NDIA Accountability Project

Communication access is a human rights issue

‹ PrevPage 1 of 16 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 364

Communication Extra: Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Communication extra Formal Submission Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Communication access is a human rights, safeguarding, cultural safety and participation issue.

Submitted by:

  • Communication extra

Date:

  • 25 May 2026

Contact Person:

  • Narelle Akers - National Operations Manager

Phone:

  • 0405 628 621
  • Communication extra consents to publication of this submission unless otherwise advised.

Accessibility Request:

  • Communication extra requests that any hearing or consultation process include Auslan interpreting, captioning and accessible information.

Page 1 of 16

Submission 364

Communication eXtra I Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

To the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Communication eXtra welcomes the opportunity to provide this submission to the Committee’s inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. This submission directly addresses the Bill’s likely impact on Deaf people, Auslan users and people with communication barriers. It is informed by Communication eXtra’s practice experience, participant and family experience, Deaf community concerns, and the broader human rights framework that applies to communication access. Communication eXtra supports a sustainable NDIS. However, the NDIS cannot be sustainable if it becomes inaccessible to people who require communication access to understand, decide, consent, object, participate and be safe.

Executive Summary

Communication eXtra supports the long-term sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). We support reform that improves quality, safety, accountability, participant outcomes and protection from exploitation, fraud and poor practice. However, Communication eXtra does not support the Bill in its current form. The Bill should not proceed without clear, enforceable protections for Deaf Australians, Auslan users, Deafblind people, people who use augmentative and alternative communication, people with complex communication needs, and people who cannot safely participate in spoken-English systems without access supports. The Committee has stated that submissions must directly address the provisions of the Bill. This submission therefore focuses on the Bill’s likely impact on access, assessment, support determinations, plan implementation, reassessment, review rights, automated or standardised decision-making, and the proposed reform direction affecting social and community participation and support coordination.(1] For Deaf people and people with communication barriers, communication access is not an optional support. It is the foundation for safety, informed consent, decision-making, relationships, health care, education, employment, parenting, advocacy, cultural identity, community participation and human rights. A planning or assessment system that does not understand Deaf culture, Auslan, hearing privilege, access fatigue, language deprivation, isolation and supported decision-making may appear neutral, while in practice producing unequal and unsafe outcomes. Key proposition: The Bill must be amended so that communication access is treated as an essential rights and safeguarding function, not as a discretionary social, administrative or convenience support.

Submission 364

Communication eXtra I Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Recommendations at a Glance

Communication eXtra asks the Committee to recommend the following amendments and safeguards before the Bill proceeds.

No. Recommendation Purpose
1 Do not pass the Bill in its current form Require amendments to protect communication access and review rights. Insert a statutory communication access duty making access supports mandatory across planning, reassessment, implementation, claims, compliance and review.
2 Require Deaf-specific and communication access expertise Ensure assessments involving Deaf people and communication barriers are informed by appropriate expertise.
3 Prevent assessment tools from mistaking access support for reduced need Require consideration of what happens when communication support is absent.
4 Protect Auslan, Deaf interpreting, captions, AAC and communication supports from blanket cuts Prevent communication access from being reduced through broad caps or support determinations.
5 Recognise social and community participation as essential for Deaf inclusion Treat isolation prevention, Deaf community connection and access to ordinary life as safeguarding needs.
6 Maintain and strengthen review rights Ensure adverse decisions affecting communication access remain reviewable.
7 Create an urgent reassessment pathway Respond quickly when communication barriers create safety, isolation or service breakdown risk.
8 Limit automated adverse decisions Require human review before adverse decisions about communication access take effect.
9 Publish a Deaf and Communication Access Impact Assessment Assess the Bill’s impact before implementation. Include Deaf people, Auslan users, families, Deaf professionals and people with complex communication needs. Embed co-design.
10 Require public reporting Report on communication access outcomes, claim rejections, reviews and unmet need.
11 Require the Agency to follow recorded communication access needs Prevent Deaf participants from being contacted through inaccessible methods and ensure no disadvantage arises from inaccessible contact.
12 Do not assume English proficiency for Deaf participants Require the Agency to identify each participant’s primary language and accessible communication format before relying on written English, SMS, email, forms or online information. Protect early language access and early intervention: Ensure Deaf children and children with communication access need receive timely access to language, family communication supports, Auslan, Deaf mentors, Deaf role models and other communication access supports.

