National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
29/05/2026
Contact: Dr Jennifer O’Connor Chief, Policy and Advocacy
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
About Speech Pathology Australia
Speech Pathology Australia is the national peak body for speech pathologists in Australia, representing more than 16,000 members. Speech pathologists are university trained allied health professionals with expertise in the diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of communication and swallowing difficulties. The Association supports and regulates the ethical, clinical and professional standards of its members, as well as lobbying and advocating for access to services that benefit people with communication and swallowing difficulties.
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 2
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
Table of Contents
About Speech Pathology Australia ………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Key recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
-
Consultation period......................................................................................................... 6 -
Defining functional capacity ............................................................................................ 6 -
Reducing funding for groups of supports ........................................................................ 9 -
Reasonable and necessary supports: Effective and beneficial ......................................12 -
Tightening the meaning of 'permanence.' ......................................................................14 -
Decision-making on pricing ............................................................................................14 -
Additional Comments: Registration of NDIS Providers ..................................................16 -
References ....................................................................................................................17
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 3
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
Executive Summary Speech Pathology Australia (SPA) acknowledges the intent of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 to support the long-term financial sustainability of the NDIS. However, key aspects of the Bill risk undermining equitable access and participant outcomes.
SPA is concerned that the consultation period and process were inadequate for reforms of this scale, limiting the ability of people with disability and sector stakeholders to provide informed input.
SPA recommends targeted amendments to ensure the Bill supports sustainability while maintaining access, equity, and participant outcomes. Central to this is ensuring functional capacity reflects real-world participation, decisions are evidence-informed and transparent, and participants are protected through appropriate safeguards and oversight.
The proposed definition of functional capacity is central to eligibility but does not reflect contemporary frameworks such as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. It limits recognition of environmental and personal factors and does not explicitly include communication and safe mealtimes. Without amendment, the functional capacity definition risks unfairly excluding people with communication and swallowing needs.
The Bill introduces broad Ministerial powers to reduce funding for groups of supports without adequate safeguards, transparency, or oversight. These powers risk inequitable decision-making and are likely to disproportionately impact participants with complex support needs. Proposed reductions to capacity building supports are unlikely to improve scheme sustainability and instead risk reducing access to early and preventative supports, leading to poorer outcomes and higher long-term costs.
Provisions relating to “effective and beneficial” supports risk narrowing the evidence base to published, peer-reviewed research. This does not reflect evidence-based practice in allied health, which integrates research, clinical expertise, participant perspectives, and real-world outcomes. A narrow interpretation risks excluding essential supports, particularly for people underrepresented in research. This risk can be addressed by requiring decisions to reflect the full range of high-quality evidence underpinning speech pathology practice.
The definition of “permanence” may exclude individuals with progressive or fluctuating conditions, where functional capacity changes over time. Clarification is required to ensure equitable access.
Finally, pricing powers exercised without independent oversight or robust consultation risk undermining provider viability, particularly in thin markets, reducing NDIS market participation and access to essential supports. This risk can be addressed by removing Ministerial pricing powers and ensuring pricing decisions are made by an independent body, or, if retained, are subject to clear safeguards, transparency, and independent oversight.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
Key recommendations
Recommendations
-
Extend the consultation period to ensure the Bill's outcomes are fit-for-purpose. -
Ensure consultation processes are robust and enable meaningful participation by
people with disability and the professionals who support them.
-
The definition of functional capacity should be set out in primary legislation and subject
to full parliamentary consideration.
-
Amend the definition of functional capacity to reflect the role of environmental and
personal factors.
-
Functional capacity assessments must involve qualified allied health professionals and
be communication accessible.
-
Remove the proposed section 34B amendment, which grants broad Ministerial powers
to reduce funding without sufficient safeguards and risks disproportionately impacting participants with complex support needs.
-
If the amendment proceeds, it must be modified to ensure that Ministerial budget-
setting powers must be subject to clear safeguards, transparency, and mechanisms to protect participants.
-
Amend the Bill to ensure decisions about whether a support is effective and beneficial
are informed by the full range of high-quality evidence underpinning speech pathology practice.
