase in overspends and unpaid invoices.
The current minister has given different explanations about how, and to what extent, the new support determination power will be used. Support groups mentioned include assistance with social,

www.purpleorange.org.au 15

Submission 325

economic, and community participation; capacity building for improved daily living skills; and intermediary support types, while percentage cuts range from 10 to 50 per cent. The strongest indication is that the Minister intends to cut social and community participation support budgets, but by how much is unclear: 30 per cent was stated in April while 50 per cent is used in the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum. This only adds to the confusion and suspicion about the measure and the Federal Government’s future intentions.

Cutting social and     • The Federal Government’s intention to use the new support       Recommendation 26: The Federal

community             determination power to cut social and community participation     Government should not cut NDIS budgets

participation            support budgets is the clearest indication of what is intended using  for assistance with social, economic, and

budgets                the new support determination power. As emphasised above, this   community participation in light of the

contradicts the original intent of the NDIS, which was to advance high risk of perverse consequences and Australians with disability into good ordinary lives in community. likelihood of cost shifting to other areas of The NDIS is not, and was never meant to be, just a “care” public expenditure. Scheme. This cut is likely to result in increased social Recommendation 27: The Federal isolation, loneliness, family estrangements, and mental ill- Government should focus its attention on health. It will also simply shift costs to other government services genuinely co-designing reforms that will over the medium to long term. address the poor quality of participation

Disability organisations have raised concerns about the quality of supports, including stronger participant- some participation supports for years. But blanket funding centred workforce expectations, better reductions will not improve quality or get workers off their phones. training and supervision, more accessible Poor-quality support, including worker disengagement from complaints pathways, and stronger participants, is a serious quality and safety issue. Nothing in this oversight of providers. It should establish

www.purpleorange.org.au 16

Submission 325

reform addresses this everyday participant experience. Budget a robust evaluation framework for the cuts will not improve the capability, attentiveness, or accountability outcomes of participation supports and of the workforce. Reforms need to focus on improving quality, implement this regularly. including stronger participant-centred workforce expectations, Recommendation 28: Members of the better training and supervision, more accessible complaints Federal Parliament and Federal pathways, and stronger oversight of providers engaged in unsafe Government should reengage with the and/or low-quality support practices. Shut Out report and take the time to

The landmark Shut Out report that preceded the creation of the properly understand the original intent of NDIS sets out the costs and consequences of exclusion. It the NDIS to advance Australians with demonstrates that what is currently being mischaracterised as the disability into good ordinary lives in cost of social and community inclusion supports under the NDIS is community – that is, not shut out and actually the cost of continuing to exclude many Australians excluded. To be clear, the NDIS is not, with disability from so much of our communities, economy, and was never intended to be, just a and society. Community attitudes and inaccessible environments “care” Scheme. create exclusion. When people are shut out of ordinary community life, inclusion requires funded support. It is not a discretionary support category.
Inclusion creates many opportunities in our society and enables everyone to participate in social, cultural, economic, civic, and community life. This enriches our communities and boosts economic activity. People with disability bring valuable and often unique perspectives to problems and to life. Research demonstrates that diverse workplaces perform better than those that lack diversity and this principle applies more broadly.

www.purpleorange.org.au 17

Submission 325

Participants in regional, rural, and remote locations may face heightened impacts of cutting supports where transport barriers and limited local opportunities already reduce participation.

Cut intermediaries • We wrote extensively about ways to deliver much needed reforms Recommendation 29: The Federal

funding to intermediaries and navigation supports in our submission to the Government should not cut NDIS budgets

NDIS Review and our recommendations continue to be relevant. for intermediaries, especially support Again, simply cutting budgets avoids the detailed policy work that coordination given the high safety and is required to make genuine changes that address the underlying wellbeing risks for some participants. problems and prevalent conflicts of interest. Restricting plan Recommendation 30: The Federal managers from providing other supports in the Bill addresses just Government should focus its attention on one aspect of the current problem. Defining clear intermediary genuinely co-designing reforms to roles without conflicts and duplication will deliver cost savings, as intermediary roles to address underlying well as better outcomes for participants. We have been problems and prevalent conflicts of disappointed by the lack of progress in this reform work since the interest. Review reported in 2023.

While we await sensible reforms, it is critical that intermediary supports are not cut, especially for support coordination. Support coordination is only funded for some participants, typically those with more complex support needs. It can be essential for people with limited informal supports, psychosocial disability, or difficulty navigating an increasingly complex Scheme. Reducing it will present a safety and wellbeing risk for some participants.

Restriction on plan • The current practice of plan rollovers has played a significant role Recommendation 31: The Federal

reassessments in increasing the demand for reassessments. When scheduled Parliament should amend the Bill to

www.purpleorange.org.au 18

Submission 325

reviews do not happen, sometimes many years in a row, the require plans to be reviewed in line with chances that a participant will need to apply for a reassessment their end date. This allows the impact of increases. Originally, it was intended that every plan would be current supports to be evaluated and the reviewed at its end but process and workload issues at the NDIA next plan to be tailored accordingly. Note, resulted in the introduction of what we understood at the time to end dates vary depending on the duration be a temporary measure of automatic plan rollovers. Like many of the plan and this would determine temporary measures where underlying causes are never review frequency: plans with capacity addressed, it became a permanent practice. The Bill makes building supports and therapies should automatic plan rollovers without consulting the participant even have a one-year duration and then be more likely; it simply designates them as “new” plans for legal evaluated, while plans focused on core reasons. Therefore, the underlying cause of the problem is still not supports should have a two or three-year addressed. duration and then be reviewed.