Prevent medical, auditory or technological pathways from becoming preconditions for communication access: Ensure hearing aids, cochlear implants, auditory-verbal therapy, speech therapy, communication devices or future medical interventions are not required before language access supports are accepted.

Prevent parental responsibility from replacing funded communication access: Ensure parents and carers are not treated as unpaid interpreters, Auslan teachers, access coordinators, communication support workers or substitute service systems.

Require alternative support to be real, not theoretical: Ensure participants are not redirected away from the NDIS unless alternative support is available, timely, accessible, skilled, culturally safe and appropriate.

Protect Deaf-led, community-based and small specialist providers: Ensure fraud prevention, registration and market stewardship reforms do not unintentionally reduce access to culturally safe Deaf-led or specialist providers.

Recognise parent voice, child voice and lived experience as evidence: Ensure decisions affecting Deaf children, young people and families are informed by accessible Child Voice, parent voice and lived experience evidence.

Submission 364

Communication eXtra | Submission on the NDS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

3. About Communication eXtra

Communication eXtra works with people with disability, including Deaf people, Auslan users and people with communication barriers. Our organisation has direct practice experience supporting people to engage with the NDIS, exercise choice and control, understand decisions, access services, participate in community life and maintain safeguards around their support arrangements.

Communication eXtra also brings lived and professional experience of the communication access barriers that exist within the NDIS system itself. We have seen participants, families and Deaf professionals experience avoidable barriers when engaging with planners, Local Area Coordinators and other parts of the system.

In our experience, the NDIS system too often treats communication access as an adjustment after the fact, rather than as the starting point for lawful and safe decision-making.

This matters because a participant cannot exercise choice and control if the system has not first ensured that the participant can understand, communicate, ask questions, disagree, give consent, review information and participate in decisions affecting their life.

4. Overall Position

Communication eXtra recommends that the Bill should not pass in its current form.

If the Bill proceeds, it must be amended to include clear, enforceable protections for Deaf participants, Auslan users and people with communication barriers. These protections should not be left to operational guidance alone. They should be built into the legislative and rules framework so that they are consistent, reviewable and enforceable.

The Bill and associated implementation framework must recognise that communication access is not only a service support. It is a condition of procedural fairness, informed consent, participant safety, cultural safety and human rights.

  • Deaf participants, Auslan users and people with communication barriers must not be disadvantaged by assessment tools built around hearing, spoken-English assumptions.
  • A participant’s ability to engage when an interpreter, communication partner, captioning, AAC or support person is present must not be used as evidence that the support is no longer required.
  • Social and community participation must not be treated as discretionary where it prevents isolation, supports Deaf community connection, maintains wellbeing, enables cultural and linguistic participation, or safeguards the participant.
  • Review rights and urgent reassessment pathways must remain available when a plan becomes unsafe or inaccessible.

5. The Human Rights Framework: Communication Access Is Not Optional

The central issue for Deaf participants is not simply whether a plan contains enough funding for an interpreter. The deeper issue is whether the NDIS recognises communication as a human right and as a safeguarding requirement.

Article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires States Parties to take appropriate measures to ensure people with disability can exercise freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information through accessible means, modes and formats of communication. This includes accepting and facilitating sign languages, Braille, augmentative and alternative communication, and other accessible modes and formats in official interactions.[5][6]

Auslan is not a tool for translating English word-for-word. It is a living language with its own grammar, syntax, visual-spatial structure and cultural context. Deaf people are entitled to recognition and support of specific cultural and linguistic identity, including Auslan and Deaf culture.[7][8]

Submission 364

Communication eXtra | Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

  • decisions are made about the participant rather than with the participant;
  • the participant cannot explain risk, trauma, abuse, neglect or unmet need;
  • the participant appears compliant when in fact the participant has not understood;
  • families and informal supporters are forced to become unpaid interpreters, advocates and system navigators;
  • Deaf professionals and lived experience workers are excluded from meetings where their expertise is most needed;
  • the participant’s isolation is misread as preference, independence or reduced need.

These are not minor administrative problems. They are procedural fairness, safeguarding and human rights issues.

