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
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
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
.
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.
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 | Government should honour its oft-stated |
| 1: Roadmap with aspects of the Bill before it is passed into law as an ordinary part commitment to genuinely co-design | ||
| timelines and of good governance and policymaking processes, and to avoid changes to the NDIS with the disability | ||
| consultation adverse outcomes. We reiterate that after-the-fact consultation is community and, to support this, the | ||
| requirements for all not a substitute for sufficient consultation on this Bill. Department of Health, Disability, and | ||
| reforms after the Bill Ageing should develop a roadmap to | ||
| • Passing this Bill before genuine co-design and consultation has enable appropriately sequenced co- | ||
| passes occurred will limit options in the detailed design phase that is design and consultation requirements for | ||
| required to implement reforms. As reforms cannot be implemented all NDIS reforms and legislation. | ||
| until that development work is done, there is no justification for | ||
| rushing this Bill through Federal Parliament – it is neither ready, | ||
| nor urgent. |
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 don “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.
Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
Recommendation 3: Role of state and territory governments
-
State and territory governments have a crucial responsibility as partners in the operation of the Scheme under the NDIS Act. This should be maintained and not undermined through unjustified expansions of the powers of the Federal Minister.
-
State and territory governments should step up their endeavours to ensure they fulfil their commitments to people with disability, 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 4: The Bill be passed
- Given the detailed design work that is still required before the implementation of the proposed reforms, there is no justification for rushing this Bill through Federal Parliament – it is neither ready, nor urgent.
Amendments agreed in House of Representatives (including deal between Labor and Greens parties)
Automated decision making and artificial intelligence
- We support the minor amendment to require the NDIA to publish some information about how automation is to be used in Scheme procedures on its website. Nevertheless, this amendment does
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.
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 e 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
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 to plan suspension. to take proactive steps to satisfy itself of the safety and wellbeing of any medium- term uncontactable participant, including to make a referral to law enforcement authorities regarding a potential missing person when necessary.
- However, we remain concerned that in circumstances where all attempts under this requirement are unsuccessful in contacting a participant over several months, the focus continues to be on removing the participant from the Scheme rather than on their 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.
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 unnecessary change. The concerns the sector has raised about these provisions would be better addressed in transitional arrangements that still enable the intended objective to be achieved in the medium term. We do not support this amendment.
Transitional rules
- Shortening how long a minister has to make some transitional rules from 12 months to six months (but not the duration for which the rules apply) is, at best, insignificant, or, at worst, likely to result Recommendation 49: The Senate should amend the Bill to reverse the overreach of ministerial powers inherent 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 independent review
- We welcome the inclusion of a requirement to add provisions in this Bill to the 2029 statutory review of amendments to the NDIS Act 2013 made in 2024.
- We are concerned that the requirement for independence is not defined. The previous 2023 review was not independent of either federal or state and territory governments. The review was 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
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
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.
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Cutting participant numbers to 600,000 | • This effectively makes the NDIS a capped Scheme rather than one that responds to genuine need. It is a fundamental shift in the character of the NDIS and does not align with the original intent. • The full modelling that underpins the target of 600,000 has not been released publicly and the Federal Government has not identified who will exit the Scheme and/or not join it in the future to achieve this cap. Given there were flaws in the 2011 Productivity Commission modelling that understated the extent of unmet need and of low-quality underfunded state and territory services, we have a significant concern that mistakes could be repeated. • Cutting participant numbers does not address the problems cited to justify reforms; indeed, it avoids the detailed policy work that is required to fix problems in the NDIS. The focus should be on operational, system, process, and quality improvements, as well as reducing unnecessary Scheme complexity, which is invariably |
Recommendation 1: The Federal Government should urgently reconsider its current reform approach and withdraw this Bill. Instead, it should honour its oft-stated commitment to genuinely co-design changes to the NDIS with the disability community. Reforms should address the underlying causes of problems rather than make arbitrary cuts and enable ministerial overreach in the operation of the Scheme, which will move it further away from its original intent. |
Recommendation 2: The Federal
Government should immediately release
the comprehensive modelling and |
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 and matched to appropriate supports due to increased understanding, recognition, and diagnosis of disability; rising inequality; and ageing carers, among others.
- 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. This is a particular concern regarding regional, rural, and remote locations where there are already a lack of quality services and the roll out of alternatives will take longer than in metropolitan areas.
Government should release detailed information and timelines regarding the roll out of alternative supports, including Foundational Supports, and plans for how it will make mainstream supports and
Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
- The detailed design work for alternative supports has not been services fully accessible and inclusive of 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 dollars allocated to Foundational Supports other than Thriving Kids will be invested and what the roll out timelines will be.
