National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
Responses to the Interim Report and agreed amendments regarding 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
UPDATED - JULY 2026
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
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.
Contact us
To discuss our responses in more detail, please contact Selena Maddeford, Manager – Policy and Projects, JFA Purple Orange, on
.
104 Greenhill Road
Unley SA 5061
Telephone: + 61 (8) 8373 8388
Email: admin@purpleorange.org.au
Website: www.purpleorange.org.au
Facebook: www.facebook.com/jfapurpleorange
© 2026 Julia Farr Association Inc.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
Table 1: Additional responses – July 2026
In May 2026, we provided a comprehensive table of responses and recommendations addressing issues regarding the National Disability
Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 and the NDIS reform measures in the Federal
Budget 2026-27. Since then, the Senate Standing Legislation Committee on Community Affairs’ Inquiry has issued an Interim Report and
some amendments to the Bill have been agreed in the House of Representatives, including in a deal negotiated between the Labor and
Greens parties. In Table 1, below, we provide updated responses regarding these developments and further recommendations that
address our continued grave concerns about the consequences of the current reform approach. Our initial table of responses and 42
recommendations is included for further reference later in this document as Table 2.
Issue Commentary Additional recommendations
Interim report recommendations
Recommendation • Genuine co-design and consultation should occur regarding all Recommendation 43: The Federal 1: Roadmap with aspects of the Bill before it is passed into law as an ordinary part Government should honour its oft-stated timelines and of good governance and policymaking processes, and to avoid commitment to genuinely co-design consultation adverse outcomes. We reiterate that after-the-fact consultation is changes to the NDIS with the disability requirements for all not a substitute for sufficient consultation on this Bill. community and, to support this, the reforms after the Bill Department of Health, Disability, and • Passing this Bill before genuine co-design and consultation has passes Ageing should develop a roadmap to occurred will limit options in the detailed design phase that is enable appropriately sequenced co- required to implement reforms. As reforms cannot be implemented design and consultation requirements for until that development work is done, there is no justification for all NDIS reforms and legislation. rushing this Bill through Federal Parliament – it is neither ready, nor urgent.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
• We support the development of a roadmap of comprehensive co- design and consultation activities that should encompass all policy design elements and legislative steps.
Recommendation • The disability community is highlighting genuine problems about Recommendation 44: The Committee 2: Add more the content of the Bill. Adding more information to the Explanatory should withdraw Recommendation 2 of clarifying Memorandum, which, together with supplementary and addendum the Interim Report and acknowledge that information to the documents, already runs to more than 300 pages, does not adding more information to an Explanatory substitute for fixing flaws in the Bill. As others have stated, the Explanatory Memorandum does not Memorandum disability community understands the Bill and its consequences address the genuine concerns of the very well – indeed, better than most politicians – because it is disability community or the need to fix people with disability who will bear the brunt of the changes. flaws in the Bill. Instead, the Committee Responding to genuine concerns with a suggestion that people should focus its attention on fully with disability do not understand what is proposed and need extra understanding the consequences of the explanation is offensive. Bill.
• The Federal Government has repeatedly suggested that concerns raised about the Bill do not accord with the current Government’s “intent”, as described in the Explanatory Memorandum, as though the current Government and Minister are the forever government and minister. As the title of the Bill makes clear, this legislation is about the future of the Scheme and how it will operate under successive governments and ministers who will have intentions no one can possibly know at the present time. The legislation itself must be fit for purpose now and long into the future regardless of who forms government or what is written in a 2026 Explanatory Memorandum.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
Recommendation • State and territory governments have a crucial responsibility as Recommendation 45: The Committee 3: Role of state and partners in the operation of the Scheme under the NDIS Act. This should withdraw Recommendation 3 of territory should be maintained and not undermined through unjustified the Interim Report and acknowledge that governments expansions of the powers of the Federal Minister. “buck passing” to states and territories in no way negates the responsibilities of the • State and territory governments should step up their endeavours Federal Government and Federal to ensure they fulfil their commitments to people with disability, Parliament. including by addressing the current gaps in fulfilling their funding responsibilities, establishing effective Foundational Supports in their jurisdictions, and ensuring mainstream services and supports are fully inclusive and accessible.