5.1 Deaf Culture, Auslan and English Proficiency Should Not Be Assumed

Communication eXtra is concerned that the NDIS system often treats Deaf people, hard of hearing people and people with hearing loss as if they have the same communication profile. This is incorrect and can lead to unsafe and unfair planning decisions.

There is a significant difference between a culturally Deaf person who is deeply immersed in Deaf culture and uses Auslan as a primary language, and a hard of hearing person who has grown up using spoken and written English proficiently. Both may require communication access. However, their language, cultural identity, communication needs and access barriers may be very different.

Auslan is not English on the hands. Auslan is a distinct visual-spatial language with its own grammar, structure and vocabulary. Deaf Australia describes Auslan as a true, natural and fully accessible visual-spatial language that is different in modality from English, which is an aural-oral and linear language.

This means that English proficiency must not be assumed. Government interpreting guidance specifically notes that Deaf people are not necessarily fluent in written English and that English proficiency should not be assumed.

For many culturally Deaf Auslan users, English may be a second language. Some Deaf people may read and write English fluently. Others may not. This can be affected by language access, education history, family communication, early exposure to Auslan, language deprivation, and whether the person had consistent access to accessible communication during childhood and adulthood.

The Agency must not assume that sending written English information, forms, SMS messages, emails or plan documents is automatically accessible for all Deaf participants. Written English may be accessible for some Deaf and hard of hearing people, but not for all culturally Deaf Auslan users.

When English proficiency is wrongly assumed, the participant may:

- misunderstand plan decisions, obligations, budgets or review rights;
- miss deadlines because written information was not accessible;
- be viewed as non-responsive when the issue is communication access;
- agree to decisions without full understanding;
- be unable to explain risk, isolation, abuse, neglect or unmet need;
- rely on family members or Support Coordinators to translate complex information;
- lose choice and control because information has not been provided in the participant’s primary language;
- be disadvantaged in planning, reassessment, review and compliance processes.

This is particularly concerning where the Agency relies on written correspondence, SMS contact, phone-based processes, online portals, standard forms or decision notices without confirming whether the communication format is accessible to the individual participant.

Communication access must therefore be individualised. The question should not be, “Can this person read English?” The question should be, “What language and communication format does this participant need to understand, decide, consent, object, ask questions and participate safely?”

Submission 364

Communication eXtra I Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

For culturally Deaf Auslan users, this may require Auslan interpreting, Deaf interpreting, Auslan video information, visual explanations, plain English written summaries, supported decision-making, or communication support from people who understand Deaf culture and language access.

A fair NDIS must recognise that Deaf people are not a single group with identical communication needs.

Planning and assessment must distinguish between hearing loss, hard of hearing experience, culturally Deaf identity, Auslan use, English proficiency, language deprivation, and communication access needs.

Failure to make these distinctions risks treating Deaf participants as if they are hearing people who simply need information repeated in writing. That assumption is inaccurate, culturally unsafe and potentially harmful.

6. Bill-Specific Concerns

The Government has described the Bill as focusing on clarifying eligibility and the supports the NDIS funds, addressing fraud, and updating governance and administrative arrangements.[21[3]

Communication eXtra accepts that scheme integrity is important. However, the design and implementation of these measures must not create indirect discrimination, communication exclusion, or unsafe outcomes for people whose needs are already poorly understood by hearing systems.

6.1 Functional Capacity Assessment and Support Needs Assessment

Communication eXtra is concerned that functional capacity assessment, support needs assessment and standardised budget methods may fail to capture the lived reality of Deaf participants and people with communication barriers.

There is a serious risk that assessment tools will measure a participant’s presentation in a supported assessment environment, rather than the participant’s actual communication environment across daily life.

For example, with a qualified Auslan interpreter present, a Deaf participant may appear confident, articulate, engaged and able to understand the process. Without that support, the same participant may be unable to understand complex information, raise concerns, explain safety risks, give informed consent, or challenge an incorrect decision.

The interpreter does not remove the need. The interpreter removes the barrier in that moment. The assessment must therefore consider what happens when the support is absent, inconsistent, unavailable, delayed, unaffordable or culturally inappropriate.

Assessment safeguard required: A participant’s capacity while communication access is present must not be treated as evidence that communication access is unnecessary.