-
Ensure the definition of "permanence" recognises progressive and changing
conditions.
-
Remove the amendment granting the Minister pricing determination powers and ensure pricing decisions are made by an independent body.
-
If the amendment proceeds, Ministerial pricing powers must be subject to clear
safeguards, transparency, and independent oversight to protect participants and ensure sustainable service delivery.
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 5
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
- Consultation period
Recommendations
-
Extend the consultation period to ensure the Bill's outcomes are fit-for-purpose. -
Ensure consultation processes are robust and enable meaningful participation by
people with disability and the professionals who support them.
The consultation period for the Bill—from 14 May to 29 May 2026—is manifestly inadequate to support meaningful engagement on reforms of this scale and significance. The compressed timeframe has limited the ability of people with disability, their families, and the professionals who support them to fully consider the implications of the proposed changes and provide informed input.
While three days of public hearings are scheduled, the primary mechanism for public engagement remains written submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Although this is an important mechanism, it is not accessible to many of the individuals the Bill will directly affect. Preparing a formal submission requires time, resources, and familiarity with parliamentary processes, creating barriers for participation by people with disability and smaller provider organisations.
More robust and accessible consultation processes are required to ensure that a range of perspectives are captured, particularly from those most directly impacted. Without this, there is a significant risk that the Bill’s outcomes will not reflect the lived experience of participants or the realities of service delivery, and may result in unintended consequences for safety, access, and equity.
- Defining functional capacity
Recommendations 3. The definition of functional capacity should be set out in primary legislation and subject to full parliamentary consideration.
-
Amend the definition of functional capacity to reflect the role of environmental and
personal factors.
-
Functional capacity assessments must involve qualified allied health professionals and
be communication accessible.
Refer to: Schedule 1, Part 1, proposed section 9B – Definition of functional capacity
Proposed section 9B defines functional capacity for the purposes of the access test. As this definition determines eligibility for the Scheme, its core elements should be clearly set out in primary legislation.
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 6
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
While the explanatory memorandum identifies domains such as mobility, communication, social interaction, learning, self-care and self-management, these are intended to be developed in a subsequent framework without parliamentary engagement.
SPA is very concerned that proposed amendment s. 9B(1)(b) seeks to exclude, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.
This conflicts with the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), i which views functional capacity as the outcome of interactions between health conditions and external (environmental) and internal (personal) factors.
Communication and swallowing should be explicitly recognised within the definition of functional capacity. Communication is essential to ensuring an individual’s safety, autonomy and decision-making, educational access, participation in employment, social connection, and mental wellbeing.
Swallowing and safe eating are essential for good health and help prevent risks like choking, malnutrition, and hospitalisation, while supporting participation and quality of life.
As one speech pathologist states,
“A participant may appear physically capable but still be… disabled functionally if they cannot communicate pain, consent, distress, needs, preferences, or safety concerns.”
Another remarks,
“Safe mealtimes are imperative to maintaining physical health and wellbeing. If [a participant] can’t eat, then [they] won’t survive.”
The definition of functional capacity must reflect the role of environmental and personal factors in real-world communication and participation It is not possible to assess a person’s communication-related functional capacity without considering the environments in which they communicate. Communication reflects how individuals participate within their environmental and personal contexts, rather than operating independently of them.
Communication underpins learning, cognition, emotional regulation, and social interaction. It shapes participation in education, employment, and community life, and varies across contexts depending on a range of influencing factors.
As one speech pathologist commented,
“Communication spans the entirety of someone’s life… Limited communication affects all areas of life.”
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 7
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
Functional capacity is holistic, particularly in relation to communication. Its definition and assessment must reflect the full range of contexts in which individuals communicate and participate in mealtimes.
Functional capacity assessments must be communication accessible. Participating in a one-size-fits-all assessment can create significant barriers for people with communication access needs. Assessments must prioritise meaningful participation.
Individuals who do not use speech to communicate, and who do not have access to an effective communication system, may be unable to participate fully in standardised assessment processes. In these circumstances, their needs are often reported by others, limiting their opportunity to express their own capabilities, needs, and priorities.
