NDIA Accountability Project

This project is in DRAFT

AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (Provider advocacy)

‹ PrevPage 1 of 15 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI …….,, of South Australia Ltd.

National Disability I nsura nee

Scheme Amendment (Securing

the NDIS for Future Generations) Bil I 2026

Submission to t he Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Date Created: May 2026

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia (AHCSA)

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Acknowledgement of Country

AHCSA acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters across Australia and pays respect to Elders past and present. AHCSA also extends this respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people whose knowledge, culture and leadership continues to guide and strengthen Aboriginal Community-Controlled health.

Executive Summary

Committee Link - National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 - Parliament of Australia

The Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia (AHCSA) welcomes the opportunity to provide this submission to the Community Affairs legislation Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment {Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (‘The Bill’).

AHCSA is the peak body representing Aboriginal Community-Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) in South Australia, whose members deliver culturally safe, holistic healthcare across metropolitan, regional, and remote areas.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provides a crit ical role in supporting some of the most vulnerable members of the community. Aboriginal people with disability are uniquely marginalised in Australia.1 Aboriginal concepts of disability, health and wellbeing are holistic and grounded in connection to family, Community, Country and Culture.

The Bill as it stands would make considerable and substantial changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act (Cth) 2013 (‘the Act’). AHCSA is concerned that these amendments adopt a broad and undifferentiated approach, which fails to account for the distinct experiences, needs, and cultural contexts of Aboriginal people with disability. Without appropriate safeguards, these changes risk further entrenching inequit ies and exacerbating disadvantage for Aboriginal people with disability, who already experience disproportionate systemic barriers.

Recommendations

The Bill has significant and far-reaching implications, however the t ime frame provided does not allow opportunity for a thorough review and consultation, or time for engagement and consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. AHCSA strongly supports the joint statement issued by Disability Representative Organisations calling for Genuine Senate Scrutiny of this Bill. 2 We agree the Bill is highly technical, and substantial elements remain unknown as they are left to future rules, operational decisions and implementation arrangements.

1 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Final Report, September

  1. vol 9, 4 (‘Disability Royal Commission’). 2 ’Media Statement from Australia’s Disability Representative Organisations: Disability Representative Organisations

call for Genuine Senate Scrutiny as Concerns Grow Over Rushes NDIS Reforms,’ People with Disability Australia

(Media Statement, 15 may 2026) Media Statement from Australia’s Disability Representative Organisations - People with Disability Australia. Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing the NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Future Generations) Bill 2026. Page 2 of 15

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

In the short timeframe provided to review the Bill, AHCSA has identified serious concerns regarding the potential impacts the Bill will have on Aboriginal people living with disability. In its current form, the Bill should not proceed.

AHCSA asks that the Australian Government:

  • Allow sufficient time for thorough consultation and scrutiny, including inclusive and culturally appropriate engagement with Aboriginal communities, which have historically been underrepresented in reform processes.

  • Ensure that any legislative changes are informed by the lived experience of Aboriginal people with disability and the organisations that support them.

  • Priorit ise the continued development and implementation of out the alternative commissioning arrangements for Aboriginal Communities and remote areas as recommended by the NDIS Review3 and the

Disability Royal Commission.4

AHCSA has identified key recommendations, which require implementation and action, before the Bill can proceed. While more time and broad consultation is ult imately required, we provide these recommendations from a harm minimisation approach in the interim, noting that even with these changes the Bill will disadvantage participants.

These recommendations are outlined below, followed by detailed supporting rationale.

Recommendations:

  1. Section 9B(l )(b) should be redrafted to specifically include environmental and personal circumstances.

  2. The Technical Advisory Group should include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, with their perspectives and advice, play a determining role in decision-making.

  3. Do not repeal section 32K(3A) or note 2 of Section 32L(6).

  4. Remove sections 25A(2) and (4), and Item 93.

  5. Part 9 should be removed from the Bill. If Part 9 progresses, key elements should be embedded within the Act rather than delegated to the Rules; and

  6. Aged Care should be explicit ly excluded.

  7. Section 34A should not be implemented.

  8. Cultural Activities and return to Country should be explicitly recognised within the NDIS Act itself to ensure these supports are protected. Any related Rules must be developed in consultation with Aboriginal communit ies and reflect culturally appropriate design.