6.2 Support Determinations, Funding Caps and Reasonable and Necessary Supports

Communication eXtra is concerned that support determinations, funding caps, standardised budgets or narrowing of reasonable and necessary supports may disproportionately affect communication access supports if there is no explicit legislative protection.

For Deaf people and Auslan users, Auslan interpreting, Deaf interpreting, captioning, visual information, communication partners, supported decision-making, AAC and accessible plan information are not convenience supports. They are the means through which the participant can access the NDIS and ordinary life.

Any rules, determinations or instruments that affect NDIS supports should explicitly preserve communication access supports where they are required for understanding, safety, consent, cultural participation, community access, health care, education, employment, parenting, plan implementation or review rights.

Submission 364

Communication eXtra | Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

6.3 Social and Community Participation

Communication eXtra is deeply concerned about any mechanism that permits percentage-based reductions, caps or support determinations affecting social, civic and community participation funding without individualised consideration of communication access and isolation risk.

For many Deaf people and people with communication barriers, social and community participation is not an optional lifestyle support. It may be the practical support that prevents isolation, enables connection with Deaf community, builds confidence, supports Auslan-rich environments, allows participation in mainstream settings, and reduces reliance on family members.

A hearing person may be able to enter most everyday environments and communicate without pre-planning. A Deaf Auslan user may need interpreting, Deaf peer connection, visual communication supports, accessible information or a communication-skilled support person to access the same environment. The additional support is not a luxury; it is the mechanism of equal participation.

Isolation is not always visible. A participant may appear quiet, settled or independent when in reality the participant is excluded from communication, relationships and community life. The NDIS must not treat invisible isolation as reduced need.

6.4 Support Coordination and Plan Implementation

Communication eXtra is concerned that support coordination and plan implementation are not always recognised as safeguarding functions, particularly for participants who cannot easily communicate with mainstream systems.

For participants with communication barriers, a Support Coordinator may be the person who ensures the participant understands the plan, identifies missing communication access, supports informed consent, gathers evidence about functional impact and risk, identifies service gaps, raises safeguarding concerns, and helps the participant communicate with providers, health professionals, schools, employers and the NDIA.

Where participants have trusted communication relationships with Auslan-fluent Support Coordinators, Deaf professionals, communication partners or lived experience workers, those relationships may be central to safety and meaningful participation. Any reform that centralises, replaces or standardises plan implementation must include safeguards to preserve communication access and participant choice.

6.5 Automated or Standardised Decision-Making

Communication eXtra is concerned about automated or standardised decision-making being used in eligibility, planning, claims, reassessment, pricing or support determinations without enforceable safeguards.

Automated systems only understand what is recorded. Deaf experience is often under-recorded, misunderstood or misclassified. Factors such as access fatigue, language deprivation, communication shutdown, over-compliance, trauma from inaccessible systems, lack of informal Auslan-fluent networks, and the difference between speech, hearing, understanding and communication may not appear in standard data fields.

If these factors are not built into the assessment and decision-making framework, the system may treat them as absence of need. This is how underfunding occurs. This is how isolation increases. This is how people disengage. This is how harm becomes invisible.

6.6 Review Rights, Reassessment and Procedural Fairness

Communication eXtra is concerned about any provisions or implementation settings that reduce review rights, limit unscheduled reassessment, lengthen decision timeframes, remove deemed decision safeguards, or make it harder for participants to challenge unsafe decisions.

For people with communication barriers, delays and inaccessible processes are not neutral. A participant who cannot understand a decision notice cannot meaningfully review it. A participant who cannot access Auslan,

Submission 364

Communication eXtra I Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NOIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

plain language, captions, visual information or supported decision-making may miss deadlines, fail to respond, withdraw from the process, or accept an unsafe decision because the pathway is inaccessible. Timeframes should not run against a participant until the participant has received information in an accessible format and has had a reasonable opportunity to understand and respond.