Plans should be reviewed at their end date because this enables Recommendation 32: The Federal a full evaluation of the effectiveness and outcomes of Parliament should amend provisions in supports, particularly those intended to produce transformational the Bill that reduce the flexibility and benefits for participants, for example capacity building supports timeliness of plan reassessments to and therapies. To not regularly carry out a comprehensive ensure there is a mechanism to respond evaluation of the benefits and progress achieved through these to the individual needs of a participant supports in order to tailor the participant’s next plan accordingly is experiencing a sudden change in irresponsible, yet it has become a standard practice. This is a circumstances or crisis. The Bill should contributing factor to Scheme inflation. Note, we acknowledge this also be amended to ensure support is less important for core supports like daily living, although even coordinators continue to be able to make these should be evaluated from time to time. However, this can be this request at least until there is sensible accommodated through setting a plan’s duration to three years. In reform to intermediary roles. other words, plans intended to produce transformational benefits through capacity building supports and therapies can have a

www.purpleorange.org.au 19

Submission 325

duration of one year enabling effective evaluation at that end date, while plans that are focused on core supports can have a duration of three years allowing reviews to occur less frequently.

Only allowing plan reassessments for significant and ongoing changes in support needs presents clear safety and wellbeing risks when a temporary change of circumstances arises. One such example would be an ageing parent or informal caregiver having their own short-term medical needs that temporarily disrupts a participant’s support routine. By not providing flexibility for timely plan reassessments, there will be a strong incentive to maximise permanent support elements in plans to avoid any chance of disruption, which would have the perverse consequence of inflating plan costs.
Restricting requests for plan reassessments to participants, plan nominees, and parents of child participants will significantly disadvantage participants with lower capacity for self-advocacy and without active informal supporters, such as parents, who can step into this role. Removing the ability for support coordinators to make a request for a plan reassessment on behalf of a participant is likely to be particularly detrimental. Participants with budgets for support coordination usually have more complex support needs and/or circumstances.
Disability support needs are dynamic. They can change due to ageing carers, housing changes, burnout, relationship breakdown, workforce participation changes, and episodic mental ill-health. There is no justification for targeting participants’ genuine

www.purpleorange.org.au 20

Submission 325

Fraud has been part of the Government’s public narrative for and process are fit for purpose and able several years now. If risks are significant and well understood, to protect the integrity of the Scheme. obvious questions remain about why key design and oversight Recommendation 36: The Federal fixes have not occurred sooner. It is likely that much of the waste Government should publicly release the actually arises from poor NDIA systems and processes, which are Fraud Fusion Taskforce’s research about the responsibility of the Federal Government to fix. eight design flaws and seven building
The Fraud Fusion Taskforce has identified eight design flaws and blocks for NDIS reform, together with an seven building blocks for reform and this research is used to explanation of how the proposed reforms justify reform. As these characteristics do not appear to be publicly respond to each. available, it is impossible to assess whether the measures in the Bill align with these.

Digital payment • A modern digital payment system is long overdue and should Recommendation 37: The Federal

system improve integrity, transparency, and fraud detection. However, if Government should ensure the design

implementation is rushed or underfunded, the system is likely to and rollout of the digital payment system have bugs and may create unnecessary disruption for participants is adequately resourced and supported and providers. by an implementation timeframe sufficient for successful integration in the NDIA.

Minister to make      • The NDIS Review recommended responsibility for setting NDIS    Recommendation 38: The Federal

pricing decisions        pricing be transferred from the NDIA to the Independent Health     Parliament should remove the

and Aged Care Pricing Authority (IHACPA) to remove the ministerial power to make pricing Agency’s conflict of interest in keeping prices low. Instead, the Bill decisions from the Bill because it gives the power to set prices to the minister of the day. While we constitutes legislative overreach and did not support transferring the pricing power to IHACPA due to unacceptably expands ministerial the fundamentally different nature of pricing disability supports power without addressing the conflict

www.purpleorange.org.au 22

Submission 325

effective outcomes over the medium and long term. To date, too markets in regional, rural, and remote much provider regulation has involved ineffective tick-and-flick areas. processes and desktop audits, therefore getting the design right should be given greater attention than simply debating which providers are covered when. There must be robust measures to improve quality and safety in closed settings and for high-risk supports.

At the same time, regulation must be proportionate. Overly rigid and burdensome requirements could reduce participant choice, harm smaller community-led providers, and worsen thin markets, especially in regional, rural, and remote areas.
The future of participant self-management continues to be unclear and should be clarified. So far, information shared about the notion of registering as a self-directed participant and what that would mean for providers has been confusing.

Establish panels of • Although a broader application has been discussed, the Bill only Recommendation 40: The Federal

approved providers applies the requirement for a deed of arrangement to plan Government should ensure the approach

managers, meaning that it appears the creation of a panel of of establishing panels of approved approved providers will only be implemented for plan providers for NDIS support types does management, at least in the short term. not adversely impact smaller, local, and specialist organisations while

Although our concern about the risk of panel arrangements encouraging market domination by large favouring large providers at the expense of smaller, local, and operators, thereby reducing choice and specialist organisations is more relevant to other types of support, competition, and inflating costs over the especially support coordination, it should be addressed within all medium to long term.

www.purpleorange.org.au 24

Submission 325

incentives, thin markets, inadequate oversight, and similar inadequate oversight, and similar problems. problems.