  9. Remove sections 33(2E) and 33(2EA).

  10. The hierarchy as proposed at section 34(1)(1E) should not be implemented; and

  11. When assessing whether a support is effective and beneficial for an Aboriginal participant, consideration must include Aboriginal perspectives on health, (per further commentary under the heading Effective and Beneficial). Inclusive of:

a. Whether the support is Aboriginal Culturally safe and responsive; 3 Working together to deliver the NDIS - Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Final Report, October 2023) recommendation 14 (‘NDIS Review’). 4 Disability Royal Commission (nl) vol 9, recommendation 9.5. Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing the NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Future Generations) Bill 2026. Page 3 of 15

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

b. Whether it aligns with the participant’s Aboriginal Cultural identity, values and community connections;

c. Whether there is relevant Aboriginal-specific evidence supporting its use; and d. Whether generalist evidence has been critically examined for Aboriginal Cultural applicability 12. Do not implement proposed amendment Item 79, including the amendments to subsections 30(1) and 30(1A).

  1. Do not implement Item 83, which proposes to introduce a new section 40A.

  2. Amend section 48(2) to remove the limitation to Support Coordinators.

  3. Remove section 48(2)(2A) which requires the use of an approved form for unscheduled plan reassessments.

  4. Amend proposed s48(3) to reduce the timeframe from 90 days to 21 days.

  5. In section 48A remove the mentions of “impairments” and instead focus on changes to functional capacity and to the participant’s personal or environmental circumstances.

  6. Amend the timeframes for the CEO in sections 48(3) and 48(4) to 21 days.

  7. Amend section 48(4) to retain clarity that, where the CEO does not make a decision under paragraph (3)(a), (b) or (c) within that 21-day period, the CEO is taken to have decided not to conduct a reassessment of the plan. The element regarding the ability to make a new framework plan could be included as a subsection if needs be.

  8. Do not implement section 50A(4). Ensure alignment with section 99 so that decisions made under section 50A remain reviewable and subject to the Merits Review process.

  9. Do not implement Item 45 relating to section 38(2) as currently drafted. A defined timeframe for decision- making should be included, with a maximum of 14 days.

  10. Remove section 458(6), including the requirement to retain the records for three years, and remove associated penalties, including the ability to raise a debt for failure to keep a record.

  11. Do not alter subsection 45A(5)(a).

Inability of Decision Maker to Consider Personal and Environmental Factors

The Bill proposes at various points to make considerations about participants and their plans without the ability to consider the participant’s personal and environmental circumstances. Specific concerns are outlined below, however as a general observation, when we remove personal and environmental factors with the means of being objective, it often has the counterintuitive impact of negatively impacting the most vulnerable.

The proposed new definition of Functional Capacity at Item 4, proposed section 9B(l )(b), specifically excludes the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances in considering functional capacity. The Explanatory Memorandum at page 15 states the intention is to promote a more objective and consistent assessment of the functional impact of the person’s impairment. This does not account for the realities faced by many Aboriginal people with a disability. Further, Rules which are yet to be developed as permitted under the proposed section 98(2) will make addit ional determinations regarding how functional capacity is assessed.

It has been announced and is included within the Explanatory Memorandum that a Technical Advisory Group will be established, to provide advice on appropriate thresholds and assessments for assessing eligibility based on

Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing t he NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Future Generat ions) Bill 2026. Page 4 of 15

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

functional capacity.5 It has been stated the Technical Advisory Group will include members with lived experience of disability and other technical experts. While we agree that any Technical Advisory Group must include those with lived experience, in line with Priority Reform One of Closing the Gap, it is essential that the Group includes Aboriginal people with disability, Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCOS) and Aboriginal Community

Controlled Health (ACCHOs).6

Aboriginal people with disability should be the primary voices determining matters relating to the experiences of Aboriginal people with disability. Addit ionally, key threshold decisions regarding functional capacity, and therefore eligibility, should be legislated within the Act itself and be subject to public scrutiny.

It is not possible to assess whether the proposed, yet-to-be-designed mechanisms will address or entrench existing inequit ies. This has been a persistent concern for the disability sector, where stakeholders are asked to comment on amendments to the NDIS Act while substantial decision-making powers remain within Rules to be developed at a later stage. Based on the information currently available, there are significant concerns regarding cultural safety, the adequacy of co-design, and the broad removal of consideration of personal and environmental circumstances.

Recommendation:

  1.  Section 9B(l)(b) should be redrafted to specifically include environmental and personal circumstances.
  2. The Technical Advisory Group should include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability,

with their perspectives and advice to play a determining role in decision-making.