• The required role of state and territory governments in no way reduces the Federal Government’s responsibilities to ensure reforms to the NDIS are well-designed and do no harm, as well as to enable people with disability to live good ordinary lives alongside their fellow Australians in the community.
Recommendation • Given the detailed design work that is still required before the Recommendation 46: The Committee 4: The Bill be implementation of the proposed reforms, there is no justification should withdraw Recommendation 4 of passed for rushing this Bill through Federal Parliament – it is neither the Interim Report. The Senate should ready, nor urgent. not pass this Bill.
Amendments agreed in House of Representatives (including deal between Labor and Greens parties)
Automated decision • We support the minor amendment to require the NDIA to publish See recommendations 10 to 12 below. making and artificial some information about how automation is to be used in Scheme intelligence procedures on its website. Nevertheless, this amendment does
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
not address the general lack of transparency regarding the highly impactful automatic decision making and artificial intelligence processes that the Bill enables.
• This amendment does not address the additional broader problems with this section of the Bill, including the risks of serious consequences for participant safety and wellbeing, the fact no one knows what technologies will exist in the future or how they will or will not work, and the lack of independent oversight for how the Federal Government uses automation and artificial intelligence.
Definition of • We support the amendments to clarify the definition of See Recommendations 16 and 17 below. permanence permanence and what treatments are required prior to accessing the Scheme, including to make it clear restrictive practices do not constitute “appropriate treatment”.
• However, we believe these provisions should be strengthened further, especially to address the use of the vague term “alleviate”, the potential for coercive treatments, and the exclusion of considering each person’s individual circumstances, including in relation to unreasonable costs (gap fees) and geographic availability, to ensure anything deemed to be an “appropriate treatment” is genuinely available to a person without unreasonable burden or dislocation from their community.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
Ministerial • Restricting the application of ministerial support budget See recommendations 23 to 28 below. support budget determinations to the support categories of assistance with social, determinations economic, and community participation, and/or improved daily living skills / capacity building daily activities, is a welcome improvement to the Bill.
• Creating a mechanism that may allow employment and disability- related health supports to be excluded from ministerial support budget determinations is a potential positive, although not future- proofed, improvement to the Bill. It relies on the commitment of the current Federal Government to follow through, something that may not continue in the future. It is also unclear how this will be implemented in practice, given the portion of funding within the support category that is needed for these supports is not itemised in individual plans. Applying an arbitrary percentage will not achieve the intent of the change.
• Numerous other problems remain with this section of the Bill that require significant further examination. Despite the Federal Government’s repeated insistence that a minister can only cut budgets by 99.99 per cent rather than 100 per cent, this power continues to be an overreach that will apply for an undefined period of time, especially for participants aged under 18 for whom there is currently no appropriate functional assessment tool to enable their transition to New Framework Plans. The requirement to have “regard for” participant safety is extremely weak, while the “calendar lotto” of the roll out of cuts and the confusing way in
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
which cuts will not appear in participant’s plans need to be fixed in the Bill.
Plan suspensions • We support the amendments to clarify the steps that are required Recommendation 47: The Senate and revocation of the NDIA to fulfil the “reasonable attempts” to make contact should amend the Bill to require the NDIA provision prior to a plan suspension. to take proactive steps to satisfy itself of the safety and wellbeing of any medium- • However, we remain concerned that in circumstances where all term uncontactable participant, including attempts under this requirement are unsuccessful in contacting a to make a referral to law enforcement participant over several months, the focus continues to be on authorities regarding a potential missing removing the participant from the Scheme rather than on their person when necessary. welfare. We strongly believe the NDIA should be required to proactively establish the safety and wellbeing of any participant subject to a suspension and directly advise them, or make a referral to law enforcement authorities regarding a potential missing person.
Minister to make • We support the very minor amendment to require a minister to See Recommendation 38 below. pricing decisions table the NDIA’s pricing advice, or a summary of it, in Parliament within five days. Nevertheless, this amendment does not address the general lack of transparency regarding a minister’s pricing decisions.
• It continues to be inappropriate for the price setting power to be transferred to the Federal Minister in the Bill given the obvious conflict of interest this creates.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
Plan management • The weakening of the provisions in the Bill aimed at eliminating Recommendation 48: The Senate the conflicts of interest of plan managers is a retrograde and should reverse the House of unnecessary change. The concerns the sector has raised about Representative’s amendment regarding these provisions would be better addressed in transitional plan managers’ conflicts of interest and, arrangements that still enable the intended objective to be instead, require the Federal Government achieved in the medium term. We do not support this amendment. to address the sector’s concerns through transitional arrangements that still enable the objective to be achieved in the medium term.