When people do not use speech, incorrect assumptions are often made about their capacity to communicate. However, many individuals with complex communication participate effectively using a range of methods or when provided with appropriate supports. Without this recognition, they may be excluded from assessments and decisions about their own lives.
Even where communication supports are in place, individuals may still rely on others. For example, to ensure assistive technology devices are available and functioning, or to access an Auslan interpreter.
Functional capacity assessments must therefore be designed and implemented to be communication accessible, ensuring people living with disability can participate meaningfully and have their perspectives accurately reflected.
Speech pathologists are essential to designing a functional capacity framework and carrying out assessments. In addition to legislative changes, speech pathology expertise must be represented on the Technical Advisory Group informing development of the functional capacity assessment framework. This expertise is critical to both framework design and new NDIS eligibility processes.
Functional capacity assessments must incorporate speech pathology input. Assessment and interpretation of complex communication and safe mealtimes must be undertaken by a qualified speech pathologist.
Functional capacity in communication and swallowing is complex and multifaceted. Individuals use a range of communication methods, including speech, signing, and assistive technologies. Safe mealtimes rely on coordinated skills such as chewing, saliva management, and airway protection. These areas vary across individuals and may change over time in response to environmental factors, development, or progression of a condition. This is reflected in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), which conceptualises functional capacity as the outcome of interactions between individuals’ health conditions and their environmental and personal contexts.
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 8
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
Accurate assessment requires clinical judgement that draws on multiple sources of evidence. Standardised assessments risk relying on incomplete reports or limited observation. Without speech pathology expertise, assessors may not recognise or accurately interpret communication and swallowing functional capacity. As one speech pathologist noted:
“A functional capacity assessment of communication needs a speech therapist… It will end up being a tick and flick based on stressed parent reports or adults who will struggle to advocate for their own needs under the pressure of a timed assessment by a stranger.”
A functional capacity framework and assessment that does not account for this complexity creates risks for people living with communication and swallowing support needs. Communication is central to safeguarding individual rights, safety, and dignity. Choking and respiratory illness are identified as leading causes of death amongst people with disability. ii
- Reducing funding for groups of supports
Recommendations 6. Remove the proposed section 34B amendment, which grants broad Ministerial powers to reduce funding without sufficient safeguards and risks disproportionately impacting participants with complex support needs.
-
If the amendment proceeds, it must be modified to ensure that Ministerial budget-
setting powers must be subject to clear safeguards, transparency, and mechanisms to protect participants.
Refer to: Schedule 1, Part 4, proposed section 34B.
Schedule 1; Part 4 of the Bill, proposed section 34B would enable the Minister to reduce funding for entire groups of supports, such as Capacity Building Daily Activities, as well as for classes of plans and participants based on their circumstances or the types of supports they receive.
This provision is excessively broad and lacks appropriate safeguards. It permits significant funding reductions without clear criteria, transparency, or independent oversight, and is not subject to sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. In practice, this creates a material risk of inconsistent and inequitable decision-making and is likely to disproportionately affect participants with higher or more complex support needs. Without clear guardrails, these powers may undermine access to reasonable and necessary supports and expose participants to increased risks to safety, wellbeing and functional outcomes.
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 9
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
Funding cuts restrict access to essential supports. SPA’s members report that participants are already facing reduced or depleted budgets, requiring them to ration essential supports.
One speech pathologist reported that reductions to capacity building funding forced a participant to prioritise between critical supports. This delayed speech pathology review of mealtime safety, resulting in repeated choking incidents and hospital admissions. Other speech pathologists report that participants are going without communication systems:
“The child experienced withdrawal from school and was unable to communicate effectively after having technical issues that he experienced with his AAC device which were unable to be resolved with the support of his speech pathologist due to lack of funding.”
Many observe regression of skills and changes to participant wellbeing:
“Once funding was depleted, therapy ceased for several months until the next plan review. During this period, the child experienced increased frustration, reduced participation… and regression in previously established communication goals. The family also reported increased behavioural challenges linked to communication breakdowns and reduced confidence engaging socially.”