The Bill at Item 28 seeks to repeal section s32K(3A), which relates to the making of Rules regarding Needs Assessments. This would remove the requirement for the Minister to be satisfied that the Rules adequately account for the range of factors that may affect a participant’s need for NDIS Supports, including environmental factors. Similarly at Item 30, the Bill seeks to repeal Note 2 of section 32L(6), also relating to Needs Assessments, which currently acknowledges that needs may be influenced by a range of factors, including environmental circumstances or the impact of another impairment in relation to which the participant does not meet the access requirements. The Explanatory Memorandum to The Bill at (page 25) states the impact of a participant’s individual characteristics and environmental circumstances will continue to be considered in determining needs. However, with the removal of these explicit provisions and notes, it is unclear when or how decision-makers will be required to take these factors into account. Both the NDIS Review7 and the Disability Royal Commission8 highlighted that Aboriginal people with disability experience significant barriers to accessing and participating in the NDIS.

Recommendation:

  1. Do not repeal section 32K(3A) or note 2 of Section 32L(6).

5 Explanatory Memorandum, National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Fut ure Generat ions) Bill 2026 (Cth) 7; ‘About t he changes to the NDIS,’ Australian Government, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, (Webpage, 14 May 2026) About the changes to the NDIS I Australian Government Department of Health. Disability and Ageing. 6 https://www.closingthegap.gov.au/national-agreement/priority-reforms 7 NDIS Review (n3) 27. 8 Disability Royal Commission (nl) vol 9, 3, 56. Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing the NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Future Generations) Bill 2026. Page 5 of 15

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

Item 92 proposed the introduction of section 25A which defines ‘appropriate treatment’ for the Permanence criteria with accompanying proposed sections 24(5) and 25(18). The most concerning is the proposed introduction of section 25A(2) which states treatment may be Appropriate Treatment for a persons impairment or impairments regardless of w hether the persons individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment. The note expands stating a persons individual circumstances include the persons financial circumstances and geographical location. This w ill have a counterintuitive impact where those w ho are privileged enough to afford treatments will maintain access to the scheme while the most vulnerable will not. While there are insufficient other mechanisms to permit equal access to treatment and healthcare for condit ions, this section cannot be allowed to proceed.

Aboriginal people face inequity in all domains, and particularly in health care. Aboriginal participants already have lower scheme uptake when compared to non-Aboriginal people. These amendments will not take account the inequit ies faced and will see less Aboriginal people accessing the scheme.

We echo First People’s Disability Network concern in their 2024 submission regarding the 2024 amendments; that participants cannot be left with non-existent supporting infrastructure as a result of this Bill.9 Proposed section 25A(2) of the Bill should be removed. We are further concerned at Item 92 proposed section 25A(4) and Item 93 which would together permit the NDIS Rules to make determination on w hen a person is taken to have undertaken all appropriate treatment for an impairment or impairments in Rules which are yet to be determined. While we appreciate these Rules would have to be made in consultation with the States and Territories, it does not require consultation w ith the disability community or the Aboriginal disability community, or relevant ACCO or ACCHOs. As highlighted previously, this consultation is essential.

Recommendation:

  1. Remove sections 25A(2) and (4), and Item 93.

Eligibility Based on Access to Other Schemes

The proposed introduction of Eligibility based on access to other services is another concern. The amendments would make someone ineligible if they are eligible for other schemes, specifically in the Bill being motor accident and workplace injury compensation schemes. This will create inequity, w ith people w ho have similar impairments not being entitled to the same supports dependent on cause, noting the State schemes have limitations.

Currently compensation is handled with a Compensation Reduction Amount, and a participant could have both compensation and a NDIS Plan, the NDIS funding would exist w hen the state system is unable to meet the needs of a person. Further proposed section 258(4)& (5) would enable the Rules to dictate other excluded impairments and systems. Aged Care is listed in the explanatory memorandum as an example. Aged Care is not a disability service, and not all aging related supports are disability related supports. Both systems would ideally work in tandem and not be siloed.10 Addit ionally Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People are eligible for aged care at 50, potentially excluding them from NDIS services much earlier.