Recommendation 6: The Federal Government should commit to investing in the Inclusive Communities Fund over the long term and not as a one-off measure. It should also ensure the details of the Fund are genuinely co-designed with the disability community.
- Little information is known about the Inclusive Communities Fund
onther 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
Recommendation 7: The Federal Government should make a substantial increased investment in the Disability Peer Support and Connections (DPSC) program to reflect its intent for people with disability to access supports outside the NDIS.
- As the NDIS Review pointed out, what the Productivity 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
Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
seek individual NDIS plans – the very thing the Federal removed from the NDIS on the basis that 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 timelines should be tailored to local contexts supports, as well as delaying costs until a person reaches crisis especially where there are thinner point when their needs will be greater and costs higher. Cost markets, such as in regional, rural, and impacts should be considered in a holistic and long-term way; not remote areas. through a misleading short-term budget savings lens.
- 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 generally inclusive and not perpetuate or Fund. There is a risk that more people with disability will be genuine inclusion. This outcome would be highly detoured into segregated, often purposeless, day programs where audit and accountability measures must they only interact with other people with disability. This is underpin all supports provided under exclusion, not genuine inclusion. This outcome would be highly Foundational Supports, including Thriving Detrimental for people with disability, set back progress that has Kids, the Inclusive Communities Fund, already been made toward creating a more inclusive Australia, and the Disability Peer Support and and increase costs over the long term, especially given this Connections (DPSC) program to ensure approach will be increasingly untenable as community attitudes genuine inclusion. ccontinue 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.
Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
Risks of automated decision making and artificial intelligence
-
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.
-
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 serious consequences for the safety and wellbeing of participants, as well as for trust and confidence in the NDIA and Governments. The push for automated decision making and artificial intelligence is also exacerbating fear and anxiety about the current reform agenda, as demonstrated in frequent references to “roboplanning” and comparisons to the Robodebt scandal and current crisis regarding Support at Home program for older Australians.
-
Authorising the use of artificial intelligence and automated technologies within this Bill for hypothetical future use is also highly problematic. The impact of getting these technologies wrong or using them in ways for which they are unsuitable, means it is critically important that policymaking about them only occurs with full knowledge of the context and circumstances at that time. Otherwise, risks will be overlooked, including, but not limited to, illegal decisions, algorithmic bias and opacity, absence of procedural fairness, and lack of human oversight.
Recommendation 11: The Federal Parliament should remove all provisions related to the use of artificial intelligence and automated technologies for decision making from the Bill in recognition of the fact that current technologies are not capable of these functions. Future use should be considered at that time in light of the prevailing knowledge, context, and circumstances. This is essential to protect the safety and wellbeing of participants.
Recommendation 12: The Federal Government should genuinely co-design a framework governing the use of artificial intelligence in the NDIS. This should include robust measures for human oversight, transparency, data privacy protections, and an independent overarching “watchdog” mechanism.
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 as far as possible from assessments of functional capacity will 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 people with disability.
Recommendation 14: The Federal Parliament should ensure all aspects of the Bill reflect the Social Model of Disability and not outdated medical, charity, or similar conceptualisations of disability.
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 general 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 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.
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
The 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.
varying interpretations of how this applies in practice. Recommendation 17: The Federal
- While the current availability provision for treatment has been The 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.
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.
- Notwithstanding this, the delay raises questions about how well the assessment (including the Instrument for the Classification and Assessment of Support Needs [I-CAN v6], the Personal and Environmental Circumstances Questionnaire [PECQ], and targeted assessment processes or tools that will vary by participant) is working in trials and adds to anecdotal concerns already being raised in the disability community about the capacity of this approach to deliver sound outcomes. There needs to be additional transparency about the trial process and results to ensure the new approach will be fit for purpose and not discriminatory toward any disability type, including, but not limited to, psychosocial disability,
Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
ensure there is community confidence in the future neurodivergence, and fluctuating or 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 disabilities for medical conditions, and any interaction of other 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 Without sufficient safeguards, this change could have similar. Without sufficient safeguards, this change could have serious consequences for participants who could be unable to serious consequences for participants who could be unable to access crucial supports they rely on.
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 general 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
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 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
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 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 determination. Bill needs to be thoroughly scrutinised. Any power to remove an determination. en tire 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.
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, 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.
Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
Scheme. This cut is likely to result in increased social Recommendation 27: The Federal Government should focus its attention on genuinely co-designing reforms that will address the poor quality of participation supports, including stronger participant-centred workforce expectations, better training and supervision, more accessible complaints pathways, and stronger oversight of providers. It should establish a robust evaluation framework for the outcomes of participation supports and implement this regularly.
-
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 reform addresses this everyday participant experience. Budget cuts will not improve the capability, attentiveness, or accountability of the workforce. Reforms need to focus on improving quality, including stronger participant-centred workforce expectations, better training and supervision, more accessible complaints pathways, and stronger oversight of providers engaged in unsafe and/or low-quality support practices.
