National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 430
Dorinda Cox Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Our Ref: LF26-148
Dear Ms Cox,
I am writing to you in your role as Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on the 2026 NDIS Amendment Bill Inquiry and ask that you and your fellow committee members consider the following representation made to you by Sylvanvale as an interested party in the progress of the NDIS Amendment Bill.
Sylvanvale’s considerations are contained in the attached document.
Yours sincerely,
Leanne Fretten CEO Sylvanvale
Sylvanvale Limited 101/53 Eton Street, Sutherland NSW, 2232 PO Box 29 Sutherland NSW 1499 PHONE 1300 244 577 sylvanvale.com.au Donations over $2 are tax deductible ABN 25 639 556 988 | ACN 639 556 988 Charitable Fundraising Number CFN 25657
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 430
BACKGROUND
Like many non-government organisations Sylvanvale was founded (some 79 years ago) by concerned family members who discovered to their dismay that existing government and community based structures did not meet the needs of their children with disabilities. They responded by building their own age-related services for the children in their communities starting with pre-school supports and then as the cohort aged moving to school based supports and then a post school offering including employment and accommodation. Their efforts were supported by localised fund raising, sponsorship usually in the form of capital such as vehicles and then by government funding.
Throughout this time Sylvanvale’s constituents have been people with moderate to severe intellectual disability often with health or psychosocial co-morbidities. Sylvanvale writes to you now as often neither they nor their fearful and exhausted families have the capacity or the will to do so.
Sylvanvale is not naive in thinking that what it raises will be either new or have a unique twist. Rather it will add weight to the submissions of others so that you and your fellow committee members know that any changes that become law will impact the most vulnerable, for whom the scheme was designed and intended for.
Before speaking of specific issues it should be stated that Sylvanvale shares the concerns of others that the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) does need fundamental change, but of course it is the nature and the detail of the proposed changes that gives weight to concerns. We accept that the social licence (often spoken about by Ministers and referred to in the media) is at least under scrutiny if not attack. Further we accept that sustainability of the Scheme has become seminal in the ensuing conversations and is critical to the well-being of the participants that the Scheme seeks to support.
The particular issues to be outlined on behalf of our constituents are as follows:
- The initial co-design of the NDIS. There were many concepts on which the Scheme was based but part of the fundamental architecture was that the NDIS should give people with disability an ordinary life, a life of their choosing and one that saw them perhaps for the first time being able to participate in their communities as citizens; and as citizens who were recognised and valued, as are all Australian citizens. We challenge the Committee to at least hold this concept close as they look at the Bill’s proposed amendments and in doing so ask themselves what would such changes do to the position of people with disability in Australia as valued citizens? Would they be relegated to the position of supplicants to be silently grateful for what the system allocates them?
- The proffered narrow dual focus of the public rhetoric being fraud and sustainability. The Bill focuses on these two key and now well understood risks and proposes a raft of other ‘technical amendments’ to improve the operation of the Act. Such amendments appear more than technical or ‘clarifying,’ rather they seem wholesale and include both
Sylvanvale Limited
101/53 Eton Street, Sutherland NSW, 2232 PO Box 29 Sutherland NSW 1499 | PHONE 1300 244 577 sylvanvale.com.au | Donations over $2 are tax deductible ABN 25 639 556 988 | ACN 639 556 988 Charitable Fundraising Number CFN 25657
Submission 430
macro and minor changes including single word changes. No evidence is offered as to the predominance of fraud though dollar amounts have been aired. So it is unclear whether the level of fraud is more or less than that seen in other government funded programs.
It is accepted that fraud is a scourge that has a direct impact on participants and can lead to exploitation and harm and by association taint all those involved in the provision of services. Government should use all levers at their disposal to control and reduce fraud in the scheme as is the case in all government programs.
Sylvanvale asks the Committee not to fall into the populist narrative around the prevalence of fraud and leave that issue to be reviewed and resolved via usual pathways within government including the Police.
- The proposed powers to be given to any disability minister or NDIA CEO. The Bill proposes to enshrine within the Act the power for the disability minister to act unilaterally in making changes designed to manage sustainability by reducing funding for a specified type, class(es) or group(s) of supports across the Scheme not person by person.
These powers if passed will be included in both the Transitional Rules and forward management of the Scheme. With the only consideration being ‘safety’ without such decisions being subject to review as they are not directed at an individual (or their circumstances), with only general accountability safeguards applicable due to class rather than individual decisions being at play. The Minister again using the new powers does not have to get agreement from the States before giving directions to the NDIA regarding the performance of its functions. This appears like a slow move towards the centralising of operational powers regarding the Scheme being shared between two executive arms, that is the Minister and the NDIS CEO.
Participants and families are unlikely to understand the complexity and nuance behind such changes but will understand that their individual rights to appeal have been eroded or removed. They will understand other powers that enable funding levels (including pricing) to be varied by the Minister to such a degree that they may not meet the cost of the needed supports. Such changes may lead to NDIS participants and their families losing faith and trust in the Scheme’s ability to enhance lives and the Committee should make comment on how this loss will be remediated.
