Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Date: 1 June 2026

I am a parent who has two teenage children with Autism, who are both on the NDIS. I am lucky that I am a university educated person, with English as a first language, and who has a husband who earns a good wage, which allows me to work part time, and therefore engage in public submissions in this way. For those not in this category, they are unlikely to be able to make submissions to this process, making it inaccessible for many people enrolled in the NDIS.

I support all of the recommendations made by People with a Disability Australia and The Growing Space, but I will highlight a few that I have the time to consider (noting that if I had more time I would have discussed many more changes).

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, although I am disappointed with the short timeframe for submissions to the bill of only two weeks. The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days where possible. When you are dealing with communities that have accessibility challenges, it is disappointing that accessibility was not considered – As a parent with two children with a disability who also works part time, my time is extremely limited, and considering the changes to the act required significant time.

I stand with the People with Disability Australia in recommending that the full 30 days be offered.

One of the worst changes, which is not one of the ones that is concerning many people in the NDIS, is that it embeds an existing problems with the act and makes it significantly harder for those self managing.

I object to the The claim window dropping from two years to 90 days (s 45A(5)(a)). I previously self-managed my children’s NDIS, and often because of time pressures, ed up claiming a large number of invoices at the end of the allowable time, because I had missed them at the time. I would do an audit, of all my invoices, to make sure they had all been paid and this took me a week. This was often 2 years after the invoice was paid by me. The claim window now drops to 90 days – which is unreasonable – I would never have been able to manage to check I had already paid invoices, when I was self-managing, in 90 days. I had two disabled children with significant therapy appointment diaries that needed maintaining as well as working part time. This will lead to the breakdown of some parents who are struggling

Recommendation Regarding Financial Impact and Legal Protections

already, and compound it by suddenly being financially impacted by not being able to claim legitimate invoices, due to some family crisis. I recommend the two year timeframe being reinstated.

As identified by The Growing Space - Nominees additionally face a new civil penalty under s 80(5) for knowingly breaching their duty. The carve-outs in ss 73ZSH(2), 73ZSI(2) and 73ZSJ(2) protect against infringement notices, compliance notices and enforceable undertakings - but not against a direct civil-penalty order in court. Many nominees are unpaid family members who have stepped into the role to support someone they love. The exposure they would carry under this Bill is disproportionate to the role.

I recommend a “reasonable steps” defence and explicit protection from direct civil- penalty orders where the nominee is acting in good faith without remuneration.

The new bill does not update the issue about the NDIS being able to refuse payment on invoices where a self-manager has received poor advice from an NDIS ominated person, such as an LAC, Support Coordinator or Plan Manager. If the Agency later disagrees with the advice, the participant carries the debt under s 182(4), and the only escape is the s 195 special-circumstances waiver.

I make a recommendation in line with the Growing Space’s recommendations:

• to the Insert into the NDIS Act a binding pre-claim advice mechanism modelled on the Australian Taxation Office’s private rulings (see ITAA 1953 Schedule 1, Part 5-5) under which a participant, nominee or plan manager may apply in writing to the Agency for a ruling on whether a specified support is claimable for that participant, and the Agency is legally bound to honour that ruling for the period stated. Provide statutory timeframes within which the Agency must respond, beyond which a positive ruling is deemed to have been given.

• Where a participant relies in good faith on written advice, the Agency should be held to that advice. A binding pre-claim advice mechanism (above) is one half of the answer. The other half is that, where a participant has acted on written advice direct from the Agency that a particular support is claimable, the participant should not later be saddled with a debt because the Agency changed its mind. Without that protection, written advice is worthless and the system runs on fear and guesswork.

• Insert into the NDIS Act a statutory safe-harbour provision so that, where a participant or nominee has relied in good faith on written advice from the Agency that a particular support is claimable for that participant, the participant is not liable to repay claims approved on that basis, and any debt arising must be waived under s 195.

• Suggestion 21: Provide a statutory merits-review pathway for claim disallowances and post-payment claim reversals under ss 45 and 45A, including timeframes within which the Agency must act to reverse a paid claim, and beyond which a paid claim is deemed finally approved. Where the Agency seeks to recover a paid claim as a debt, the participant or nominee should have a right of merits review of the underlying claim decision, not only the debt decision.