Additional cuts to support budgets are likely to increase the number of NDIS participants unable to access vital supports and increase long term costs due to reduced or no access to vital therapy services.
Proposed cuts are unlikely to improve the NDIS’s sustainability, while reducing access to critical supports for those who need them most. The Bill’s Impact Analysis iii (pg. 232) reports that only sixty-one percent of Capacity Building Daily Activities (CBDA) budgets are utilised. Reducing these budgets by ten percent is therefore unlikely to generate savings and would instead disproportionately impact participants with complex or evolving support needs, potentially increasing demand for more intensive and costly supports over time.
Capacity building supports are designed to build skills and independence, reducing reliance on future supports. However, the proposed amendment targets reduced budget availability and disregards that capacity building can decrease reliance on the Scheme. It anchors budgets to administrative benchmarks rather than individual functional capacity. It undermines both participant outcomes and long-term sustainability.
There is no evidence that this approach will improve sustainability. Instead, it risks increasing safety concerns, reducing functional capacity, and limiting participants’ opportunities for independence and participation.
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 10
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
If the amendment proceeds, Ministerial budget-setting powers should be subject to safeguards, transparency, and protections for participants. While the Bill requires the Minister to consider participant safety, this safeguard is insufficient. “Safety” is not defined and may be interpreted narrowly as immediate risk of harm, rather than encompassing longer-term impacts such as isolation or loss of functional supports. Supports that are reasonable and necessary should be fully funded, and safeguards must reflect both immediate and longer-term risks to participants.
Additional safeguards should include:
Clarify the duty to consider participant safety and outcomes. Specify that “having regard to the safety of participants” requires the Minister to consider:
• risks arising from reduced access to supports (e.g., isolation, therapy cessation, hospitalisation, or loss of functional capacity)
• impacts on continuity of care and early intervention.
Mandate structured consultation before making determinations. Require consultation with:
• NDIS participants and people living with disability
• disability representative organisations and participant advocacy groups
• relevant allied health peak bodies
• an independent pricing authority such as the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority (IHACPA).
These consultations should be documented and made publicly available.
Ensure transparency and proportionality in budget decisions. Require that determinations:
• are supported by published impact analysis (including anticipated effects on access to supports)
• demonstrate how reductions are proportionate and will not lead to unmet reasonable and necessary needs
• include mechanisms for review if adverse impacts are identified.
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 11
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
- Reasonable and necessary supports: Effective and beneficial
Recommendation 8. Amend the Bill to ensure decisions about whether a support is effective and beneficial are informed by the full range of high-quality evidence underpinning speech pathology practice.
Refer to: Schedule 1, Part 6, item number 73
The proposed amendment under s34(1E) would allow the NDIA CEO to determine what constitutes “current best practice”. It creates a risk that only certain forms of evidence, particularly published, peer-reviewed research, are recognised. This may exclude other valid and essential forms of evidence required to deliver safe and appropriate supports.
Speech pathology and broader allied health rely on multiple interacting evidence sources, not a single hierarchy. Within speech pathology, Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) has been defined as “an approach in which current, high-quality research evidence is integrated with practitioner expertise and client preferences and values, into the process of making clinical decisions.“ iv Within the NDIS, the Quality and Safeguards Commission defines evidence-informed practice as, “ integrating the rights and perspectives of the person with disability, with the best available research with professional expertise and information from the implementing or practice contexts.“ v
Evidence from a range of sources must be integrated to determine whether a support is effective and beneficial.
• Practitioner expertise is needed to interpret and apply research evidence to complex presentations.
• Participant and family input ensures supports are feasible, culturally responsive, and meaningful.
• Functional observations determine whether supports are effective in daily life.
If these elements are subordinated to research evidence, decision-making risks becoming disconnected from real-world effectiveness. As one speech pathologist stated,
“No single evidence type tells the whole story… when any of these evidence sources are missing, the picture is incomplete.”
