Submission 3369 — Name Withheld — NDIS Future Generations Bill

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Supporting the Future of the NDIS) Bill 2025

I support the long-term sustainability of the NDIS and recognise the need for strong reforms. There must be tighter safeguards and minimum standards to protect both the Scheme and its participants. I find the abuse of the Scheme and its vulnerable participants abhorrent. The NDIS must remain viable for future generations of Australians living with disability.

Unfortunately, weaknesses in the administration of the Scheme have contributed to waste, misuse and fraudulent practices. It is important, however, that participants engaging with the system appropriately are not adversely affected by attempts to address those issues.

My primary goal has always been to increase my child’s capacity and independence so he can live the happiest and most fulfilling life possible. Capacity building and increased independence are what will ultimately ensure the Scheme remains sustainable and funding remains available to those who genuinely require it.

My concerns are not directed at any individual NDIA employee. Whilst this submission has been prompted by a recent experience involving my son, I have attempted to focus on the broader systemic issues highlighted by that experience which I believe are directly relevant to the Committee’s consideration of this Bill.

1. Procedural fairness and participant voice Review mechanisms are critical. However, the existence of a review pathway should not remove the obligation for procedural fairness and participant consultation before significant decisions are made.

A planning process cannot be genuinely participant-centred if significant decisions are made using outdated information in the absence of consultation with participants or their representatives.

My son’s Plan was recently rolled over without consultation despite my having provided availability to participate in the review process. His voice was not represented and the Plan itself contained information that was more than five years old (when he was aged 11). Following this, I requested a Plan Change because the Plan did not accurately reflect my son’s current needs.

This process resulted in significant changes to supports and funding arrangements. At no stage were my son or I provided with an opportunity to respond to concerns that later formed part of the decision making. I was subsequently advised there had been difficulties updating contact details within NDIA systems. If this explanation is correct, it raises broader concerns regarding whether administrative system limitations may be contributing to participants being excluded from planning and review processes.

I encourage the Committee to consider whether additional safeguards are required to ensure participants and nominees are provided with genuine opportunities to contribute to plan reviews and respond to concerns before major changes are made to their plans.

2. Self-management and participant accountability Self-management can provide participants with flexibility, choice and control. However, in my

experience, very limited information is provided regarding the practical application of funding rules, support categories and participant responsibilities.

Participants are expected to navigate extensive operational and legislative documents that are often highly complex and difficult to interpret. The expectation that ordinary parents and carers can fully interpret these requirements in the absence of clear, practical guidance is unrealistic.

In my own circumstances, supports that had previously been funded and approved through both plan managed and self-managed arrangements have just been referred to as “unauthorised” and immediate repayment demanded in an informal email. The fact that identical supports claimed via both self management and plan management were approved for payment by the NDIA, highlights how difficult it can be for participants to distinguish between supports that are genuinely permissible and those that may later be questioned. Furthermore, when claims submitted through NDIA systems are processed and paid, this creates a very reasonable expectation that supports are appropriate and consistent with Scheme requirements.

During my discussion with the NDIA Planner, I queried how claims could be considered unauthorised when they had been processed and paid by the Agency. I was advised that there is ‘an element of trust involved’ in relation to claims submitted by self-managed participants.

This is simply not acceptable. A government agency managing a scheme and budget of this size and complexity MUST have robust systems, processes and safeguards rather than relying on an ‘element of trust.’

Where participants submit claims transparently and in good faith, there must be mechanisms for identifying concerns at the time claims are made rather than retrospective scrutiny years later.

The language used in these processes also warrants consideration. Terms such as ‘unauthorised purchases’ carry significant negative connotations and imply wrongdoing on the part of participants even where claims have been submitted openly, processed and paid through Agency systems and made in good faith.

If self-management is to be retained, participants require clearer education, simpler guidance, timely feedback mechanisms, greater certainty regarding approved supports and stronger safeguards to prevent participants unknowingly breaching requirements.

Reforms should strengthen accountability without creating circumstances where participants acting in good faith are retrospectively penalised for decisions made in reliance on Agency systems.

3. Choice and control In addition to equity and inclusion, the NDIS was founded upon principles of choice and control. These principles should remain central to any reform process.

Changes affecting plan management arrangements, funding levels and access to services can have immediate and distressing consequences for participants and providers. Prior to such changes being finalised, participants and/or nominees must be consulted and provided with information regarding available options.

In my recent experience, significant decisions affecting management arrangements were implemented without consultation regarding available options or provider choice. This highlighted how quickly the principles of choice and control can be diminished when administrative decisions are made without participant involvement.