Recommendation:

9 First Peoples Disability Network, Submission No 153 to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, National

Disability Insurance Scheme Amendments (getting the NDIS back on Track No.1) Bill 2024 {Provisions] (11 June 2024), 5. 10 NDIS Review (n3) recommendation 2, action 2.1. Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing t he NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Future Generat ions) Bill 2026. Page 6 of 15

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

  1.   Part 9 should be removed from the Bill. If Part 9 progresses, key elements should be embedded within

the Act rather than delegated to the Rules; and

  1. Aged Care should be explicitly excluded.

Ministerial Discretion Regarding Support Funding

Item 34 of the Bill seeks to introduce section 34A which would give the Minister the ability via legislative instrument to implement percentage reductions to funding component amounts for a specific group of supports. This should not be implemented. This section has been prepared without consultation, it appears to have not been adequately considered, and the safeguards are insufficient. While not specifically mentioned in the Bill, the Minister and the Federal Budget have discussed the use of this mechanism for Social, Economic and Community Participation supports.

The Bill proposes that the Minister must consider safety at proposed section 34A(3), however a proposal to reduce Social, Economic and Community Participation reflects a lack of concern for or understanding around safety. Denying or significantly reducing Social, Economic and Community Participation funding will place participants at risk. For some participants, these supports are the only way they can leave their home. The Minister cannot adequately consider the safety of such a large scale of people at one time. It also deviates from the Disability Royal Commissions visions for a more inclusive society.11 This proposal will entrench inequality, with supports deemed reasonable and necessary only be available to those who can afford a potential gap.

The mention of Social, Economic and Community Participation funding is more concerning when considered against the Disability Royal Commission12 recommended funding for cultural activit ies and return to country. The provision for Cultural activity is currently sitting in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024, these rules define cultural activit ies and include them in some NDIS Support categories, one being Participation in community, social and civic activities.13

Under the proposed amendments, supports could be reduced in a scaled manner. While AHCSA acknowledges that, separate to the Bill, the Budget has committed funding to establish an Inclusive Communit ies Fund, this does not mitigate the immediate risks. As previously highlighted by the First Peoples Disability Network in its response to the 2024 amendments, participants must not be left without adequate support infrastructure as a result of these reforms.

Furthermore, people with disability should not be limited to disability-specific community participation. As emphasised by the Disability Royal Commission, reform must support people with disability to engage in the broader community, consistent with the goal of building a more inclusive society.

Recommendations:

  1.  Section 34A should not be implemented.
  2.  Cultural Activities and return to Country should be explicitly recognised within the NDIS Act itself to

ensure these supports are protected. Any related Rules must be developed in consultation with Aboriginal communities and reflect culturally appropriate design.

11 Disability Royal Commission (nl) Executive Summary, 13. 12 Disability Royal Commission (nl) vol 9, recommendations 9.7 & 9.8 13 National Disability Insurance Scheme {Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth) schedule 1.1 Item 27. Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing t he NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Fut ure Generat ions) Bill 2026. Page 7 of 15

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

Similarly, Item 68 of the Bill seeks to insert Section 33(2E)(2EA) which would extend the ability of the Minister by legislative instrument to determine the maximum amount of funding for the support or supports in the class of supports; or maximum intensity for provision of the support or supports in the class of supports; or a maximum ratio of worker to participant for provision of the support or supports in the class of supports.

The Minister is not in a position to safely make such a determination for every individual participant and by grouping supports or supports in the class of supports, it removes the necessary discretion in decision making to be able to make a safe decision for each individual. All disabilities and impairments are different, and it is unreasonable for the Minister to determine maximum funding in a class of supports, maximum intensity or support work rations when they have not met the participant and are not involved in their clinical care. There are many inadvertent potential outcomes from this change, placing unacceptable risks on participants.

Recommendation:

  1. Remove sections 33(2E) and 33(2EA).

Effective and Beneficial Criteria Hierarchy

The Bill would make a hierarchy for consideration regarding the Effective and Beneficial criteria through Item 73 regarding section 34(1)(1E). The most important consideration in this hierarchy is research and evidence in relation to the support that is published, peer reviewed and generalisable. In considering whether a support is effective and beneficial under s34(1)(d), a mainstream approach is not appropriate for Aboriginal participants. The insertion of the new proposed hierarchy is concerning.

Aboriginal concepts of disability, health and wellbeing are holistic and grounded in connection to family, Community, Country and Culture. Supports that are general and therefore dominant population based are based solely on general population evidence, without considering Aboriginal Cultural context. Mainstream evidence is not appropriate for Aboriginal participants, and instead Aboriginal ways of knowing, being and doing must be recognised and prioritised.