Failure to Follow Recorded Communication Access Needs

Communication eXtra is concerned that Deaf participants and Auslan users continue to be contacted by the Agency through inaccessible communication methods, even where the participant’s disability, communication access needs, or requirement for Auslan interpreting has already been identified. Participants have reported, and Communication eXtra has observed, instances where Deaf participants have received SMS messages requesting that they telephone the Agency, or where the Agency has attempted to call Deaf participants by voice phone call, despite the participant being unable to use voice telephone communication or requiring an Auslan interpreter. This is not a minor administrative issue. It is an access failure. Where the Agency has been advised that a participant is Deaf, uses Auslan, cannot use voice phone calls, require an interpreter, or requires accessible written or visual communication, that information must be followed in practice. It is not sufficient for communication access needs to be recorded if those needs are then ignored during contact, planning, reassessment, review or compliance processes. When inaccessible communication methods are used, participants may miss important information, be unable to respond within required timeframes, or be incorrectly viewed as disengaged. This creates a risk that decisions are made without the participant’s meaningful involvement. It also places additional pressure on families, Support Coordinators and informal supporters to repair the access failure.

Example Access Issue Potential Impact
A Deaf participant receives an The participant cannot use voice telephone communication or requires Auslan access to communicate. English may not be the participant’s primary or accessible language. The participant may be unable to respond, or may be incorrectly viewed as not engaging
The Agency attempts to phone a The participant’s Deafness or communication access need has already been identified The participant is excluded from the conversation and may miss important planning or review information
The Agency does not arrange an The participant cannot fully understand, ask questions, provide informed consent or explain risk The planning or review process may be procedurally unfair and unsafe
Family members or informal Family members are placed in an inappropriate unpaid role, and privacy, accuracy and participant autonomy may be compromised The participant’s choice, control, confidentiality and independence may be reduced
Time-sensitive information is The participant may not understand what is required, or may need support to access the information Deadlines may be missed, review rights may be affected, and the participant may be unfairly disadvantaged
A participant is asked to The participant may not understand that NOIA planner and LAC meetings should be invoiced to the NOIA, not paid from the participant’s plan. The participant uses limited plan funding intended for participant access, reducing access to other supports and independence.

These examples demonstrate why communication access must be treated as a core requirement of lawful and safe decision-making. A participant cannot exercise choice and control if the system contacts the participant through methods the participant cannot use.

Submission 364

Communication eXtra | Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Communication eXtra submits that the Bill should include clear obligations requiring the Agency, partners and any authorised decision-makers to:

  • Record each participant’s communication access needs clearly and consistently;
  • Follow those recorded communication access needs in all contact;
  • Avoid voice-only contact where a participant cannot use voice telephone communication;
  • Arrange Auslan interpreters, Deaf interpreters, captions, accessible written information, visual communication, communication partners or other required supports before meetings or decisions occur;
  • Ensure no adverse inference is drawn from non-response where the contact method used was inaccessible;
  • Ensure timeframes do not commence until the participant has received information in an accessible format;
  • Treat any planning, reassessment, review or compliance process conducted without required communication access as potentially procedurally unfair.

Communication access must not depend on the participant repeatedly reminding the system of needs that are already known. The burden should not fall on Deaf participants, families or Support Coordinators to correct preventable access failures.

A system cannot claim to provide participant choice and control while contacting people through methods they cannot use.

6.8 LAC, Planner and Assessor Capability

Communication eXtra is concerned that many Local Area Coordinators, planners and assessors do not have sufficient Deaf-specific education, communication access training or understanding of hearing privilege.

This is not a criticism of individual workers. It is a system design issue. If the system gives decision-makers more power to standardise, reduce, cap or control supports, then the system must also ensure that those decision-makers understand Deaf culture, language access, communication disability, supported decision-making and the risks created by communication exclusion. This training should directly address common unsafe assumptions, including:

  • assuming speech equals understanding;
  • assuming hearing technology removes communication barriers;
  • assuming lipreading is reliable across all settings;
  • assuming family members can safely and appropriately interpret;
  • treating Auslan interpreting as optional or limited to formal appointments;
  • underestimating access fatigue and the cumulative impact of inaccessible communication;
  • confusing social participation with recreation;
  • failing to understand Deaf community connection as culturally and linguistically important.

6.9 Additional Safeguards for Deaf Children, Families and Specialist Providers

Communication eXtra further submits that the Bill should include specific protections for Deaf children, young people and families where communication access is developmental, relational and rights based.

