Submission 541 — Mrs Annette Thompson — NDIS Future Generations Bill | External submission

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

Submission on Proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 and the Thriving Kids Initiative

Executive Summary This submission raises concerns that the proposed changes under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, together with initiatives associated with the Thriving Kids Initiative, may reduce access to support for people with neurodivergent diagnoses, including children and families, without delivering genuine savings. It argues that stronger administrative decision-making, tighter provider oversight, clearer eligibility rules, and more consistent accountability would be more effective than shifting costs across systems or narrowing access to essential supports. Functional Capacity

The bill narrows who can qualify by redeﬁning functional capacity and prescribing additional rules (9B (3)) National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of that subsection) which were put in place without any community consultation or oversite by people with disability or advocacy groups and have never been publicly explained.

Further, I submit that the change is inconsistent with references within the Act to ‘Informal Supports’ such as families and carers.

The definition states:

A person’s functional capacity, in relation to an activity, is the person’s ability to undertake the activity: (a) without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications; and (b) in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.

Within the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act (2013), the principles at section 17A (3) state (3) The National Disability Insurance Scheme is to:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

(a) respect the interests of people with disability in exercising choice and control about matters that affect them; and (b) enable people with disability to make decisions that will affect their lives; and (c) support people with disability to participate in, and contribute to, social and economic life. This bill however notes an ongoing purpose not to undermine the role of the family and notes in particular the additional principles to section 17A (3) which will state

Add: ; and (d) where relevant, respect the role of family, carers and other persons who are significant in the life of participants; and (e) where relevant, recognise and respect the relationship between participants and their families and carers; and (f) support communities to respond to participants’ individual goals and needs.

How can you assess a person’s capacity without assistance, assistive technology or modifications; AND excluding their environmental and personal circumstances without excluding their access to informal supports from the test.

This change creates a real risk to people with disability being isolated from their informal supports, where families are making decisions about the level of input to give order to prove ongoing evidence of a participant’s functional capacity.

Those family responsibilities and informal supports are a vital part of the participants environment and circumstances, and the participant does not live in isolation of them.

To prove they cannot perform a task without such support, that support must be withdrawn which does not respect and recognise the role of family supports. This is a clear redirection of services away from the NDIS and onto informal support obligations. It gives traction to the potential for misuse of the rules to avoid funding things expected to be covered by families, carers, or mainstream services.

There is little alternative mainstream service that individuals can rely on outside of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Carer’s, families and other informal supports have no access to the relevant training, advice, support or services to deliver essential care and it creates a signiﬁcant risk of failure in care, breakdown in service and disparate quality of care. Tightening permanence tests

Section 24 of the National Disability Insurance Act (2013) refers to meeting disability requirements, stating

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

(a) the person has a disability that is attributable to one or more intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairments or the person has one or more impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable; and

(b) the impairment or impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent; and

(c) the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake one or more of the following activities:

(i) communication;

(ii) social interaction;

(iii) learning;

(iv) mobility;

(v) self-care;

(vi) self-management; and

(d) the impairment or impairments affect the person’s capacity for social or economic participation; and

(e) the person is likely to require NDIS supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person’s lifetime.

This bill seeks to add the following additional clauses

For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), an impairment or impairments are not permanent, or likely to be permanent, unless: (a) the person has undertaken all appropriate treatment for the impairment or impairments (if any); and (b) any other treatment is unlikely to materially improve, reverse, or alleviate the impact of, the impairment or impairments; and (c) the impairment or impairments are likely to persist for the person’s lifetime.

In contradiction to this change, the objects of the National Disability Insurance Act state at 3(1)(a) ‘in conjunction with other laws, give effect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities done at New York on 13 December 2006 ([2008] ATS 12);’

To explain this contradiction, I reference the preamble of that convention at (3), which provides for ‘Recognizing that disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.’

That convention at article 1 notes also, that ‘Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.’