The Committee should carefully consider whether the proposed reforms contain sufficient safeguards to ensure participants voice is included in decisions affecting how their supports are managed and delivered.

Participant voice should be viewed as fundamental rather than secondary to administrative efficiency.

4. Early intervention The NDIS should continue to prioritise interventions that build long-term independence and capacity and reduce future reliance on funded supports.

Research, professional practice and lived experience have taught me early intervention produces better outcomes. Failure to provide appropriate targeted supports at critical developmental stages can result in significantly greater costs to individuals, families and governments in the future. It can result in the loss of human life.

My son is currently at a critical stage of adolescence. The supports being sought are not intended to create long-term dependence on the NDIS. Rather, they are intended to build capacity, improve emotional regulation, strengthen independence and reduce future reliance on services.

Our recent experience highlighted the risk that reforms focused primarily on cost containment may unintentionally overlook the importance of targeted intervention for participants whose needs are escalating and whose future outcomes may be significantly improved through timely support.

Targeted investment at key developmental stages is not only good practice; it is sound financial policy. The long-term success of the Scheme must be measured not only by smart expenditure reduction, but also by its ability to assist participants to live increasingly independent lives and reduce future reliance on funded supports.

5. Timely correction of decisions The review process is an important safeguard and should remain available to participants. However, where administrative errors are made or there has been an absence of participant consultation, there should be mechanisms for urgent reconsideration before participants are required to enter a lengthy review process.

My recent experience highlighted concerns regarding the Agency’s ability to promptly correct decisions which may have been based on incorrect information. Where decisions have immediate consequences for participants, including reduced supports, changes to funding arrangements, disruption to service delivery or inability to pay providers, there should be a clear pathway for urgent administrative reconsideration.

Participants should not be left without access to supports, unable to pay providers or subject to significant disruption whilst waiting for a formal review process due to administrative errors.

6. Automated decision-making/AI As all services increasingly adopt technology, automation and potentially AI to assist with workloads and inform decision making, I encourage the Committee to carefully consider the safeguards required to ensure decisions remain accurate, transparent and subject to human oversight.

My recent experience raised concerns regarding whether all supporting documentation was read by the NDIA Planner before decisions were made. Information relayed back to me during discussions was inconsistent with reports and supporting material that had been provided. Significant conclusions

appeared to have been reached despite key information contained within supporting documentation not being reflected in subsequent discussions.

Whether  this  reflects reform/workload pressures, reliance on automated systems, AI or other

administrative processes, the outcome is the same. Participants can be adversely affected when decisions are made without full consideration of the information provided.

If technology, automation or AI is used to assist with planning, reassessment or funding decisions, participants should be entitled to transparency regarding how those tools are used, what safeguards exist and how human review is incorporated into decision-making processes.

7. Recommendations I respectfully recommend that the Committee consider:

• stronger procedural fairness requirements before significant support reductions or management changes are implemented

• mandatory consultation requirements before plans are significantly altered, reduced or rolled over

• mandatory participant consultation during reassessment and plan change processes

• clearer and more accessible guidance/summaries for self-managed participants

• mechanisms for timely identification of concerns regarding claims rather than retrospective action years later

• safeguards ensuring participant choice, control and voice remain central to decision-making

• administrative safeguards to ensure participants are not excluded from planning processes due to system failures

• urgent/triaged administrative review pathways where decisions are based on inaccurate information, procedural failures or administrative error;

• transparency and safeguards regarding the use of automated decision-support tools and AI

• a robust claims process which only approves supports that are eligible for funding.

Conclusion

I support reform of the NDIS and recognise the need to protect the Scheme’s future sustainability. I support measures to address fraud, misuse, waste and poor practice. I also support stronger accountability mechanisms where they are fair, transparent and consistently applied.

However, reforms must be implemented in a manner that preserves procedural fairness, participant voice, choice and control.

My family’s recent experience demonstrates how participants acting in good faith can be adversely affected when consultation is limited, guidance is unclear and significant decisions are made without meaningful opportunity for participation.

The success of these reforms should not be measured solely by reduced expenditure (although that is highly achievable). It should also be measured by whether participants and families retain confidence in the Scheme, whether decision-making is transparent and fair, and whether people living with disability are genuinely supported to build independence and reduce future reliance on funded supports.

I would welcome the opportunity to provide further information to the Committee if that would be of assistance and would be pleased to contribute, in a lived-experience capacity, to any future consultation, advisory or reference groups considering the ongoing implementation of NDIS reforms and their impact on participants and families.