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 12
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
Peer-reviewed research evidence does not capture the complexity of real-world disability supports. Research evidence is often generated under controlled conditions that do not reflect real-world environments. For example, research protocols, like frequency or intensity of supports, may not be feasible for participants or families and require adaptation in practice.
Research evidence is often based on homogenous cohorts, whereas NDIS participants often present with co-occurring conditions. In addition, research typically focuses on narrow outcomes, rather than functional participation, safety, and quality of life. Published research may therefore fail to capture meaningful outcomes, such as social participation or communication in natural contexts.
While the Bill requires research to be generalisable, peer-reviewed evidence may not translate well across diverse participant characteristics and contexts.
For these reasons, practitioners rely on dynamic, context-sensitive evidence, including:
• observation in multiple settings
• participant and caregiver input
• ongoing monitoring of progress
• trial and adjustment of supports over time.
These evidence sources are essential to determining whether a support is effective, but risk being excluded or undervalued under a narrow, research-focused hierarchy.
Research evidence does not fully represent the range of lived experience, identities, and intersecting factors among NDIS participants. There are significant and well‑recognised gaps in the evidence base, particularly for key participant groups who are underrepresented in research. These include:
• people with complex communication
• assistive technology/AAC users
• individuals with low-prevalence conditions
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
• the range of cultural and language communities.
In this context, relying on peer-reviewed evidence as the primary determinant of effectiveness is not just impractical, it is systematically biased.
The NDIS Quality and Safeguard Commission note the importance of evidence collected through practice where gaps exist. iii
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 13
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
- Tightening the meaning of ‘permanence.’
Recommendation 9. Ensure the definition of “permanence” recognises progressive and changing conditions.
Refer to: Schedule 1, Part 8, proposed sections 24(4) and 25(1A).
Schedule 1, Part 8, proposed section 24(4) and 25(1A) of the Bill modifies the definition of “permanence,” as it relates to NDIS eligibility. To meet this definition, a person must have undertaken all appropriate treatments, with no further treatments expected to provide meaningful improvement, and the condition must be lifelong.
However, functional capacity is not static. A person’s impairment reflects a complex interaction of factors, including progressive and fluctuating internal and external conditions.
The legislation should clarify that impairments do not need to be static to be considered permanent and must account for conditions where support needs change over time. This will help ensure eligibility decisions remain equitable and responsive to the lived experience of people with disability.
- Decision-making on pricing
Recommendations 10. Remove the amendment granting the Minister pricing determination powers and ensure pricing decisions are made by an independent body.
-
If the amendment proceeds, Ministerial pricing powers must be subject to clear
safeguards, transparency, and independent oversight to protect participants and ensure sustainable service delivery.
Refer to: Schedule 3, Part 1, proposed sections 34B and 45C.
Schedule 3, Part 1, proposed sections 34B and 45C of the Bill enables the Minister to make pricing determinations, including setting price limits and the method for determining those limits.
Allowing pricing decisions to be made by the Minister creates a risk that decisions will be shaped by political considerations and short-term budgetary pressures. Without safeguards, these powers could be used—now or in future—to further constrain pricing below sustainable levels, without transparency or meaningful consultation. This creates an ongoing structural risk that essential supports may become unavailable.
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 14
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
Pricing decisions already have immediate and material consequences. Speech pathologists report that current price limits do not cover the cost of service-delivery, with seventy-six percent of respondents to SPA’s member survey indicating this is the case. vi Forty- seven percent are unsure how long they will continue to provide NDIS services, reflecting ongoing financial instability. When asked what would influence their decision to cease NDIS service delivery, sixty-five percent of respondents expressed concerns about business viability, rising costs, and price limits.
As a speech pathologist stated, vii
“We are at high risk of market failure for therapy right now. I liaise with a lot of other private practice owners. In the last 12 months I’ve had 4 business owners indicate they are at risk of bankruptcy because they can’t price services properly but feel stuck because clients and communities rely on them”
Recent changes highlight the consequences of decisions made without consultation or an adequate evidence base. In 2025 the price limit for provider travel was cut by fifty percent, without sector consultation or transparent economic analysis. Providers were then forced to reduce or cease travel to participants, limiting access to services, particularly in regional and rural areas. viii
Pricing decisions that do not reflect the true cost of service delivery risk:
• reducing the number of providers in the NDIS market, thereby reducing participant choice and control,
• limiting access to supports
• creating inequity in participant access to vital services, particularly in thin markets.