Language access must not be delayed while families navigate reassessment, review or appeal processes. Deafness itself does not cause language deprivation; lack of timely, accessible and meaningful language exposure does. For this reason, early intervention for Deaf children must include access to Auslan, family language supports, Deaf mentors, Deaf role models, interpreting, captioning, assistive technology, disability-

Submission 364

Communication eXtra | Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

specific psychology and other communication access supports where these arise from disability-related language and communication needs.

The NDIS must also avoid creating pressure for Deaf people or families to exhaust medical, auditory or technological pathways before language access is accepted. Cochlear implants, hearing aids, auditory-verbal therapy, speech therapy, communication devices or future medical interventions must not become preconditions for Auslan, Deaf interpreting, Deaf mentoring or other communication access supports.

Parents and carers should be respected and supported, but they must not be treated as unpaid interpreters, Auslan teachers, access coordinators, communication support workers or substitute service systems. Family involvement cannot replace funded, skilled and culturally safe communication access.

Where the Agency seeks to redirect a participant or family to another system, that alternative support must be real, not theoretical. The support must be actually available, timely, accessible, skilled, culturally safe and appropriate to the participant’s language and communication needs.

Communication eXtra is also concerned that fraud prevention, provider regulation and market stewardship reforms may unintentionally reduce access to Deaf-led, community-based and small specialist providers. Any integrity measures must be proportionate and must not remove culturally safe Deaf mentors, Auslan tutors, Deaf-led organisations or specialist communication access providers from the market.

7. Detailed Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Do not pass the Bill in its current form

The Bill should not proceed unless it is amended to include enforceable protections for Deaf participants, Auslan users and people with communication barriers. Operational guidance alone is not sufficient.

Recommendation 2: Insert a statutory communication access duty

The NDIS Act should require the NDIA, LACs, planners, assessors, delegates, review officers and authorised intermediaries to provide reasonable and necessary communication access throughout access, planning, reassessment, implementation, claims, compliance and review processes. This should include Auslan interpreting, Deaf interpreting where required, captions, visual information, AAC, plain language, Easy Read, communication partners, supported decision-making and accessible decision notices.

Recommendation 3: Require Deaf-specific and communication access expertise

Any assessment or planning process involving a Deaf participant, Auslan user or person with complex communication needs should be informed by appropriate Deaf-specific, communication access and cultural competency expertise. Where required, this should include Auslan-fluent professionals, Deaf professionals, qualified interpreters, Deaf interpreters, communication specialists and lived experience expertise.

Recommendation 4: Prevent assessment tools from mistaking supported access for reduced need

Assessment and planning provisions should require explicit consideration of what happens when communication access is removed. A participant’s functioning with communication support present must not be treated as evidence that the support is no longer required.

Recommendation 5: Protect Auslan and communication access supports from blanket cuts or caps

The Bill should prevent percentage-based reductions, caps or support determinations from reducing supports that function as communication access, cultural access, isolation prevention, safeguarding, informed consent or supported decision-making.

Submission 364

Communication eXtra | Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Recommendation 6: Recognise social and community participation as essential for Deaf inclusion

The Bill should require decision-makers to consider whether social and community participation funding supports communication, safety, Deaf community connection, capacity building, cultural identity, wellbeing, family sustainability and prevention of further isolation suffered by people with communication barriers.

Recommendation 7: Maintain and strengthen review rights

Any decision that reduces, removes, caps or refuses communication access supports should be reviewable. Participants should retain merits review rights where a support determination, cap, automated decision or plan change creates a real risk of communication exclusion, isolation or harm.

Recommendation 8: Create an urgent reassessment pathway

The Bill should include an urgent reassessment pathway where a participant, nominee, Support Coordinator, treating practitioner or communication professional identifies that a plan is unsafe or inaccessible due to communication barriers, reduced supports, service breakdown, family breakdown or increased isolation.

Recommendation 9: Limit automated adverse decisions

Automated decision-making should not be used to make adverse decisions about eligibility, planning, funding, claims or communication access unless legally enforceable safeguards are in place. There must be human review before any adverse decision takes effect.

Recommendation 10: Require a Deaf and Communication Access Impact Assessment

Before implementation, the Government should publish a Deaf and Communication Access Impact Assessment, co-designed with the Deaf community, Auslan users, Deaf-led organisations, families, advocates, interpreters, Support Coordinators and people with complex communication needs.