In line with NOIA expectations regarding research and evidence, decision-making should prioritise:

  • Evidence that is Aboriginal-specific or demonstrates Aboriginal Cultural applicability;
  • Aboriginal Culturally informed practice and Aboriginal Community-controlled service models; and
  • Lived experience and Aboriginal knowledge systems as valid forms of evidence. Reliance on generalised, peer-reviewed evidence alone is insufficient where it does not reflect the participants Cultural needs. Not ensuring this is in direct conflict with the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2021-2031, and the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. Accordingly, a support that does not incorporate Aboriginal Cultural considerations, even if supported by general evidence, would not be appropriate or safe to an Aboriginal participant. Recognising Aboriginal perspectives and evidence is not an optional enhancement, it is a necessary condition for achieving meaningful and equitable outcomes.

The consideration of “research and evidence” must also be interpreted carefully in the Aboriginal disability context. Not all evidence is equally relevant or appropriate. Much of the mainstream disability evidence base:

  • Has been developed in non-Aboriginal populations; Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing the NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Future Generations) Bill 2026. Page 8 of 15

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

  • Does not account for Aboriginal Cultural determinants of health; and

  • Will not translate into Aboriginal contexts. Therefore, decision-makers should priorit ise:

  • Evidence that is Aboriginal-specific or demonstrates Aboriginal Cultural applicability;

  • Research conducted w ith Aboriginal Communit ies, or guided by Aboriginal leadership and Aboriginal Ethics Committees; and;

  • Practice-based evidence arising from Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations or Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHO).

Aboriginal know ledge systems, lived experience, and Aboriginal Community authority must be recognised as valid and crit ical forms of evidence, not secondary to Western academic research. There is strong evidence that Culturally unsafe and inappropriate services contribute to disengagement, under-utilisation, and poorer outcomes, across all domains.

Recommendation:

  1. The hierarchy as proposed at section 34(1)(1E) should not be implemented; and
  2. When assessing whether a support is effective and beneficial for an Aboriginal participant, consideration must include Aboriginal perspectives on health, inclusive of:

a. Whether the support is Aboriginal Culturally safe and responsive; b. Whether it aligns with the participant’s Aboriginal Cultural identity, values and community connections;

c. Whether there is relevant Aboriginal-specific evidence supporting its use; and d. Whether generalist evidence has been critically examined for Aboriginal Cultural applicability.

Suspensions and Revocations

Item 83 proposed to create new section 40A regarding participants who are not contactable, giving the CEO the ability to suspend a non-contactable participants plan, and at Item 79 the proposed amendments to subsection 30(1)(1A) enables the revocation of a not contactable participant.

Section 40A would specifically enable the CEO to suspend a participants plan if they were not contactable and the CEO had made reasonable attempts to contact the participant for requests under section 36 or section SO of the Act. This section broadens already significant power. Cutting someone’s access to supports without considering why participants may be ‘not contactable’ is both unreasonable and unacceptable. Section 36 and section SO of the Act both enable the CEO to request information and reports, and require the participant to undergo assessments or examinations.

There are many reasons why participants may be unable to comply w ith such notices requiring specific actions. In particular, section 36 may require a person to undertake an assessment under section 32L (Assessment of Participant’s Need for Support). The rollout of this assessment has already been delayed, and there remains very limited public information regarding its design, implementation, or impact. There is also insufficient clarity regarding the Cultural safety safeguards that w ill apply.

Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing t he NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Fut ure Generat ions) Bill 2026. Page 9 of 15

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

Further, systemic barriers may prevent participants from obtaining the required information or complying with such requests. There are often significant waitlists for assessments, and reports can take considerable time to complete. These challenges are further compounded by thin markets in regional and remote areas, as well as the well documented lack of Culturally safe services for Aboriginal participants.

In practice, this means that participating in - or even accessing - required assessments may not be feasible for some participants. Communicating these barriers to the NOIA, particularly in response to a formal notice, creates an addit ional administrative burden for individuals who may already be experiencing significant disadvantage. Additionally, the term “reasonable attempts to contact” is not defined. This introduces a level of subjectivity, as what constitutes a reasonable attempt in a metropolitan area may differ significantly from what is reasonable in a remote or very remote setting.The Explanatory Memorandum states that a reasonable attempt would include issuing a w ritten notice to the participant, ensuring the notice is received (for example, sent to the correct address), allowing sufficient time for the participant to gather requested information and reports, and that the participant is able to respond (for example, not being hospitalised or otherwise incapacitated). However, the Agency has limited ability to determine w hether these circumstances have actually occurred for an individual participant.