Legislating broad Ministerial powers without robust safeguards risks accelerating these trends.
The amendment is inconsistent with the NDIS Review. The NDIS Review ix emphasised the need for:
• independent price-setting arrangements
• transparency in pricing decisions
• a balance between cost, quality, and participant outcomes.
Specifically, Action 11.3 recommended “The Australian Government should transition responsibility for advising on NDIS pricing to the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority to strengthen transparency, predictability and alignment.”
In contrast, expanding Ministerial powers moves pricing further away from independence and centralises control without introducing the safeguards recommended by the Review.
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 15
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
Safeguards are essential if the amendment is retained. If the amendment proceeds, strong statutory safeguards are essential to mitigate these risks.
At a minimum, pricing determinations should be subject to the following safeguards:
• mandatory independent pricing advice prior to any determination, provided by an independent body such as IHACPA (not the NDIA).
• mandatory public consultation with participants, representative organisations, and providers. Clear statutory principles guiding decisions, including participant access, quality, safety, continuity of supports, and equity (including in thin markets).
• transparency requirements, including publication of reasons for determinations, how statutory principles and independent advice were considered, and any reliance on external sources.
• published impact assessments detailing anticipated effects on participants and service- provision.
• robust oversight mechanisms, including parliamentary scrutiny, appropriate disallowance processes, and access to review.
This aligns with Recommendation 11.1 of the NDIS Review, which emphasises the role of independent pricing advice and oversight.
- Additional Comments: Registration of NDIS Providers
Refer to: Schedule 2, Part 1, proposed section 10C
Schedule 2, Part 1, proposed section 10C seeks to define “NDIS provider” for the purposes of provider registration. As the provider registration framework develops further, SPA recommendsx that the registration process for allied health professionals be redeveloped to align with existing frameworks such as Medicare. A ‘risk-proportionate’ registration framework must recognise provider qualifications and established professional governance structures, not just the type of supports they provide. Registration should not duplicate existing regulatory frameworks, such as the Certified Practising Speech Pathologist designation, which speech pathologists are already required to hold to work in the NDIS. Provider registration must avoid imposing disproportionate cost and administrative burden that risks workforce attrition and reduced access to services. SPA has also emphasised that registration alone does not ensure participant safety, and should form part of a broader, multi-faceted safeguarding approach that supports participant rights, accessible complaints mechanisms, and continuity of care.
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 16
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 393
- References
i World Health Organization (2001) How to use the ICF: a practical manual for using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, WHO, Geneva, p. 28.
ii NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (2024) Findings from independent review of deaths of people with disability in Australia, Australian Government, Canberra, pp. 55-66
iii Parliament of Australia (2026) National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 explanatory memorandum, Australian Government, Canberra, pg. 232.
iv Speech Pathology Australia (2024) Evidence-based practice for speech pathology in Australia, Speech Pathology Australia, Melbourne, pg. 6.
v NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (2023) Evidence-informed practice guide, Australian Government, Canberra, pp. 2, 3, & 5.
vi Speech Pathology Australia (2026) NDIA 2025-26 Annual Pricing Review Submission, Speech Pathology Australia, Melbourne, pp. 4-5.
vii Speech Pathology Australia (2024) NDIS Annual Pricing Review Submission 2023-2024, Speech Pathology Australia, Melbourne, pg. 2.
viii Speech Pathology Australia (2026) NDIA 2025-26 Annual Pricing Review Submission, Speech Pathology Australia, Melbourne, pg. 12.
ix Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme (2023) Working together to deliver the NDIS: final report, Australian Government, Canberra, pp. 171-172.
x Speech Pathology Australia (2026) ‘Getting it right: A new definition for NDIS providers’ consultation. Speech Pathology Australia, Melbourne.
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 17