Recommendation 11: Embed co-design with Deaf people and people with communication barriers

The Government should not design assessment tools, budget methods, communication pathways or implementation rules without direct co-design with Deaf people, Deaf professionals, Auslan users, Deafblind people, people with AAC needs, families and organisations with specialist communication access expertise.

Recommendation 12: Require public reporting on communication access outcomes

The NDIA should be required to publish regular data on communication access requirements, claim rejection rates, plan reductions affecting social and community participation, reassessment timeframes, complaints and review outcomes involving communication access, automated decision-making affecting communication access, and unmet need or safeguarding incidents linked to communication barriers.

Recommendation 13: Require the Agency to follow recorded communication access needs

The Bill should require the Agency, partners, delegates, assessors and authorised decision-makers to follow each participant’s recorded communication access needs in all contact, planning, reassessment, review and compliance processes.

Where a participant is recorded as Deaf, an Auslan user, unable to use voice telephone communication, or requiring communication access supports, the Agency must not rely on inaccessible contact methods such as voice-only phone calls or SMS messages directing the participant to call the Agency.

No adverse inference should be drawn from a participant’s non-response where the contact method used was inaccessible. Timeframes should not commence until information has been provided in an accessible format.

Submission 364

Communication eXtra | Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Recommendation 14: Do not assume English proficiency for Deaf participants

The Bill and associated rules should require the Agency, partners, planners, assessors, delegates and authorised decision-makers to identify each participant’s primary language and preferred communication format.

Where a participant is Deaf, culturally Deaf, an Auslan user, Deafblind, hard of hearing, or has complex communication needs, the Agency must not assume that written English, SMS, email, standard forms or online information are accessible.

The Agency should be required to provide information in the participant’s accessible language and format, including Auslan, Deaf interpreting, captions, visual information, Easy Read, plain English, AAC, supported decision-making or other communication supports as required.

Recommendation 15: Protect early language access and early intervention for Deaf children

The Bill should require early intervention for Deaf children and children with communication access needs to include timely access to language, family communication, Auslan, Deaf mentors, Deaf role models, interpreting, captioning, assistive technology, disability-specific psychology and other communication access supports where required.

Early intervention must not be limited to reducing impairment. It must also prevent harm caused by delayed, restricted or inaccessible language exposure.

Recommendation 16: Prevent medical, auditory or technological pathways from becoming preconditions for communication access

The Bill and associated rules should make clear that cochlear implants, hearing aids, auditory-verbal therapy, speech therapy, communication devices, future medical treatments or other technological pathways must not become preconditions before Auslan, Deaf interpreting, Deaf mentoring, family language supports or other communication access supports are accepted as reasonable and necessary.

Recommendation 17: Prevent parental responsibility from replacing funded communication access

The Bill should prevent parents, carers and family members from being treated as substitute interpreters, Auslan teachers, access coordinators, communication support workers or unpaid service systems.

Parents and carers should be respected and supported, but family involvement must not be used to reduce or deny funded communication access where skilled, independent or culturally safe support is required.

Recommendation 18: Require alternative supports to be real, not theoretical

Where the Agency seeks to redirect a participant or family to another system, service or support pathway, the Bill should require evidence that the alternative support is actually available, timely, accessible, skilled, culturally safe and appropriate to the participant’s language and communication needs.

A participant should not lose NDIS-funded communication access because another system is assumed to provide support when that support is not practically available.

Recommendation 19: Protect Deaf-led, community-based and small specialist providers

Fraud prevention, provider regulation and market stewardship reforms should be proportionate and must not unintentionally reduce access to culturally safe Deaf-led, community-based or small specialist providers.

The Bill should protect access to Deaf mentors, Auslan tutors, Deaf professionals, specialist communication access providers and other small services that provide culturally and linguistically appropriate support.

Recommendation 20: Recognise parent voice, child voice and lived experience as evidence

For decisions affecting Deaf children, young people and families, the Bill should require decision-makers to consider parent voice, child voice and lived experience evidence.

Children and young people must be supported to express their views in accessible ways, including through Auslan, visual supports, interpreters, captioning, extra time, trusted communication partners or other communication adjustments.