The powers of the NDIA CEO seem to align or at least are contiguous with those of the Minister. In that the CEO is expected to provide advice to the Minister on a range of matters relevant to pricing and more alarmingly will be able to utilise an ‘automated decision making’ process using a computer program. It’s noted that this can be part of an administrative action with the final decision made by a person. But it is clear that into the future a series of decisions will be able to be made using an algorithm-based computer program and that several such decisions will form an ‘operating procedure’ that sets out how such determinations should always be made. It’s unclear how well constructed this
Sylvanvale Limited
101/53 Eton Street, Donations over $2 are tax deductible
Sutherland NSW, 2232 PHONE 1300 244 577 ABN 25 639 556 988 | ACN 639 556 988Submission 430
process is and how much of it can be evaluative determinations (which while mentioned) are yet to defined but these at least require the exercise of discretion by a person.
Regardless, such a process will be a ‘hard sell’ to battle weary participants and families as it will inevitably conjure up images of ‘Robodebt.’ This poorly disguised grab for power by the executive arms strikes at the heart of the philosophy and historical architecture of the NDIS and because of the power it confers and limits to a small number of decision makers is perhaps the most concerning of the proposed Amendments. In that it allows immediate changes to the funding of a class(es) and group(s) of supports. One such change is outlined below that is likely to cause harm to the most vulnerable.
- Immediate changes to Core Supports, Capacity Building Supports by October 2026. This appears to be at first glance a shot gun approach to get early runs on the board and reassure the public on two counts: social licence and sustainability. But these categories of support contain multiple sub classes of services within them with the Minister looking to exercise the powers described above to particularly target some sub classes eg within Core Supports; Assistance with Social, Economic and Community Participation (50% cut) sits employment supports and centre based day supports, alongside supports provided in the community and under Capacity Building; (10% cut) therapy and a variety of other support line items.
There is no clarity as to whether these determinations will be applied at the category or line item levels, nor for the duration or timeframes that they will apply and be in place.
There is also the ability for carve outs relating to the class(es) of plans they apply to meaning it could be applied to only certain classes of participants with reference to characteristics such as their personal circumstances or the nature of the supports they receive. This action appears not to have been widely discussed with critically affected parties (participants and service providers), even though there is an immediate flow on impact.
Firstly, to participants who may have to either source funding to continue at their current level of support or remain in their accommodation setting for extended periods. If the accommodation is NDIS funded that is a Supported Independent Living (SIL) arrangement it is unclear how the extra hours in the SIL setting would be funded. Or if the funds were used to provide community participation from the SIL setting as the participant could not source a separate community participation provider how this would be funded. This immediate rebasing of some NDIS settings is poorly conceived and requires more explanation, more ‘hearts and minds’ work in the participant space and discussion of financial ramifications to service providers prior to any roll out.
We provide the following examples to outline the impact that these determinations will have on Sylvanvale clients.
Sylvanvale Limited
101/53 Eton Street, Donations over $2 are tax deductible
Sutherland NSW, 2232 PHONE 1300 244 577 ABN 25 639 556 988 | ACN 639 556 988Submission 430
Participant AA
Lives in a SIL placement with 4 other people, she attends a centre based day program 5 days, 30 hours a week at a 1:2 client to staff ratio of support. With a 50% cut to her funding which is fully utilised, she will only be able to attend the day program 15 hours per week.
AA has no family and no informal supports so will need to return to the SIL home for an additional 15hrs per week. There are no staff rostered at the SIL home during the day as all participants attend day programs. The provider will be left with a decision to either;
-
Leave AA unsupported for 15hrs, which isn’t safe to do as they have a number of high intensity support needs (epilepsy, manual handling requirements, dysphagia); or
-
Provide the 15hrs of support to AA at their own expense at over a $1000 per week 1:1 support ratio and put the viability of the entire company at risk; or
-
Drop AB at the only provider of last resort able to support her now unfunded needs this being the local emergency department. Sylvanvale supports more 200 participants in SIL environments where these will be the only 3 options available to consider, all of which are harsh and impact the safety of the participants, the viability of the provider or threaten to bring the local health systems into chaos.
Participant AB
Lives in a SIL placement with 6 other people, AB has his own villa within the site due to his extremely complex and challenging behaviours. AB does not attend a centre based day program due to his challenging behaviours, rather he utilises his community participation funds with the SIL provider. AC is funded at a 2:1 staff to client support ratio in the community and 1:1 support ratio while at the SIL home during the day Monday to Friday.
A 50% reduction in AB’s funding will mean he is no longer able to access the community as with only one worker, it wouldn’t be safe to do so. This pricing determination will essentially mean AB is unable to leave his home for any reason, even to seek medical treatment.
The reduction in funding for the times he is supported on site in the SIL home will necessitate his support ratio being decreased to 1:2, for this individual this will lead to increased risk of injuries to the individual, other residents and staff.
For this client the reduction in community access and the substantial change in his routine will likely lead to critical incidents where police and ambulance will need to be called in order to maintain a safe environment. AB has no family or informal supports in place.
Ongoing critical incidents of such an intensity will lead to the breakdown of the placement with the participant likely to remain in the health system for extended periods of time until funding could be reinstated.