• Provide a statutory merits-review pathway for claim disallowances and post- payment claim reversals under ss 45 and 45A, including timeframes within which the Agency must act to reverse a paid claim, and beyond which a paid claim is deemed finally approved. Where the Agency seeks to recover a paid claim as a debt, the participant or nominee should have a right of merits review of the underlying claim decision, not only the debt decision.

I am concerned with the Change to Schedule 1, which allows Ministers to change who gets NDIS support (Parts 8 and 9) and how much funding people receive (Parts 1, 8 and 9) by signing an instrument, without going back to Parliament. This means that changes can be made to all plans without any parliamentary debate or public scrutiny – there will be no opportunity to make submissions like this to parliament.

This is a fundamental problem for a healthy democracy, and unfairly impacts people with disabilities, who should be involved in the design of legislation affecting them.

I agree with the People with Disability Australia Recommendation that you should Require that all decisions affecting NDIS eligibility and funding levels be made through primary legislation subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory advance notice to affected participants before any changes take effect.

I am also concerned that this allows the minister to cut allocations without consultation with NDIS recipients, and the first one is to “Social and Community participation.

This would have negatively affected my son in his earlier years, who did not undertake any significant social activities outside our home with other people of his own age, such as scouts or a sporting team, due to our concerns that he would have a physical altercation with other young people or have a meltdown, due to insufficient supports for his needs. The NDIS supported social and community participation had suitable staffing with experience - and allowed us as parents a break from the 100% attention required when we took him out of the house. This is not just an opportunity to get out and have fun – it’s an essential break for all members of the family.

I make a recommendation in line with the Growing Space’s Recommendation to:

Amend s 34A to require that any percentage reduction be preceded by mandatory co-design, or at the very least, consultation with the disability community and a published impact statement, and that affected participants retain individual merits- review rights where the reduction produces an harmful change in their plan.

I also support the Growing Space’s concern for those with high needs, that this reduction means they are left without necessary supervision – these supports are inseparable from core safety, supervision, communication, regulation, inclusion and safeguarding needs. I support their recommendation to

Amend s 34A so that any percentage reduction to a support category cannot apply to participants whose plan funding for that category reflects high or complex support needs - including but not limited to participants requiring 24/7 supervision,

• participants with profound behavioural support needs,
• participants with complex health support needs (including tracheostomy, swallowing risk or airway management),
• and participants with intensive 1:1 support requirements. Provide an automatic exemption mechanism so that a uniform percentage reduction cannot produce unsafe gaps in supervision or support.

I am also concerned that Plan suspension and revocation can happen without you knowing (ss 40A, 30(1A)). Should I have a medical episode and be hospitalised, like a friend of mine recently, and be “uncontactable” on my phone or email, my children’s plans would be cancelled without notice.

I support the Growing Space’s recommendation to:

Define “reasonable attempts” in s 40A and s 30(1A) as requiring evidenced contact attempts via every channel the participant has provided (phone, email, post, and any listed emergency contact, nominee or support coordinator), documented and spread over a minimum 60-day period. Build in protected-circumstance exclusions that pause the clock - hospitalisation, mental health admission, bereavement, family emergency, overseas travel of less than 6 weeks, and communication breakdown outside the participant’s control. Remove the direct-revocation pathway in s 30(1A)(a); the 90-day suspension window in s 40A does the necessary work without removing the safety net.

I am also concerned about the ability for people on the NDIS to challenge decisions about supports and funding. The changes make it harder for NDIS participants to challenge decisions. Given how many disputes that escalated to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and decisions were made in favour of the NDIS participants challenging their new plan, this seems a retrograde step for equality.

As detailed by People with a Disabilty Australia, The Bill changes the rules for existing NDIS participants and makes it harder to challenge some decisions about supports and funding. It also restricts when you can request a reassessment, removes review rights for automatic plan renewals, and makes funding reductions unreviewable (Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 8). Combined with restrictions on reassessment requests (Part 2), automatic plan renewals without review rights (Part 5), and unreviewable funding reductions (Part 4), existing participants face narrower criteria with significantly fewer avenues to challenge decisions about their supports.

This would be of significant concern to me, that I would not be able to challenges changes to my children’s plans, to ensure that their supports are in place.

I support their recommendation to require a “no harm” safeguard ensuring no current participant loses access to supports unless equivalent supports are in place, with independent review rights before any exit decision and access to unscheduled reassessments preserved.