Submission 364

Communication eXtra I Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

  1. Closing Statement The NDIS was created to support people with disability to live ordinary lives with choice, control, dignity and participation. For Deaf Australians and people with communication barriers, ordinary life is not possible without communication access. Communication access is not a luxury, an optional social activity, an administrative adjustment or something to be provided only when convenient. Communication access is the condition that allows a person to understand, decide, consent, object, connect, learn, work, parent, participate and be safe. Communication eXta urges the Committee to recognise that any reform to the NDIS must be tested against the lived reality of people who cannot simply communicate with everyday Australians without access being provided. A sustainable NDIS must also be an accessible NDIS. A fair NDIS must understand Deaf culture, language access and communication rights. A safe NDIS must not require participants and families to fight for the system to hear them. Communication eXtra respectfully asks the Committee to recommend that the Bill be substantially amended before passage, with enforceable communication access protections embedded in the Act and associated rules framework.

     If a hearing person can communicate freely every day, but a Deaf person must request, justify, evidence and defend every hour of access to their own language, the system is not neutral. It is unequal.

Submission 364

Communication eXtra | Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Appendix A: Proposed Amendment Themes

  • Statutory communication access obligations.
  • Deaf-specific assessment safeguards.
  • Reviewable rights where communication access is reduced or refused.
  • Protection of Auslan and communication supports from blanket cuts.
  • Human review of adverse automated decisions.
  • Accessible decision notices and plan documents.
  • Co-design with Deaf and communication access communities.
  • Mandatory training for LACs, planners and assessors.
  • Public reporting on communication access outcomes.
  • Urgent reassessment pathways where communication barriers create risk.
  • Mandatory requirements to follow recorded participant communication access needs in all Agency contact and decision-making processes.
  • Requirement that the Agency does not assume written English proficiency for Deaf participants and must identify each participant’s primary language and accessible communication format.
  • Protection of early language access and early intervention for Deaf children and children with communication access needs.
  • Recognition that language deprivation is caused by lack of timely, accessible and meaningful language exposure, not by Deafness itself.
  • Protection of Auslan in the home, Deaf mentors, Deaf role models, Auslan tutors, family language supports and bimodal bilingual pathways.
  • Requirement that medical, auditory or technological pathways are not treated as preconditions for Auslan, Deaf interpreting, Deaf mentoring or communication access supports.
  • Protection against parental responsibility being used to replace funded communication access, including interpreting, Auslan teaching, communication support, access coordination or specialist service provision.
  • Requirement that alternative supports are real, not theoretical, before a participant or family is redirected to another system.
  • Requirement that any alternative support must be actually available, timely, accessible, skilled, culturally safe and appropriate to the participant’s language and communication needs.
  • Protection of language and communication access during reassessment, review, appeal or plan renewal processes.
  • Review safeguards where plan renewals, funding alterations, support determinations, ratios, maximum amounts or percentage reductions affect communication access.
  • Recognition of parent voice, child voice and lived experience evidence in decisions affecting Deaf children, young people and families.
  • Protection of Deaf-led, community-based and small specialist providers from disproportionate compliance or market regulation impacts.
  • Further consultation with Deaf people, Deaf children and young people, families, Deaf-led organisations, parent-led organisations, legal services and specialist providers before rules, instruments, thresholds or assessment tools are finalised.

Submission 364

Communication eXtra | Submission on the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Appendix B: References and Source Materials

Official and human rights materials

  1. Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee - Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026: https://www.aph.gov.au/search/url/Inquiry/27378
  2. NDIS - Securing the NDIS for future generations: https://www.ndis.gov.au/ndis-laws/securing-ndis-future-generations
  3. Department of Health, Disability and Ageing - Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill introduced to Parliament: https://www.health.gov.au/news/securing-the-ndis-for-future-generations-bill-introduced-to-parliament?language=en
  4. Department of Health, Disability and Ageing - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 fact sheet: https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/ndis-amendment-securin…
  5. United Nations - Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 21: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-21-freedom-of-expression-and-opinion-and-access-to-information.html
  6. OHCHR - Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities
  7. Disability Royal Commission - Final Report Volume 4: Realising the human rights of people with disability: https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report-volume-4-realising-human-rights-pe…
  8. Deaf Victoria - What is Auslan?: https://deafvictoria.org.au/resources/what-is-auslan/

Contextual materials supplied for drafting