Sylvanvale Limited
101/53 Eton Street, Donations over $2 are tax deductible
Sutherland NSW, 2232 PHONE 1300 244 577 ABN 25 639 556 988 | ACN 639 556 988Submission 430
Due to the high levels of staffing required for AB, Sylvanvale could not consider continuing to provide the previously funded level of supports, without risking the viability of the entire company.
Participant AC
This participant lives at home with her elderly mother aged 88. AC attends a centre based day program 5 days, 30 hours a week at a 1:3 client to staff support ratio. The 50% reduction to her funding will mean she can only now attend the day program 15 hrs a week.
AC has attended the day program for 40 years always attending 5 days a week. Day program has provided her mother with a respite effect over these years. Should AC now be at home with her mum for an additional 2 days of the week, it is likely that the caring relationship will break down and AC would likely need a SIL placement.
The 50% reduction to community participation supports is a harsh and sharp tool, which will reduce scheme expenditure, however it will have a severe impact on the most vulnerable, provider viability and mostly likely state based hospital systems which will need to pick up clients left without supports.
-
Definitions of Words and Phrases.
There are a number of words and phrases that are proposed in the Bill that seek either to clarify/add to implied meaning or reset meaning. Critical is a change to the meaning of ‘reasonable and necessary’ which in its original form meant what was deemed to be reasonable from a participant’s perspective. It is now construed as constraining the Government’s ability to rein in funding.
The proposed revision of ‘reasonable and necessary’ is to what is deemed reasonable and necessary for the NDIS to fund. In the first instance the underlying theme is that families, the community, mainstream supports, or other government agencies should participate more in this arena.
This logic is extended and applied as part of the rationale to cut funding to the Core Support Assistance with Social, Economic and Community participation by asking what families, carers and informal networks should do in this space, with a view that there should be shared responsibility here. And that NDIS should confine its activities in the reasonable and necessary sphere to give weight to supporting core activities such as toileting, showering and dressing.
Regarding ‘permanent impairment’ this will be clearly linked to an impairment(s) related to a disability that could receive NDIS funding but only if the participant has completed all ‘appropriate treatment’ regardless of the participant’s individual circumstances or geography.
Sylvanvale Limited
101/53 Eton Street, Donations over $2 are tax deductible
Sutherland NSW, 2232 PHONE 1300 244 577 ABN 25 639 556 988 | ACN 639 556 988Submission 430
There will be a clear definition of functional capacity but its corollary of ‘substantial functional incapacity’ is yet to be defined. The rationale for this change is that the existing definition of ‘permanence’ led to expansion of the Scheme in that people with treatable conditions gained access to it. Such definitional changes go to the heart of proposed amendments in the Bill and thus the Scheme, all designed to rein in numbers and spending rather than make the Scheme and its objectives more transparent for all participants.
Sylvanvale supports the concepts of the Bill that aim to constrain entry into the scheme to only those with the highest of need, those for which the scheme was first designed. However without the detail of how these definitions will be implemented it is difficult to see and understand how they will work in practice. Sylvanvale hopes that implementation of these changes are well thought through, planned and implemented well, however our experience over the last 10 years of the scheme makes he concerned for this implementation.
- Proposed use of a Commissioning and other Model changes. Sylvanvale is supportive of moving Plan Management and Support Coordination to have a ‘panel of providers’ who are registered and provide high quality supports.
Regarding Supported Independent Living it is proposed to have consultation around a possible commissioning model. Leaving the issue of SIL commissioning open to interpretation with no clear process or commitment gives rise to speculation and anxiety with social media providing a platform to fan the flames of both misinformation and disinformation.
We ask that the provider sector are truly engaged in this consultation and that governments position on the commissioning of this service type be clear and known quickly.
Overall, this proposed Amendments Bill surfaces and ventilates many issues but hyperventilates others such as sustainability and fraud. The latter becoming populist themes that detract from the serious and complex nature of the conversation that underpins them.
There are many knowns and unknowns tucked away in the Bill. To use Minister Butler’s words the ‘creases of the NDIS.’ On balance there are more unknowns than knowns and thus the pathway for the Bill is meandering with many dark places that require light to be shone on them.
To assist with this process Sylvanvale suggests the use of a ‘Reform Logic’ rather than a program logic but the concept is the same, lay out the issues, what is needed, what is to be achieved and the options proposed to deliver the desired outcomes.
Sylvanvale Limited
101/53 Eton Street, Donations over $2 are tax deductible
Sutherland NSW, 2232 PHONE 1300 244 577 ABN 25 639 556 988 | ACN 639 556 988Submission 430
To restore faith and trust in the scheme there are no shortcuts and no easy path. Sylvanvale accepts that there must be change and corrections of the schemes trajectory, however the use of sharp measures that impact the most vulnerable must be reviewed to ensure participants and providers are not adversely impacted and placed at risk. The consequences for the most vulnerable may be life threatening.
Sylvanvale Limited
101/53 Eton Street, Donations over $2 are tax deductible
Sutherland NSW, 2232 PHONE 1300 244 577 ABN 25 639 556 988 | ACN 639 556 988