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

The convention makes no reference to seeking treatment but states at article 2 that “Discrimination on the basis of disability” means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation;

That discrimination is specifically noted in the proposed addition of appropriate treatment given at section proposed as 25A.

25A (2) in particular notes that Treatment may be appropriate treatment for a person’s impairment or impairments regardless of whether the person’s individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment. Note: A person’s individual circumstances include the person’s financial circumstances and geographical location.

This clause specifically precludes an individual from access to the scheme by creating a definition which says a person’s disability is not permanent unless they have undertaken all appropriate treatment (proposed addition at 24 (5) (a)) then proceeds to ensure that in the event a person cannot access that treatment because of financial hardship or geography or individual circumstances, they are automatically excluded; without any consideration for the cost of living crisis, the current housing crisis, lengthy public waiting lists, the vast Australian regional population with no meaningful access to treatment and support unless they all move to the cities.

This approach is inconsistent with the definition of discrimination in article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as it may exclude individuals whose access to treatment is limited by financial, geographic, or other personal circumstances.

In Australia we refer to the accepted definition of disability in reference to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) which states that “disability, in relation to a person, means: (a) total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental functions; or (b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or (c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or (d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or (e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person’s body; or (f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction; or (g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour; and includes a disability that: (h) presently exists; or (i) previously existed but no longer exists; or

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

(j) may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that disability); or (k) is imputed to a person. To avoid doubt, a disability that is otherwise covered by this definition includes behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of the disability.“

This change to the permanence test which enforces ‘appropriate treatment’ makes a number of assumptions about disability that are harmful, discriminatory and create exclusion and barriers to the ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field’ brought about by the Convention cited as object to the NDIS Act (2013).

For many disabilities there are no treatments available and there is no basis from which to assume that an improvement, reversal or alleviation is possible, as the basic nature of a permanent diagnosis; it is for the lifetime of the individual and there is no cure. Accessing treatment, which is of no benefit, for the sake of proving you cannot be cured or alleviated of a condition which by its nature is permanent does not conform to the objects of the Act.

The term ‘treatment’ is generally accepted to refer to those clinical and medical interventions used to manage, stabilize, or alleviate the symptoms of an impairment. NDIS does not approve nor pay for supports which are Health Supports or Mental Health Supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024, so the outcomes and access to those treatments is outside of the remit of the NDIS Act. Enforcing a requirement for access to treatment is therefore not relevant to a request for access to NDIS supports that are not health or mental health supports.

The test for permanence in requiring access to treatment and evidence that there is no possibility for alleviation or improvement of the condition, contradicts the Disability Discrimination Act definition which states clearly that it ‘includes a disability that’: (i) previously existed but no longer exists; or (j) may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that disability); or (k) is imputed to a person. Limiting unscheduled plan reassessments

Section 48 of the National Disability Insurance Act (2013) refers to the conditions for reassessment of a participants plan on request or at the CEO’s own initiative and speciﬁcally states that this may be done at any time.

The intent of this Bill to revoke the terms of section 48(2) which states The CEO may do so on request of the participant or on the CEO’s own initiative and apply conditions to the plan participant, as described under the proposed clause 48A which state as follows:

(1) For the purposes of paragraph 48(2)(b), the conditions are that:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

(a) there has been a significant change to those ongoing support needs of the participant that arise from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements; and (b) the significant change to those needs results from either or both of the following: (i) an alteration in the participant’s functional capacity in relation to an activity covered by paragraph 24(1)(c) or subparagraph 25(1)(c)(i); (ii) an alteration in the participant’s personal or environmental circumstances; and (c) to the extent that the alteration is as mentioned in subparagraph (b)(i)—the condition in subsection (2) is met in relation to the alteration; and (d) to the extent that the alteration is as mentioned in subparagraph (b)(ii)—the condition in subsection (3) is met in relation to the alteration. Note: For functional capacity, in relation to an activity, see section 9B.