Transitional rules • Shortening how long a minister has to make some transitional Recommendation 49: The Senate rules from 12 months to six months (but not the duration for which should amend the Bill to reverse the the rules apply) is, at best, insignificant, or, at worst, likely to result overreach of ministerial powers inherent in their rushed development without adequate consultation. in the transitional rule provisions in the Bill. • This amendment does not address the significant overreach of federal ministerial power established in the Bill.
Statutory • We welcome the inclusion of a requirement to add provisions in Recommendation 50: The Senate independent review this Bill to the 2029 statutory review of amendments to the NDIS should amend the Bill to provide a strong Act 2013 made in 2024. definition of independence in relation to the 2029 statutory review to ensure it is • We are concerned that the requirement for independence is not conducted in a way that is genuinely defined. The previous 2023 review was not independent of either independent of all parts of the Federal federal or state and territory governments. The review was Government and Federal Parliament. conducted out of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, which is no more independent than the NDIA’s home department. The minister responsible was actively involved, including attending
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
consultation sessions with stakeholders. The Review’s secretariat included federal, state, and territory public servants, including some seconded state officials who usually worked in relevant portfolio areas, such as state disability group house services. Excluding the NDIA and home department of the NDIA is not sufficient to ensure the independence of a statutory review – a clear and accurate definition of independence is needed.
Additional comments on 50 per cent cut to social and community participation
Inclusive • Minister for Disability and the NDIS Mark Butler first mentioned the Recommendation 51: The Senate Communities Fund Inclusive Communities Fund in his National Press Club speech in should use its Inquiry extension to April as something that would offset the impact of the thoroughly reexamine the Inclusive indiscriminate arbitrary cut to all social and economic participation Communities Fund to understand its budgets. The Federal Government has since stated the Fund is a purpose and how it will be effectively separate matter. Therefore, the Committee should not consider it implemented without creating in weighing the merits of the 50 per cent cut to all social and unnecessary or wasteful duplication. This community participation budgets. should include requiring Minister Butler as the decision maker who announced • The Federal Government has created a perception in the the fund to appear as a witness. community, and among some parliamentarians per Second Reading speeches in the House of Representatives, that the Fund will deliver alternative new options directly to participants. Information on the Department’s website indicates this is not the case. It will fund capacity building for mainstream organisations. In other words, there will be no new alternative options offered to
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
replace current social and community participation supports after cuts are made from October 2026.
• The Fund is time limited to three years raising questions about the extent of impact it can have and if any change will be sustained beyond the funding period.
• Narratives about restoring previous systems to what they were prior to the introduction of the NDIS are causing anxiety and fear. Most people with disability do not consider services before 2013 as any form of “glory days” and anyone with this misunderstanding should refer to the landmark Shut Out report to dispel this myth.
• The new Fund needs to complement and work alongside existing systems. Based on the information currently available, there appears to be many overlaps between what is proposed for the new Fund and Stream 2 of the Disability Peer Support and Connections (DPSC) program, which is replacing the Information, Linkages, and Capacity Building (ILC) program from July 2027. Stream 2 is significantly underfunded compared to other streams in the DPSC program. It may be that applications (just lodged) for Stream 2 far exceed the available funding. If this is the case, the cost effectiveness of running another separate grant application process with very similar parameters as Stream 2 is low. Greater clarity about what will be different within the new Fund’s parameters is needed, otherwise the option of adding this funding to Stream 2 should be considered.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
• Broadly, the Federal Government needs to clarify the purpose of the Inclusive Communities Fund and how it fits into the broader context, including in relation to navigation supports, Foundational Supports, Thriving Kids, DPSC program streams, individual NDIS plans, and mainstream services, among other elements of the current disability support ecosystem.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
Table 2: Initial responses – May 2026
We remain extremely concerned about the problems we highlighted in our initial responses in May. The vast majority of these have not
been addressed so far. Below, we include our initial responses again and implore the Committee to thoroughly examine these within the
extended Inquiry timeframe. The Committee should make far more robust recommendations in its Final Report that address the poor
policymaking process that lies behind this Bill and the severity of its likely consequences for Australians with disability.
