NDIA Accountability Project

This project is in DRAFT

Complex physical disabilities and safe support worker registration (Participant experience)

‹ PrevPage 1 of 4 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 487

To: Committee Secretary, Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Re: Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for

Future Generations) Bill 2026

Dear Committee Secretary,

I am an NDIS participant with significant complex physical disability.

I believe it is essential that changes are made to ensure the NDIS is sustainable into the future. Changes must address the structural failures of the original legislation, and while I believe the proposed legislation with sweeping Ministerial powers without oversight will achieve significant cost cutting, it will not address the structural failures of the system itself and risks life threatening unintended consequences. The Minister recently acknowledge that the NDIS has every one of the eight design failures the Fraud Fusion Taskforce identified across long-standing government programs, and none of the seven building blocks of a high-integrity program. This proposed legislation does not address these, it is a panic reaction to the cost of the scheme.

Participants affected by the proposed legislation are not simply reduced NDIS numbers or reduced NDIS expenditure, many with high needs and high plan values are people who will move to the (state) hospital system which is already in crisis. The cost vanishes from the federal budget but this does not fix the ‘problem’. It just moves the problem to another authority, and each authority only looks at their own ‘bucket of money’, trying to manage within their own tight budgets. It is easy to lose the fact that Australian taxpayers still pay for it all and deserve an efficient system at all levels of government where their money is spent wisely with appropriate controls in place. I am sure others will be addressing these wide ranging issues, so I will not comment on them further here.

I have four specific areas of concern with the proposed legislation that are particularly relevant to me personally that I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate:

  1. The lack of a separate registration process for direct employers as recommended by the

Registration Taskforce; and

pg. 1

Submission 487

  1. Insufficient definition of ‘personal high risk supports”; and

  2. Significant and sweeping powers given to the Minister of the day without any parliamentary oversight, restrictions or safeguards; and

  3. Significant concerns regarding automated decision making with little or no human ability to alter the computer decision.

My background: I have complex physical disabilities that include mobility, respiratory, continence, pressure care, dysphagia and nutrition supports, I live alone, not in SIL, have family support close by and my funding is in core in an old framework plan. After years of disastrous use of Registered Providers I moved to directly employ support workers to assist me. I interview, verify qualifications and referees, select and train staff, have employment agreements under the SCHADS award, operate using a Withholder Payer Number, deduct PAYG, pay superannuation, Workers Compensation insurance and comply with all requirements as an employer, all for less than the cost of using a Registered Provider. I have university qualifications in business, finance and HR, 25 years management experience in public, private and not for profit sectors and self manage all aspects of my NDIS plan.

Direct Employers (and Minister’s powers): Becoming a direct employer became necessary for me as over the years a string of Registered Providers failed to provide safe supports, failed to fill agreed shifts, invoiced for services not provided and re-sent incorrect invoices when challenged. When they did send support workers it was very often a new person with no support worker experience and no qualifications, often with limited English language skills, necessitating me providing training for half the shift ranging from basic things like hygiene to complex things particular to my disabilities. This meant I received on average half the actual support needed per shift resulting in substantial risks to me, and an enormous waste of funding. These issues were not one off or just with one Registered Provider. It was several Registered Providers and a regular occurrence. Since becoming a direct employer over the last few years I have a stable, efficient, reliable, flexible, fully trained, loyal team of support workers and the total cost is less than paying a Registered Provider. I do not want to lose the ability to directly employ support workers and have to return to the more costly, unsafe and unstable arrangements of the past. I believe choice is important and should be supported by appropriate registration categories for direct employers but choice must be within safe pg. 2

Submission 487

parameters. I am in favour of direct employers being appropriately registered and having the necessary qualifications and experience to appropriately carry out the role and I am in favour of requiring appropriate qualifications for support workers. However failing to have a separate registration process in the legislation for direct employers as recommended by the Registration Taskforce will result in it being easier, quicker and more likely that self directed support structures will not be considered appropriately and simply rolled into provider definitions – especially as this will be the decision of the Minister of the day in rules or guidelines, not in legislation agreed to by the parliamentary process. This risks destroying the safe working arrangements currently in place, and for some forcing them back into the life-threatening arrangements they previously ‘escaped’ from, all at a higher cost than their current safe arrangements.

Definition of Personal High Risk Supports (and Minister’s powers)

The legislation mentions ‘personal high risk supports such as personal care, daily living assistance and services delivered in closed or isolated settings’. Participant FAQs May 2026, p5 states “All peoplewhoreceivehigher-risksupportswillneedtochoosearegisteredproviderforthose supports.Thismightincludepersonalcare,dailylivingsupportsandsupportprovidedinclosed settings…Youwillstillbeabletochooseunregisteredprovidersforother,lowerrisksupports.” (my underlining) There are two concerns with this – lack of a sufficient definition, and the requirement that Registered Providers must be used.

Definition:  Firstly, saying ‘might include’ is insufficient as a definition.  Is this referring to SIL

arrangements with 24/7 support, or is it funding at the ‘high intensity supports’ rate, or is it funding at a certain number of hours a day, or is it support provided by a direct employee of the participant helping the participant in their home? The term ‘personal high risk supports’ is not in any NDIS legislation rules or guidelines, so it must be defined. Without a comprehensive definition in the legislation it will be the decision of the Minister of the day in rules or guidelines, not in legislation agreed to by the parliamentary process and could be defined as widely or as narrowly as the Minister of the day decides they would like it to mean. The definition needs to be in the legislation and be detailed enough to define what it means, based on the risk the Minister is trying to mitigate.

Requiring use of Registered Providers: Requiring everyone who receives such supports to use Registered Provider removes the ability of the participant to directly employee support workers – see my comments in the previous section regarding the risks this holds to me personally and to many other participants. pg. 3

Submission 487

Automated Decision Making: My concern with automated decision making is a repeat of many all of the Robodebt issues. The ‘human decision maker’ proposed appears to have no ability to alter the computer decision, they simply accept or reject the decision (with no ability to make a new i. This does not equate to a human making the decision - that is an automated decision. Having worked in the public service in the past (prior to Robodebt) a computer decision could be ’accepted ’ by the determining officer or referred to a more senior officer if they believed it was incorrect. This more senior officer could check, reassess, document and alter or uphold the decision as appropriate. These situations occurred as computers cannot be programmed to consider every possible combination of issues and cannot be programmed for common sense. It is even worse that the only ‘review right’ is for the ART to send an automated decision back to the same computer that will make the same decision again without human ability to make any alterations. This risks unintended life threatening situations occurring with no ability to stop them.

I request that the Senate make amendments to the proposed legislation to:

  1. Provide a separate registration process for direct employers as recommended by the

Registration Taskforce; and

  1. Provide a comprehensive definition of ‘personal high risk supports”; and
  2. Provide for oversight of Ministerial powers by parliamentary processes; and
  3. Provide for human ability to alter (not just accept) automated computer decisions, and the ability of the ART to alter automated decision (not just send them back to the same computer to recreate the same decision).

Thank you for considering my submission.

Submitted 22 May 2026.

pg. 4