(2) The condition in this subsection is met in relation to the alteration mentioned in subparagraph (1)(b)(i) if: (a) the alteration in the participant’s functional capacity in relation to the activity is significant and ongoing; and (b) the alteration in the participant’s functional capacity in relation to the activity: (i) directly relates to a change in an existing impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or early intervention requirements; or (ii) arises from a new or acquired impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or early intervention requirements; and (c) the participant has experienced a substantial reduction in the participant’s ability to perform daily activities.

(3) The condition in this subsection is met in relation to the alteration mentioned in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) if there has been an unanticipated, significant and ongoing alteration in the participant’s: (a) living arrangements; or (b) education arrangements; or (c) work arrangements; or (d) network for informal support. In order for a participant to meet the threshold to request and be granted an reassessment under this section; it would mean that the change • would have to have a significant impact on the approved and stated disability; or • be evidenced by a new and approved disability; and • they would have to prove an impairment of or reduction to the functional capacity as newly defined at section 9B; and • the change would have to be unanticipated. Assessment of a significant or substantial impact on functional capacity cannot reasonably be made outside of ongoing observation in a clinical setting and would require access to relevant evidence collected prior to the reported change as well to

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

document that reduction. It is not reasonable to expect such reporting would take place for a change that was not anticipated. The process would require evidence of an ongoing stabilising of functional capacity at that reduced level in order to prove it wasn’t temporary. Evidence of this kind cannot be found by means of a single assessment within a standardised framework. Further, inclusion of the requirements at part 3 of this new section give that any changes to the participant’s personal or environmental circumstances (noted at 48A (1) (d)) must be unanticipated. This is a direct and deliberate choice to undermine a person’s right to freedom of choice, lifestyle and movement. An unanticipated change in living circumstances refers to becoming homeless, not a young person choosing to move out of their parent’s home and live independently with supports. An unanticipated change in work arrangements means unexpectedly being sacked, not changing employer or getting transferred to a new office further away. Just because they anticipated a change was coming, does not mean it had less of an impact. For this to be feasible, participants would need to wait for a plan review every time they wanted to move house or change jobs. Unanticipated means they can’t know it was going to happen. Anything they are aware of would be anticipated and therefore is not covered under this provision. It means a participant cannot take any proactive steps to their environment or circumstances for risk of undermining their access to reasonable and necessary supports to affect that change. Inclusion of this clause is discriminatory and prejudicial to the participants rights to freedom of choice.

Reasonable and necessary supports

The Objects of the Act at 2 (1) state at (d) “provide reasonable and necessary supports, including early intervention supports, for participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme;” Proposed changes to the Act made under this bill seek to repeal this part in place of a ﬁnancial model

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(d) provide NDIS supports for participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme that are reasonable and necessary, so far as is consistent with the ﬁnancial sustainability of the scheme;

Reliance on ﬁnancial sustainability to evidence whether something is reasonable and necessary takes the focus from the participant and removes the concept of freedom of choice. It signiﬁcantly limits the participants contribution to decisions about their own care and supports and focuses instead on the agency and affordability of the scheme in general.

It may also create the impression that participants must justify the cost of supports in a way that shifts attention away from individual need. The effect risks being discriminatory by allowing ﬁnancial considerations to outweigh the level of care and

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

support required for a person to participate meaningfully in life on an equal basis with others.

Further, there are changes proposed under Section 4 (5) and 4(11) to remove reference to reasonable and necessary supports in favour of the term NDIS supports.

NDIS Supports are deﬁned under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 at Schedule 1 and do not refer to the concept of reasonable and necessary outside of the transitional rule at section 6(2). NDIS supports include a range of supports relevant to transitions, capacity building, supervision, daily living, assistive technology and products, disability related health supports, daily life and care, household tasks, mobility and therapies. In each case they apply to the participant or prospective participant generally.

This change limits the application of reasonable and necessary supports and gives the discretion over choice and control to the agency, removing the participants opportunity to evidence that the support is beneﬁcial, relevant or required in their individual environment and circumstances. It creates a standardised, one-size-ﬁts-all model which is not appropriate or relevant in making decisions about individual support needs.