Proposed reform Commentary Recommendations
Scheme transformation
Cutting participant • This effectively makes the NDIS a capped Scheme rather than Recommendation 1: The Federal numbers to 600,000 one that responds to genuine need. It is a fundamental shift in the Government should urgently reconsider character of the NDIS and does not align with the original intent. its current reform approach and withdraw this Bill. Instead, it should • The full modelling that underpins the target of 600,000 has not honour its oft-stated commitment to been released publicly and the Federal Government has not genuinely co-design changes to the NDIS identified who will exit the Scheme and/or not join it in the future to with the disability community. Reforms achieve this cap. Given there were flaws in the 2011 Productivity should address the underlying causes of Commission modelling that understated the extent of unmet need problems rather than make arbitrary cuts and of low-quality underfunded state and territory services, we and enable ministerial overreach in the have a significant concern that mistakes could be repeated. operation of the Scheme, which will move • Cutting participant numbers does not address the problems cited it further away from its original intent. to justify reforms; indeed, it avoids the detailed policy work that is Recommendation 2: The Federal required to fix problems in the NDIS. The focus should be on Government should immediately release operational, system, process, and quality improvements, as well the comprehensive modelling and as reducing unnecessary Scheme complexity, which is invariably
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
much more expensive to administer than simpler straightforward assumptions underpinning its plan to cut approaches. NDIS participant numbers to 600,000 in order to enable fulsome analysis, • NDIS growth also reflects broader issues, including failures in transparency, and scrutiny. mainstream systems; underinvestment in community supports; lack of accessible housing; unmet needs finally being identified Recommendation 3: The Federal and matched to appropriate supports due to increased Government should change the way it understanding, recognition, and diagnosis of disability; rising frames debates about the NDIS to avoid inequality; and ageing carers, among others. creating further harm and stigma, and to reduce fear and anxiety for Australians • The proposed cut in participant numbers has created significant with disability. 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
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
• The detailed design work for alternative supports has not been services fully accessible and inclusive of done so there is an information void in knowing what these will be. people with disability. 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 invested and what the roll out timelines announcing a transition of participants to other support options is will be. premature. Recommendation 6: The Federal • Little information is known about the Inclusive Communities Fund Government should commit to investing other than the commitment of $200 million over three years. It is in the Inclusive Communities Fund over unclear whether this will be a one-off measure that ends after the long term and not as a one-off three years. To be clear, a one-off measure will simply delay the measure. It should also ensure the details full impact of cuts rather than provide genuine alternative options of the Fund are genuinely co-designed over the medium to long term. It is also unclear why this funding is with the disability community. being invested in a new grant program rather than boosting the Recommendation 7: The Federal Disability Peer Support and Connections (DPSC) program, which Government should make a substantial is replacing the Information, Linkages, and Capacity Building (ILC) increased investment in the Disability program from July 2027. The Federal Government needs to Peer Support and Connections (DPSC) provide clarity about these matters and commit to genuinely co- program to reflect its intent for people designing the details of the new Inclusive Communities Fund. with disability to access supports outside • As the NDIS Review pointed out, what the Productivity the NDIS. Commission originally envisaged as “tier 2” supports have been Recommendation 8: The Federal chronically underfunded. Funding for the DPSC program is Government should put in place clear equivalent to about 1 per cent of NDIS expenditure and this is provisions to ensure no participant is symptomatic of policy settings driving people with disability to
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
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 those supports are verified as • There is a significant risk that removing participants from the NDIS operational, accessible, high-quality, and will not result in overall cost savings – it will simply shift costs to sufficient to meet needs in the location other government systems like hospitals and mental health where they live. Transition timelines supports, as well as delaying costs until a person reaches crisis should be tailored to local contexts point when their needs will be greater and costs higher. Cost especially where there are thinner impacts should be considered in a holistic and long-term way; not markets, such as in regional, rural, and through a misleading short-term budget savings lens. remote areas. • Additionally, we are very concerned about a possible return to Recommendation 9: The Federal block-funded, closed-system, and/or segregated services funded Government should commit to ensuring through Foundational Supports and/or the Inclusive Communities that all alternative supports will be Fund. There is a risk that more people with disability will be genuinely inclusive and not perpetuate or funnelled into segregated, often purposeless, day programs where return to exclusionary, segregated, or they only interact with other people with disability. This is congregated service provisions. Robust exclusion, not genuine inclusion. This outcome would be highly audit and accountability measures must detrimental for people with disability, set back progress that has underpin all supports provided under already been made toward creating a more inclusive Australia, Foundational Supports, including Thriving and increase costs over the long term, especially given this Kids, the Inclusive Communities Fund, approach will be increasingly untenable as community attitudes and the Disability Peer Support and continue to change. Evidence to the Disability Royal Commission Connections (DPSC) program to ensure also demonstrated that segregated, congregated, and closed genuine inclusion. settings involve higher rates of violence, abuse, neglect, and exploitation of people with disability.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