There are also known challenges in contacting participants, particularly those w ithout a fixed address or access to a phone. In addit ion, a proportion of participants require support to interpret and respond to written correspondence. While w ritten notification is necessary, it may not be sufficient to effectively notify all participants. For those who require assistance to understand and act on such notices, wait times for advocacy and support services can be significant, further limiting their ability to respond w ithin required timeframes.

Additionally, one only needs to be suspended for 90 days to be at risk of revocation. 90 days is a short timeframe particularly w hen considering the already highlighted reasons for w hy someone may be ‘not contactable.’ While a revocation is a reviewable decision, the appeals process is extremely stressful, and places a significant burden on participants, and particularly those who intersect with compounding disadvantage.

Recommendation:

  1. Do not implement proposed amendment Item 79, including the amendments to subsections 30(1) and 30(1A).

  2. Do not implement Item 83, which proposes to introduce a new section 40A.

Reviews

The Bill proposes changes to unscheduled plan reassessments, and limitation to merits review. The Explanatory Memorandum states: “ Unscheduled plan reassessments are a key driver of plan and whole of Scheme inflation as they frequently increase the value of a plan, even where increases are not necessary or appropriate. Unnecessary reassessments and plan increases are often the result of a lack of clarity and appropriate controls around w hen plans should be reassessed. Some requests for plan reassessments are made by intermediaries, such as support coordinators and plan managers, and some requests are made even w ithout a participant’s knowledge.“

Currently, if a plan has been increased at any stage it has to be deemed reasonable and necessary. If the Administrative Review Tribunal or Federal Court implemented an increase, it is done in alignment with the legislation and rules. An appropriate interpretation of increases because of unscheduled assessment would be the NOIA made an inappropriate decision in the first instance that the Court and Tribunal then corrected by applying the legislation and rules as it stood. The review process is long, burdensome, and traumatic for participants.

Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing the NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Future Generations) Bill 2026. Page 10 of 15

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

The proposed new changes to unscheduled plan reassessments are significant. Proposed subsection 48(2) explicitly limits who can request an unscheduled reassessment, explicit ly excluding Support Coordinators. Support Coordinators (on the participants instruction and direction) should be able to request an unscheduled plan reassessment. The scheme enacts significant administrative stress and burden onto participants and their families. The example of Lachlan in the Explanatory Memorandum seems to prove the opposite point to its intention - Lachlan consulted with his Support Coordinator and the NOIA make himself and his Plan Nominee jump through another administrative hurdle to enact Lachlan’s wishes. Advocacy and Appeals Services are overwhelmed with waitlists; they do not have capacity for this to be an additional advocacy issue.

Additionally, from an administrative perspective, Item 18 (proposed subsection 48(2A)) enables the use of an approved form for unscheduled plan reassessments. Any such process must be participant-centered, simple, and accessible. Participants should have mult iple options to engage with the process, including by phone, in person, by post and online. Further, under Item 19 (proposed subsection 48(3)), the 90-day timeframe for the Agency to respond is excessive. This is particularly concerning given the proposed higher thresholds for what will trigger an unscheduled plan reassessment. Delays of this length may result in participants being left w ithout t imely access to necessary support.

Recommendation:

  1. Amend section 48(2) to remove the limitation to Support Coordinators.

  2. Remove section 48(2)(2A) which requires the use of an approved form for unscheduled plan reassessments.

  3. Amend proposed s48(3) to reduce the timeframe from 90 days to 21 days. Proposed sections 48A(l )(a)&(b) dictates there must be a significant change to those ongoing support needs of the participant. This change must arise from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements. The significant change must result from either an alteration in functional capacity or a change in the participant’s personal or environmental circumstances. Under the subsequent subsection, an alteration in functional capacity may relate to an existing impairment that meets the disability or early intervention requirements. Alternatively, it may arise from a new or acquired impairment for w hich the participant meets those same requirements (see subsections 48(1)(a), 48(1)(b)(i), 48(2)(b)(i) & 48(2)(b)(ii)). This appears to preclude existing impairments which the NOIA are yet to acknow ledge have or do meet the disability or early intervention requirements.