This bill seeks to add additional requirements including a value for money test, provides that the CEO must consider whether the circumstances are likely to change in the short term and must point to published, peer reviewed and generalisable research.

The test refers to the individuals’ circumstances but then refers to the functional capacity at section 9B which clearly states the environment and circumstances are to be excluded.

This means that the options provided at 1E (b) and (c) of the proposed bill cannot fairly be applied and places the onus on participants and their families to understand, locate and provide evidence of such research relevant to 1E (a)

(a) research and evidence in relation to the support that is 12 published, peer reviewed and generalisable;

(b) evidence as to the effectiveness of the support, having regard to the participant’s circumstances (including age and impairment);

(c) evidence as to outcomes for the participant, arising from their use of the support in their previous plan, in improving, maintaining, or reducing a decline in, the participant’s functional capacity in relation to an activity covered by paragraph 24(1)(c) or subparagraph 25(1)(c)(i), or capacity for social and economic participation;

This is highly inequitable and places an unreasonable burden on participants to understand the complexities of published research and assumes even a working knowledge of peer review that doesn’t exist outside academia.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

Targeting of Plan and Agency Managed plans

It is proposed to add a maximum payable threshold for NDIS supports or classes of NDIS supports, however this is only planned for participants who are plan managed or agency managed.

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine the maximum amount, or the method for determining the maximum amount, for the acquisition or provision of an NDIS support or class of NDIS supports.

Note: Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the determination (see regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 54(2)(b) of that Act).

(2) A determination under subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the acquisition or provision of a support or class of supports under a participant’s plan unless the funding for the support or class of supports is managed by:

(a) a registered plan management provider; or

(b) the Agency.

It is difficult to justify excluding self-managed participants from this directive, as doing so may encourage greater reliance on self-management to avoid the proposed limits. The approach is inequitable because it assumes that overspending is principally associated with plan-managed and agency-managed participants, while imposing no comparable accountability measures on the self-managed cohort, despite the reduced visibility and oversight available to the NDIS in those arrangements. This proposed section therefore fails to address a signiﬁcant part of the scheme.

The NDIS is an insurance-based scheme intended to fund valid and necessary disability supports from public funds; it is not a personal income entitlement.

Comparable public systems do not permit individuals to determine unilaterally the level of public subsidy or reimbursement they will receive. In that context, there is limited policy justiﬁcation for allowing self-managed participants to exercise broader discretion over public insurance funding while applying caps only to participants whose supports are agency-managed or plan-managed.

There is no valid reason for individuals to self-manage insurance funding out of the public purse, while penalising and placing caps on individuals who are managed directly by the NDIS or registered and authorised plan-managers.

The scheme should be administered with the same discipline, clarity, and accountability expected of other major public systems.

Pricing settings should be reviewed where they create conditions for overspending, particularly when additional travel and administrative fees are involved.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

There is also a legitimate policy question as to whether self-managed funding has introduced avoidable inconsistencies in accountability. Unreasonable burden on informal supports

Section 34 of the NDIS Act refers to the concept of reasonable and necessary supports and acknowledges at 34 (1) (e) that the funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide.

This bill seeks to add additional requirements including speciﬁc and direct obligations relevant to children.

(1G) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(e) so far as it applies in relation to a participant who is a child, the CEO must take into account the presumption that parents are responsible for providing substantial care and support for their children.

(1H) For the purposes of subsection (1G), substantial care and support includes:

(a) supervision, personal care, transport, emotional support and behavioural support; and

(b) other assistance with the activities of daily living that, regardless of the child’s disability, would reasonably be expected of a parent of a child of a similar age.

The implications of this provision are signiﬁcant and warrant careful consideration.

The effect of this provision is that parents seeking support for a child with disability may be perceived as not meeting the expected standard of substantial care and support. Where support is refused on this basis, the framework risks implying parental inadequacy rather than recognising the additional and often complex demands associated with caring for a child with disability. That implication is inappropriate and should not be embedded in legislation.