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 serious consequences for the safety and wellbeing of related to the use of artificial intelligence participants, as well as for trust and confidence in the NDIA and and automated technologies for decision governments. The push for automated decision making and making from the Bill in recognition of the artificial intelligence is also exacerbating fear and anxiety about fact that current technologies are not the current reform agenda, as demonstrated in frequent capable of these functions. Future use references to “roboplanning” and comparisons to the Robodebt should be considered at that time in light scandal and current crisis regarding Support at Home program for of the prevailing knowledge, context, and older Australians. circumstances. This is essential to protect the safety and wellbeing of participants. • Authorising the use of artificial intelligence and automated technologies within this Bill for hypothetical future use is also Recommendation 12: The Federal highly problematic. The impact of getting these technologies Government should genuinely co-design wrong or using them in ways for which they are unsuitable, means a framework governing the use of artificial it is critically important that policymaking about them only occurs intelligence in the NDIS. This should with full knowledge of the context and circumstances at that time. include robust measures for human Otherwise, risks will be overlooked, including, but not limited to, oversight, transparency, data privacy illegal decisions, algorithmic bias and opacity, absence of protections, and an independent procedural fairness, and lack of human oversight. overarching “watchdog” mechanism.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
• All use of artificial intelligence should be subject to independent oversight and only occur in the context of a genuinely co-designed framework for how it is used, including sufficient human oversight, stringent transparency, and data privacy safeguards. Additionally, there is a need for independent regulation and monitoring, for example through an ombudsman type function.
Scheme eligibility and access
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.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
• The greatest impact of excluding considerations of environmental Recommendation 15: The Federal and personal circumstances will be on participants for whom these Government should engage the disability realities are the furthest from the theoretical ideal; in other words, community and subject matter experts in people experiencing low socio-economic circumstances. To a genuine co-design process to develop, extend the shower example, a person living in a modern well- trial, and evaluate any new eligibility appointed house is more likely to have a shower that is sufficiently Rules and assessment tool/s before accessible to ensure they have the functional capacity to shower implementation. To be clear, Rules should independently. But if the same person is relegated to, say, an old always be developed before tools; not rundown public housing rental with an inaccessible shower-over- force-fitted later. bath combination, they may no longer have the functional capacity 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.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
• 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.
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 outcomes and address these.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
those experiencing low socio-economic circumstances or 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.
• There is also a risk of coercive treatment without full consent and of treatments, such as medications, that could constitute chemical restraints and, therefore, restrictive practices.
Planning
Delay to start of • We support delaying the start of New Framework Planning to April Recommendation 18: The Federal New Framework 2027. Government should publicly release Planning evaluation data, participant feedback, and • Notwithstanding this, the delay raises questions about how well independent analysis of all aspects of the the assessment (including the Instrument for the Classification New Framework Planning assessment and Assessment of Support Needs [I-CAN v6], the Personal and trial on an ongoing basis and before Environmental Circumstances Questionnaire [PECQ], and implementation. This information should targeted assessment processes or tools that will vary by be reviewed by a lived experience panel participant) is working in trials and adds to anecdotal concerns to ensure the new approach will be fit for already being raised in the disability community about the capacity purpose and not discriminatory toward of this approach to deliver sound outcomes. There needs to be any disability type, including, but not additional transparency about the trial process and results to limited to, psychosocial disability,
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
ensure there is community confidence in the future neurodivergence, and fluctuating or implementation of the approach. episodic disability.
