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

tsame 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.

Contact us

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 dollars allocated to Foundational Supports other than Thriving Kids 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 will be.

Little information is known about the Inclusive Communities Fund other than the commitment of $200 million over three years. It is unclear whether this will be a one-off measure that ends after three years. To be clear, a one-off measure will simply delay the full impact of cuts rather than provide genuine alternative options over the medium to long term. It is also unclear why this funding is being invested in a new grant program rather than boosting the Disability Peer Support and Connections (DPSC) program, which is replacing the Information, Linkages, and Capacity Building (ILC) program from July 2027. The Federal Government needs to provide clarity about these matters and commit to genuinely co-designing the details of the new Inclusive Communities Fund.
As the NDIS Review pointed out, what the Productivity Commission originally envisaged as “tier 2” supports have been chronically underfunded. Funding for the DPSC program is equivalent to about 1 per cent of NDIS expenditure and this is symptomatic of policy settings driving people with disability to seek individual NDIS plans – the very thing the Federal Government now considers to be out of control.
There is a significant risk that removing participants from the NDIS will not result in overall cost savings – it will simply shift costs to other government systems like hospitals and mental health supports, as well as delaying costs until a person reaches crisis point when their needs will be greater and costs higher. Cost transition timelines should be tailored to local contexts.

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 through Foundational Supports and/or the Inclusive Communities Fund. There is a risk that more people with disability will be funnelled into segregated, often purposeless, day programs where they only interact with other people with disability. This is exclusion, not genuine inclusion. This outcome would be highly detrimental for people with disability, set back progress that has already been made toward creating a more inclusive Australia, increase costs over the long term, especially given this approach will be increasingly untenable as community attitudes continue to change. Evidence to the Disability Royal Commission also demonstrated that segregated, congregated, and closed settings involve higher rates of violence, abuse, neglect, and 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 Government should cancel NDIA job cuts at least until all targets in the Participant Service Guarantee are being consistently met and participants receive timely and appropriate resolution of their matters. and artificial intelligence
Artificial intelligence and other automated technologies will be used not just for routine administrative tasks but for decision making despite there being little to no evidence to support the efficacy of these for this purpose. Given the impact of these decisions on people’s lives are immense, this risks very Recommendation 11: The Federal Parliament should remove all provisions

Submission 325

New definition of • Excluding a person’s environmental and personal circumstances
Recommendation 13: The Federal Parliament should amend the Bill to include, not exclude, the impact of a person’s environmental and personal circumstances in the definition of functional capacity to ensure the “whole person” is considered per the intent of the Scheme. It should thoroughly examine how provisions in the Bill could lead to unequal and unfair outcomes and address these.

As the Social Model of Disability describes, people are disabled by barriers in their environment; not by “impairments” in isolation of the environment, as the outdated Medical Model would suggest.

What matters is a person’s functional capacity to, for example, have a shower using the only shower available to them in real life; ot some other theoretical shower, especially if the real-world
shower is inaccessible while the theoretical shower is imagined to
be more accessible. Stripping away context to impose one-size-
fits-all gatekeeping on the NDIS risks the wellbeing and safety of
persons with disability.

The greatest impact of excluding considerations of environmental and personal circumstances will be on participants for whom these
realities are the furthest from the theoretical ideal; in other words,
inotherwords, people experiencing low socio-economic circumstances. To
extend the shower example, a person living in a modern well-
appointed house is more likely to have a shower that is sufficiently
sufficiently accessible to ensure they have the functional capacity to shower
independently. But if the same person is relegated to, say, an old
rundown public housing rental with an inaccessible shower-over-
bath combination, they may no longer have the functional capacity
to shower independently.

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.

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 treatment requirements 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.

Submission 325

Narrowing of reasonable and necessary supports

Currently, supports can be funded if the need arises from a disability for which a participant is eligible for the NDIS. This will become “directly” arises from in order to tighten what supports can be funded.
The Bill will also remove reference to environmental factors, medical conditions, and any interaction of other disabilities for which a participant is not eligible. Again, this focuses on removing participants from their real-world context and no longer considering the “whole person”. Disability is experienced holistically, not through isolated diagnostic silos. This reform may 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 families and other informal supporters

The Bill increases the reliance on parents, families, and other informal supporters to provide unpaid supports for participants with the intention of reducing NDIS plan budgets for formal supports. Anecdotally, these expectations are already applied unevenly among informal supporters of NDIS participants.

Additionally, this unpaid work disproportionately falls to women across our society.

Extra demands are likely to encourage some parents, families, and other informal supporters to step away altogether, which will mean the NDIS will need to cover additional costs of formal

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, supports, how these can be applied fairly, the number of young people with disability
being placed in aged care facilities; both of which are examples of what legislative provisions would best reasonable expectations of informal supports, how these can be applied fairly, 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 reasoning about 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.

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

Submission 325

Recommendation 25: If proceeding with the ministerial power to reduce support budgets, the Federal Parliament should

The requirement that a minister must have “regard for” the safety of participants when making a determination is ill-defined and unclear. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that to “have” regard for simply means to “consider”, which does not require any change of a decision even if there are consequences for participant safety. Safety is also not defined and no threshold is 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,

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 determination power to cut social and community participation support budgets is the clearest indication of what is intended using for assistance with social, economic, and community participation in light of the high risk of perverse consequences and likelihood of cost shifting to other areas of public expenditure.

community • As emphasised above, this contradicts the original intent of the NDIS, which was to advance Australians with disability into good ordinary lives in community. The NDIS is not, and was never meant to be, just a “care” Scheme. This cut is likely to result in increased social isolation, loneliness, family estrangements, and mental ill-health. It will also simply shift costs to other government services over the medium to long term.

participation
budgets
The NDIS is not, and was never meant to be, just a “care” Scheme. This cut is likely to result in increased social isolation, loneliness, family estrangements, and mental ill- health. It will also simply shift costs to other government services over the medium to long term.

Disability organisations have raised concerns about the quality of some participation supports for years. But blanket funding reductions will not improve quality or get workers off their phones. Poor-quality support, including worker disengagement from 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 outcomes of participation supports and implement this regularly. Recommendation 28: Members of the Federal Parliament and Federal Government should reengage with the Shut Out report and take the time to properly understand the original intent of the NDIS to advance Australians with disability into good ordinary lives in community – that is, not shut out and excluded. To be clear, the NDIS is not, and was never intended to be, just a “care” Scheme.

The landmark Shut Out report that preceded the creation of the
is the cost of continuing to exclude many Australians with disability from so much of our communities, economy, society. Community attitudes and inaccessible environments 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.

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 NDIS Review and our recommendations continue to be relevant. Again, simply cutting budgets avoids the detailed policy work that is required to make genuine changes that address the underlying problems and prevalent conflicts of interest. Restricting plan managers from providing other supports in the Bill addresses just one aspect of the current problem. Defining clear intermediary roles without conflicts and duplication will deliver cost savings, as well as better outcomes for participants. We have been disappointed by the lack of progress in this reform work since the 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

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

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

Submission 325

Fraud has been part of the Government’s public narrative for and process are fit for purpose and able to protect the integrity of the Scheme.

obvious questions remain about why key design and oversight Recommendation 36: The Federal Government should publicly release the Fraud Fusion Taskforce’s research about eight design flaws and seven building blocks for NDIS reform, together with an explanation of how the proposed reforms respond to each.

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

Submission 325

effective outcomes over the medium and long term. To date, too markets in regional, rural, and remote areas. much provider regulation has involved ineffective tick-and-flick 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 dealers 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

Submission 325

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