Speciﬁcally, at 1J, the intent is made clear because factors related to burdens on the parent, the household or the parent’s own capacity are to be excluded from the decision.

(1J) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(e) so far as it applies in relation to a participant who is a child, the CEO must not decide that the CEO is satisﬁed as required by that paragraph if the primary or substantial purpose of the support is to do one or more of the following:

(a) reduce burdens on parental time below what is reasonably expected of a parent;

(b) improve household efficiency;

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

The only ground for providing reasonable and necessary supports for a child appear to be abuse and neglect. There is no mention of multiple participants on the scheme (which is very common), nor the lack of valid services to support families outside of the scheme. No mention of the risk or carer burn-out or poor mental health outcomes from a lack of supports outside the home. Recent media coverage detailing tragic murder- suicide outcomes for families of children with high support needs require no further explanation. It is a failure of government.

The proposed changes clearly outline this at 1K(a) and provide that community networks are desirable over funded supports. Those same community networks families can attest are not available, not funded or closed down with the introduction of the NDIS. Those same community programs have an untenable 2–3-year waitlist for public places and are costed far out of reach of most families.

(1K) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(e), the CEO must consider:

(a) whether relying on family, carers, informal networks or the community would expose a participant or another person to a material risk of harm, abuse or neglect that cannot be mitigated through informal or lower cost supports; and

(b) the desirability of supporting, maintaining and strengthening informal supports and community networks in preference to replacing those supports and networks with funded supports, except in cases in which replacement of those supports and networks is necessary: Use of Artiﬁcial Intelligence in decision making

The proposed bill introduces the use of computer programs with the power to automate administrative action. At the end of part 1 of chapter 4 the following is to be added as section 59B (1)

(1) The CEO may, in writing, arrange for the use, under the CEO’s oversight, of computer programs to take administrative action that may or must be taken by the CEO under a provision that is one of the following: (a) a provision of this Act that is specified in subsection 59C(1); (b) a provision of this Act that is specified in an instrument made under subsection 59C(2); (c) a provision of a legislative instrument made under this Act that is specified in an instrument made under subsection 59C(2); (d) a provision of a legislative instrument made under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 that is specified in an instrument made under subsection 59C(2). Note: This subsection is not intended to imply that the making of an arrangement is the only means by which a computer program may be used to take administrative action if

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

that action would otherwise not require statutory authorisation in order to be validly taken. For example, statutory authorisation would not generally be needed if a computer program is only being used to assist a decision-maker to make a decision. Statutory authorisation would also not be needed in order to implement a provision that creates an outcome through the operation of law and does not involve an administrative decision being made, such as subsections 34A(2) and 34B(4) and section 50A.

The proposed amendment to the NDIS bill gives clear outline as to the administrative actions which will apply under this part, stating:

(3) Administrative action is any of the following:

(a) making, or refusing or failing to make, a decision, or a part of a decision, under a designated provision;

(b) exercising, or refusing or failing to exercise, a power under a designated provision;

(d) doing, or refusing or failing to do, anything (including giving a notice) related to making a decision or a part of a decision, exercising a power or performing a function or duty under a designated provision.

Note: A number of administrative actions may be covered by a particular designated provision. For example, a designated provision might 26 provide for multiple decisions to be made as part of making a broader overarching decision. In this case, any of those administrative actions can be automated in accordance with an arrangement under subsection (1).

Evaluative administrative action

(4) Subsection (1) includes administrative action that involves one or more of the following:

(a) a discretion being exercised;

(b) an evaluative judgement being made;

Note: Section 59D provides for the making of a standard operating procedure instrument in relation to this kind of administrative action.

The application of this section will be for the making of NDIS decisions, allocation of funding and those decisions subject to this computer program are likely to have a significant impact on individuals.

The wording of the note at 59B(1) in this proposed amendment to the Act states particularly that statutory authorisation would not generally be needed if a computer program

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

is only being used to assist a decision-maker to make a decision. This is in direct contradiction to the Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act WA (2024) (PRIS Act) which refers at Information Privacy Principle 10 (IPP10) to Materially Assisted Automated Decisions.