• We caution that standardised tools may reproduce medicalised deficits framing of disability and may fail to account for fluctuating support needs, invisible disability, masking, and various elements of diversity, such as cultural and linguistic diversity.
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.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
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 reasonable expectations of informal support. It could also increase demand for public guardianship supports, how these can be applied fairly, arrangements and the number of young people with disability what legislative provisions would best being placed in aged care facilities; both of which are examples of support positive outcomes for participants cost shifting. There is no indication that the impact of this change and informal supporters, and how to has been modelled to determine whether there will be any overall mitigate consequences that simply shift cost saving, let alone to better understand the effect on families. 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
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
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 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
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
appropriate assessment tool that can be used for children budgets, the Federal Parliament should, identified and tested. at a minimum, change the maximum percentage to 30 per cent and strengthen • The power allows cuts of up to 100 per cent meaning a minister the safety constraint requiring decisions will be able to effectively remove an entire group of supports from to protect participants from harm. To be the Scheme simply by cutting all budgets by the highest clear, a minister should not have the percentage allowable. If there is no intention to use the power in power to effectively eliminate support this way, the Bill could state a lower percentage, for example 30 groups from the Scheme using a 100 per cent. Hence, the consequences of naming 100 per cent in the per cent budget reduction Bill needs to be thoroughly scrutinised. Any power to remove an determination. entire group of supports should be reserved for Federal Parliament and not the arbitrary action of one minister. Recommendation 25: If proceeding with the ministerial power to reduce support • The requirement that a minister must have “regard for” the safety budgets, the Federal Parliament should of participants when making a determination is ill-defined and require the Federal Government to unclear. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that to “have redesign how it will be implemented to regard for” simply means to “consider”, which does not require any ensure it treats all participants equally change of a decision even if there are consequences for and that all individual plans clearly state participant safety. Safety is also not defined and no threshold is the accurate amount of funding available applied. It is an extremely weak constraint on the use of this new for use to avoid confusion. 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.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
• 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, 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.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
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 supports, including stronger participant- • Disability organisations have raised concerns about the quality of centred workforce expectations, better some participation supports for years. But blanket funding training and supervision, more accessible reductions will not improve quality or get workers off their phones. complaints pathways, and stronger Poor-quality support, including worker disengagement from oversight of providers. It should establish participants, is a serious quality and safety issue. Nothing in this a robust evaluation framework for the reform addresses this everyday participant experience. Budget outcomes of participation supports and cuts will not improve the capability, attentiveness, or accountability implement this regularly. of the workforce. Reforms need to focus on improving quality, 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 properly understand the original intent of • The landmark Shut Out report that preceded the creation of the the NDIS to advance Australians with NDIS sets out the costs and consequences of exclusion. It disability into good ordinary lives in demonstrates that what is currently being mischaracterised as the community – that is, not shut out and cost of social and community inclusion supports under the NDIS is excluded. To be clear, the NDIS is not, actually the cost of continuing to exclude many Australians and was never intended to be, just a with disability from so much of our communities, economy, “care” Scheme. and 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.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
• 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.
• 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
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
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 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
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
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 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
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
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 reassessment needs because of alleged poor behaviour or misconduct by some plan managers or support coordinators, which should instead be addressed through regulatory action.
Diminished rights to • The Bill significantly reduces the rights of participants to reviews Recommendation 33: The Federal review and appeal and appeals when there are mistakes in their plan or they believe Parliament should amend the Bill to decisions an incorrect decision has been made. This follows a concerning maintain all existing review and trend that has developed over recent years whereby an ever- appeals rights of participants. It should increasing number of decision types are deemed to be non- require the Federal Government to focus reviewable decisions. The intention to reduce the amount and on improved processes and better costs of reviews and appeals would be better achieved through decision making to reduce the amount improving the NDIA’s processes and making sure plans are and costs of these actions. accurate and fit for purpose in the first place.