Due to poor management of disabilities/ impairments, many participants do not know, are yet to be informed, or the NOIA have not kept accurate records as to w hat of their impairments meet the disability or early intervention requirements. As this was not necessary prior to the 2024 amendments to the scheme, public data is not available on how many participants, particularly existing participants prior to 1 January 2025, have received their Notice of Impairment, and the understanding is the Notices are still being issued.

While the NOIA are yet to accurately record all participants impairments, this is unacceptable and would have the inadvertent outcome of precluding an unscheduled plan reassessment to w hen their impairments may meet the criteria, but due to lack of record keeping, they cannot seek a review w hen a change in their capacity or care arrangements arises. Additionally, the NDIA’s current system of recording medical diagnoses and issuing participants with broad categories of impairment for a participant’s notice of impairment w ill cause complication, confusion, and unnecessary rejection of unscheduled plan reassessments.

Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing the NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Future Generations) Bill 2026. Page 11 of 15

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

There should be broader scope to consider a person’s individual circumstances, situation and other impairments which do not meet the threshold for NDIS supports.

Recommendation:

  1. In section 48A remove the mentions of "impairments" and instead focus on changes to functional capacity

and to the participant’s personal or environmental circumstances.

The Bill will alter and limit the number of decisions subject to merits review. Items 19 and 20 seek to alter the timeline for when the CEO must comply to 90 days instead of 21 per s48(3), and s48(4) is completely altered to permit the CEO to issue a new framework plan within the 90 day period as a legit imate response to a request. It also removes the wording regarding if an action is not taken under s48(3) w ithin the time period, the CEO is taken to have decided not to conduct a reassessment of the plan, and s48(4) is currently a reviewable decision under section 99 of the Act.

Item 23 proposes to alter s99(1) to omit s48(4) that in conjunction w ith the alteration to s48(4) itself result that there is no time period from which the CEO not acting would constitute them having deemed to not act, and the alteration to s99 mean there is no reviewable decision linked.

Once again, 90 days for action from the CEO is a long time, particularly if someone has significant change as dictated by the new amendments. Further there is no t imeframe for a deemed decision which means participants could wait indefinitely. Additionally, items 24-26 of the Bill propose to remove s48(4) from various subjections of sl00. This would effectively remove the right of Merits Review in a circumstance which is currently permitted.

Recommendation:

  1. Amend the timeframes for the CEO in sections 48(3) and 48(4) to 21 days.
  2. Amend section 48(4) to retain clarity that, where the CEO does not make a decision under paragraph (3)(a), (b) or (c) within that 21 day period, the CEO is taken to have decided not to conduct a reassessment of the plan. The element regarding the ability to make a new framework plan could be included as a subsection if needs be.

The Bill proposes replacing the current system of Plan Continuations/ rollovers with a new system at Item 50 called Plan Renewals. The proposed section 50A(4) which would dictate the making of the new plan under ‘plan renewal’ does not involve the making of any reviewable decision. The Explanatory Memorandum at page 35 states this as an automatic decision and therefore not appropriate for merits review. The Explanatory Memorandum’s assertion in this as an automated decision ignores the context of the decisions being made.

The Explanatory Memorandum draws on the publication by the Administrative Review Council titled ‘What decisions should be subject to merits review’ but then assert that ‘automatic’ or ‘mandatory’ decisions are not appropriate for merits review. How ever, in the Council’s publication, ‘automatic’ or ‘mandatory’ decision refers to decision w hich must occur, a plan has discretionary decisions within it, even if the same plan were to be issued again. Further, as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, the plan is based on the content of the previous plan, subject to certain adjustments.14

14 Administrative Review Council, What Decisions should be subject to Merits Review (1999) What decisions should be subject to merit review? 1999 I Attorney-General’s Department [3.8-3.12]. Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing the NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Future Generations) Bill 2026. Page 12 of 15

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

The Administrative Review Council uses an example in which the decision maker made no decision within the meaning of the Act (Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act at the t ime of print), however as stated by the Explanatory Memorandum the original plan (plan pre renewal) was subject to merits review, if the original decision warrants a review any subsequent decision to uphold the original decision would naturally follow and should also be subject to merits review.15 Particularly, the Administrative Review Council stated that an administrative decision that will or is likely to affect the interests of a person should be subject to merits review, and the council preferred a broach approach to the identification of merits reviewable decisions.16

The Explanatory Memorandum seeks to limit the scope of merits review by inappropriately labelling this an automatic or mandatory decision. Under the current system of plan continuations, participants plans are rolled over without consultation. It also disregards the context that many participants don’t lodge an unscheduled review if they are close to their plan end date and instead wait to update the agency at the t ime of a plan review. However, if a review does not occur, they miss this opportunity. Under the current system participants are afforded the right of merits review using the new plan date.

