SUBMISSION: Inquiry into the NDIS Amendment Bill
Attn: Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs
Regarding: Concerns Over Automated Decision-Making, New Framework Planning
Tools and the Removal of Merits Review Rights.
- Executive Summary I make this submission in my capacity as a single carer working as a NDIS support coordinator for a small cohort of participants with complex and/or culturally and linguistically diverse needs.
This submission highlights concerns severe risks concerning the legislated shift toward computer-generated NDIS plans and automated plan reassessments. As a legally trained person, I believe that removing human planners’ discretion and replacing clinical reasoning with standardized algorithms, combined with the removal of merits review will directly harm participants with complex, fluctuating, or marginalized intersectional needs. The removal of individualized human oversight and removal of participant’s ability to seek redress through merits review directly compromises the core principles of choice, control, and safety.
- The Impact of Removing Human Discretion Automated assessment software operates on “average” data cases. It cannot effectively process nuances associated with complex or variable conditions because it is not possible to factor in parameters that cater for eligible participants with rare syndromes and very complex support needs
-
The Problem: Algorithms rely strictly on rigid binary inputs. They lack the capacity for empathy or clinical contextualisation during a standard 3-hour interview process.
-
Personal Impact: NDIS has been a life-saving program for both me and my severely disabled son. Daily supports has enabled my return to the workforce and allowed us to build an excellent team of supports around my son who is severely disabled and requires 24/7 one on one care. We are fortunate to have first joined the scheme back in 2014 as we lived in a suburb in which the WA NDIS was trialled. Despite being highly educated and legally trained, we were socially isolated and it was very hard at the start to find resources. The market then was operated mainly by large non-profit providers who struggled with facilitating the concept of choice and control as they were previously received
State funding and only accountable to the Department of Communities. Long story short, I was physically and mentally exhausted and losing hope in mankind, but things got much more manageable only after we found an intelligent and understanding support coordinator to whom I will be forever grateful for the patient support and guidance we received. During our 12-year NDIS journey, I experienced, firsthand, the importance of advocacy in review processes and the necessity of a meaningful support team to the achievement of positive outcomes for people with complex needs. It took me a few years working as a support coordinator to understand how critical a carer’s emotional intelligence, assertiveness, planning and organisation was to a participant’s requests for supports.
- Amendments relating to automated decision making in Schedule 3:
Discrimination and Algorithmic Bias
Automated tools frequently reproduce systemic inequalities and, for participants and families who are vulnerable, this risk is real and increased and any adverse impact reasonably foreseeable. Historical NDIS data underrepresents distinct cohorts. For non-verbal and severely functionally impaired participants who cannot access advocacy or redress conspicuous support funding gaps though merits review, an automated tool will only amplify injustice and add to distress of carers.
-
Compounded Vulnerability: Margins of error in automated coding disproportionately impact isolated families including first Nations people, single working women, culturally diverse communities, and those with complex communication needs.
-
Systemic Failure: Constantly changing policies and reducing in-person plan review discussions have contributed to unfair outcomes for vulnerable and isolated families who struggle to understand the scheme and/or keep up with constant changes to the system. My personal experience is that carers of people with complex needs are often too tired to fight through the system unless there is no realistic alternative. In the 12 months to June 2025, 73% of cases appealed to the tribunal resulted in a changed decision, evidencing that initial rigid, non human, or formulaic assessments are routinely flawed. With due respect, the removal of a participant’s right to seek merits review of automated decisions that directly impact the safety and well-being of people who are so vulnerable would further add salt to injury.
- Erasure of Appeal Rights and ART Oversight
Under the proposed mid-2026 overhaul, Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) powers are drastically diminished.
-
Stripping Authority: If an automated tool generates an insufficient or unsafe plan, the ART will no longer have jurisdiction or authority to directly amend or reinstate funding.
-
Procedural Bottleneck: The tribunal can only order the agency to conduct another assessment, trapping vulnerable participants in a circular administrative loop of computer-driven review processes that ignores gravely impacted participants immediate and critical support needs without any regard to the genuineness of their plight.
-
Key Recommendations to the Committee To protect participants from the dangers of unchecked algorithmic rationing, I urge the Senate to mandate the following safeguards:
-
Mandatory Human-in-the-Loop Override: Legislative locks must guarantee that genuine participants’ access to a qualified human planner who can, in appropriate circumstances, review and manually adjust any computer generated budget line-by-line.
-
Algorithmic Transparency: The mathematical formulas, parameters, and weightings used by the automated software must be published openly for public and legal scrutiny.
-
Preservation of Full ART Review Powers: Retain the tribunal’s power to directly alter, vary, and override computer-generated outcomes to prevent immediate and significant safety risks to participants.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission for and on behalf of my non verbal son living with a rare syndrome and severe functional impairments in his daily life.
1 June 2026