Payments and pricing
Continuation of • Fraud must be addressed, particularly where organised Recommendation 34: The Federal fraud and waste exploitation harms participants and undermines the Scheme. Government should publish clear problems However, reports indicate fraud rates may be comparable to other evidence-based information about the major public systems, such as Medicare. The Federal nature, scale, and sources of NDIS fraud
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
Government should be precise and transparent about the and waste, as well as comparisons with evidence it relies on when discussing this problem because it has other similar systems, such as Medicare, been a major factor in undermining the NDIS’ social licence, which to better inform the public debate about is then cited as a reason for cuts. Fraud rhetoric should not reforms. stigmatise participants or create a culture of suspicion about Recommendation 35: The Federal legitimate disability support needs. Government should focus significant • Fraud has been part of the Government’s public narrative for attention on ensuring the NDIA’s systems several years now. If risks are significant and well understood, and process are fit for purpose and able obvious questions remain about why key design and oversight to protect the integrity of the Scheme. fixes have not occurred sooner. It is likely that much of the waste Recommendation 36: The Federal actually arises from poor NDIA systems and processes, which are Government should publicly release the the responsibility of the Federal Government to fix. Fraud Fusion Taskforce’s research about • The Fraud Fusion Taskforce has identified eight design flaws and eight design flaws and seven building seven building blocks for reform and this research is used to blocks for NDIS reform, together with an justify reform. As these characteristics do not appear to be publicly explanation of how the proposed reforms available, it is impossible to assess whether the measures in the respond to each. 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.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
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 compared to hospital, health, and institutional care services, the of interest used to justify the change. approach of giving the power to the Minister is also problematic. It Instead, it should require the Federal is not clear that the Minster has any less conflicts regarding Government to implement an alternative pricing than the Agency; indeed, arguably, a minister’s political approach that organises pricing motivations actually increase the conflict, for example to prioritise responsibilities for health, aged care, and cutting costs to prop up the Federal Budget over setting prices disability supports into two separate that reflect the true cost of high-quality supports. streams: one, an independent pricing authority for medical and health services • Pricing for health, aged care, and disability support has two in hospital, clinical, and institutional distinct parts. First, health and medical services in hospital, settings and, the other, an independent clinical, and institutional settings and, second, supports provided pricing authority for supports in non- in non-clinical settings embedded in the community and based on clinical settings embedded in the inclusion principles. A new approach to pricing should community and based on inclusion establish two separate independent price setting authorities principles. based on this distinction.
Provider regulation
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
Mandatory • Mandatory registration applies to supported independent living Recommendation 39: The Federal registration for high- (SIL) and platform providers from 1 July 2026. The Bill allows for Government should genuinely co-design risk supports other high-risk supports to be added to the registration regime, a holistic, fit-for-purpose provider although these are not defined. registration system with clear, proportionate requirements that can be • Despite numerous consultations conducted by various agencies implemented for the whole NDIS market. over the past couple of years, work on provider registration It should include robust measures to lift continues to be disjointed and ad hoc. Investing time and effort in quality and safety without burdensome genuinely co-designing a holistic, fit-for-purpose registration requirements that impact smaller system with clear requirements would be more likely to deliver community-led providers, or worsen thin 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.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
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. panel arrangements. Support provision often benefits from a provider’s local knowledge, trusted relationships, and community embeddedness.
• As emphasised above, we believe comprehensive reform of intermediaries in the NDIS should be a top priority.
New regulatory • The Bill gives new investigatory powers to the NDIA to reduce its Recommendation 41: The Federal powers for NDIA reliance on the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to investigate Parliament should not grant police-like fraud. The NDIA would gain powers of entry, search, and seizure. powers to the NDIA in this Bill and leave This raises many questions, including about the independence of this responsibility with the Australian the NDIA to conduct investigations, whether the Agency and its Federal Police (AFP). To be clear, the staff are sufficiently qualified and skilled to undertake these NDIA is best placed to administer the activities in accordance with laws of evidence and similar, and Scheme, and the AFP is best placed to what oversight will be in place. This seems to constitute a cost carry out police work. shift from the AFP to the NDIA for no clear gain. The AFP is best
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
placed to investigate fraud and criminal conduct and should receive the resources required to do this work.
Market stewardship
Problems in the • The NDIS market has never had purposeful stewardship, and this Recommendation 42: The Federal NDIS market is reflected in what is now described as market distortion, Government should develop a dysfunction, or even failure. However, this is not evidence that transparent market stewardship strategy participants have too much choice or that support budgets should for the NDIS that addresses poor provider be cut. Instead, a coherent market stewardship approach is quality, perverse incentives, thin markets, needed: one that addresses poor provider quality, perverse inadequate oversight, and similar incentives, thin markets, inadequate oversight, and similar problems. problems.