-
The landmark Shut Out report that preceded the creation of the NDIS sets out the costs and consequences of exclusion. It demonstrates that what is currently being mischaracterised as the cost of social and community inclusion supports under the NDIS is actually the cost of continuing to exclude many Australians with disability from so much of our communities, economy, 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.
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
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
safety and wellbeing risks for some participants.
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
Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
It can be essential for people 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 reassessments
-
The current practice of plan rollovers has played a significant role in increasing the demand for reassessments. When scheduled reviews do not happen, sometimes many years in a row, the chances that a participant will need to apply for a reassessment increases. Originally, it was intended that every plan would be reviewed at its end but process and workload issues at the NDIA resulted in the introduction of what we understood at the time to be a temporary measure of automatic plan rollovers. Like many temporary measures where underlying causes are never addressed, it became a permanent practice. The Bill makes automatic plan rollovers without consulting the participant even more likely; it simply designates them as “new” plans for legal reasons. Therefore, the underlying cause of the problem is still not addressed.
-
Plans should be reviewed at their end date because this enables a full evaluation of the effectiveness and outcomes of supports, particularly those intended to produce transformational benefits for participants, for example capacity building supports and therapies. To not regularly carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the benefits and progress achieved through these supports in order to tailor the participant’s next plan accordingly is experiencing a sudden change in
Recommendation 31: The Federal Parliament should amend the Bill to require plans to be reviewed in line with their end date. This allows the impact of current supports to be evaluated and the next plan to be tailored accordingly. Note, end dates vary depending on the duration of the plan and this would determine review frequency: plans with capacity building supports and therapies should have a one-year duration and then be evaluated, while plans focused on core supports should have a two or three-year duration and then be reviewed.
Recommendation 32: The Federal Parliament should amend provisions in the Bill that reduce the flexibility and timeliness of plan reassessments to ensure there is a mechanism to respond to the individual needs of a participant
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. in 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
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 review and appeal decisions
- The Bill significantly reduces the rights of participants to reviews and appeals when there are mistakes in their plan or they believe an incorrect decision has been made. This follows a concerning trend that has developed over recent years whereby an ever-increasing number of decision types are deemed to be non-reviewable decisions. The intention to reduce the amount and costs of reviews and appeals would be better achieved through improving the NDIA’s processes and making sure plans are accurate and fit for purpose in the first place.
Payments and pricing
Continuation of fraud and waste problems
- Fraud must be addressed, particularly where organised exploitation harms participants and undermines the Scheme. However, reports indicate fraud rates may be comparable to other major public systems, such as Medicare. The Federal Government should publish clear evidence-based information about the nature, scale, and sources of NDIS fraud
Submission 325 - Supplementary Submission
Government should be precise and transparent about the and waste, as well as comparisons with other similar systems, such as Medicare, to better inform the public debate about reforms.
Recommendation 35: The Federal Government should focus significant attention on ensuring the NDIA’s systems and process are fit for purpose and able to protect the integrity of the Scheme.
-
Fraud has been part of the Government’s public narrative for
some years now. If risks are significant and well understood,
obvious questions remain about why key design and oversight
faxes have not occurred sooner. It is likely that much of the waste
is actually arising from poor NDIA systems and processes, which are
the responsibility of the Federal Government to fix. -
The Fraud Fusion Taskforce has identified eight design flaws and
seven building blocks for reform and this research is used to
justify reform. As these characteristics do not appear to be publicly
explanation of how the proposed reforms respond to each.
Digital payment
System • A modern digital payment system is long overdue and should
Recommendation 37: The Federal
Government should ensure the design
and rollout of the digital payment system
is adequately resourced and supported
by an implementation timeframe sufficient
for successful integration in the NDIA.
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 either 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
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.
- Despite numerous consultations conducted by various agencies over the past couple of years, work on provider registration continues to be disjointed and ad hoc. Investing time and effort in genuinely co-designing a holistic, fit-for-purpose registration system with clear, proportionate requirements that can be implemented for the whole NDIS market.
It should include robust measures to lift quality and safety without burdensome requirements that impact smaller community-led providers, or worsen thin markets in regional, rural, and remote areas.
To date, too 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.
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 generic text 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 generic text 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
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 together with dysfunction, or even failure. However, this is not evidence that transparent market stewardship strategy the other participants have too much choice or that support budgets should for the NDIS that addresses poor provider recommendations be cut. Instead, a coherent market stewardship approach is quality, perverse incentives, thin markets, included on page needed: one that addresses poor provider quality, perverse inadequate oversight, and similar 37 of this document incentives, thin markets, inadequate oversight, and similar problems.