This section should be amended and the new start date for a plan renewed via plan renewal should allow a reviewable decision and be cross referenced with sections 99 and slOO to enable this. Given the above concern related to unscheduled plan reassessments and the significant limitations the Bill proposes, it is unreasonable that this new plan renewal process would limit plans which are reviewed without consultation with the participant.

Recommendation:

  1. Do not implement section SOA(4). Ensure alignment with section 99 so that decisions made under section

SOA remain reviewable and subject to the Merits Review process.

Timeframes and Administrative Burden for Participants

The Bill would place greater administrative burden on participants while increasing administrative t imeframes in some instances for the agency. This is unacceptable. Recommendation:

  1. Do not implement Item 45 relating to section 38(2) as currently drafted. A defined timeframe for

decision-making should be included, with a maximum of 14 days.

In the retention of records proposed s45B(6), three years for a participant to keep their records is a lengthy amount of t ime. This seems unnecessarily punitive, suggesting a perception of bad faith in participants. The already high administrative burden of the scheme, how complicated the scheme is for people to navigate and who the scheme is meant to serve must be considered. This section has not considered the difficulty or impossibility for people without computers, phones, sleeping rough, nor people living transient lives. Requiring people to keep records for 3 years (alongside the punit ive nature of a potential debt for people w ho do not keep those records for the required timeframe) will disproportionality and negatively impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants.

Recommendation:

15 Ibid. 16 Ibid [2.1,2.4). Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing t he NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Future Generat ions) Bill 2026. Page 13 of 15

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

  1. Remove section 458(6), including the requirement to retain the records for three years, and remove associated penalties, including the ability to raise a debt for failure to keep a record.

The proposed S45A(S)(a) would reduce the claim t imes for participants from 2 years to 90 days. This is a significant reduction in timeframe. There are many reasons w hy a 2-year timeframe is utilised, and the significant burden of managing ones NDIS Plan even w ith support is substantial. Recommendation:

  1. Do not alter subsection 45A(S)(a).

Conclusion

The Bill as it stands w ill disproportionately disadvantage Aboriginal people with disability. The Disability Royal Commission went as far as to state the significant barriers Aboriginal participants face in participation and access to the NDIS constitute systemic neglect. The Bill as it stands will further entrench this neglect by the Government. Time, consultation and co-design must occur before any changes to the Act are made. We implore the Government to instead commit to the alternative commissioning arrangements for Aboriginal Communities and remote areas as recommended by the NDIS review recommendation 14 and Disability Royal Commission.

Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing the NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Future Generations) Bill 2026. Page 14 of 15

Submission 416

Aboriginal Health CouncilJI ……, of South Australia Ltd.

References

‘About the changes to the NDIS,’ Australian Government, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, (Webpage, 14 May 2026) About the changes to the NDIS I Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. Administrative Review Council, What Decisions should be subject to Merits Review (1999) What decisions should be subject to merit review? 1999 I Attorney-General’s Department.

Explanatory Memorandum, National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future

Generations) Bill 2026 (Cth).

First Peoples Disability Network, Submission No 153 to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, National

Disability Insurance Scheme Amendments (getting the NDIS back on Track No.1) Bi/1 2024 [Provisions] (11 June 2024).

’Media Statement from Australia’s Disability Representative Organisations: Disability Representative Organisations

call ofr Genuine Senate Scrutiny as Concerns Grow Over Rushes NDIS Reforms,’ People with Disability Australia

(Media Statement, 15 may 2026) Media Statement from Australia’s Disability Representative Organisations - People with Disability Australia.

National Centre for Disability Advocacy, Advocacy Sector Workforce Survey (Results Report, January 2026), Advocacy Sector Workforce Survey report.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth).

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (Cth).

National Disability Insurance Scheme {Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth).

Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Final Report, September 2023).

Working together to deliver the NDIS - Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Final Report, October 2023).

Document Title: AHCSA Submission re NDIS (Securing t he NDIS for Date Created: 18/05/2026 Future Generat ions) Bill 2026. Page 15 of 15