Section 16 of the PRIS Act states

Automated decision-making processes and related concepts

(1) An automated system is an automated electronic system, including a computer information-processing system or artiﬁcial intelligence system.

(2) An automated decision-making process is a process under which —

(a) a decision is made by an automated system without the involvement of any individual; or

(b) the making of a decision is materially assisted by an automated system.

(3) The making of a decision is materially assisted by an automated system if —

(a) the decision is made by a person in reliance on a preliminary decision-making step (including a recommendation, assessment, conclusion or inference) made by an automated system; and

(b) that preliminary decision-making step has a material bearing on the decision that is made.

The proposal made by this bill at section 59B meets the deﬁnition of a Materially Assisted Automated Decision under the PRIS Act of WA and carries the obligations of Information Privacy Principle 10 of that Act 10.

Principle 10: Automated decision-making

10.1 An IPP entity that employs an automated decision-making process involving the use of personal information in making signiﬁcant decisions about individuals must —

(a) conduct an assessment of the impact of the automated decision-making process on those individuals, having regard to —

(i) the elimination or minimisation of harm, bias and discrimination; and

(ii) whether there is a process by which individuals about whom decisions are made can request human intervention; and

(iii) whether the handling of personal information in the process complies with any applicable requirements under this Act; and

(b) periodically evaluate the operation and effectiveness of the automated decision-making process; and

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

10.2 If an IPP entity employs an automated decision-making process involving the use of personal information in making a signiﬁcant decision about an individual, the IPP entity must —

(a) notify the individual that an automated decision-making process has been employed in making the decision; and

(b) on request, give the individual information about how the automated decision-making process is employed in making decisions; and

10.3 A notiﬁcation under subclause 10.2(a) —

(a) may be given with, or as part of, any notiﬁcation of the signiﬁcant decision required to be given under a written law; and

(b) subject to paragraph (a), must be given as soon as practicable.

10.4 Information provided under subclause 10.2(b must be reasonably comprehensive and provided in a form that is capable of being understood by a person without specialist knowledge.

To abide by the PRIS Act for participants in WA; an assessment of the tool used must be undertaken and review processes must be put in place which do not rely on the automated process which is used.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Protection and Disclosure of Information— Commissioner) Rules 2018 list WA legislation in effect on passing of those rules, however it is reasonable to conclude that such rules will be amended with the enacting of the PRIS Act effective 1 July 2026.

Section 59 of the NDIS Bill states clearly that it does not require a person to give information or produce a document to the extent that in doing so the person would contravene a law of the Commonwealth. The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act (2024) amends Australian Privacy Principle 1 noting the following addition to the Privacy Act.

Part 15—Automated decisions and privacy policies Privacy Act 1988

87 After subparagraph 13K(1)(b)(ii) Insert:

(iia) Australian Privacy Principle 1.7 (contents of APP privacy policy—automated decisions);

88 At the end of clause 1 of Schedule 1 Add:

Automated decisions

1.7 Without limiting subclause 1.3, the APP privacy policy of an APP entity must contain the information covered by subclause 1.8 if:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

(a) the entity has arranged for a computer program to make, or do a thing that is substantially and directly related to making, a decision; and

(b) the decision could reasonably be expected to signiﬁcantly affect the rights or interests of an individual; and

(c) personal information about the individual is used in the operation of the computer program to make the decision or do the thing that is substantially and directly related to making the decision.

1.8 The information covered by this subclause is:

(a) the kinds of personal information used in the operation of such computer programs; and

(b) the kinds of such decisions made solely by the operation of such computer programs; and

(c) the kinds of such decisions for which a thing, that is substantially and directly related to making the decision, is done by the operation of such computer programs.

1.9 For the purposes of subclauses 1.7 and 1.8:

(a) making a decision includes refusing or failing to make a decision; and

(b) doing a thing includes refusing or failing to do a thing; and

(c) a decision may affect the rights or interests of an individual, whether the rights or interests of the individual are adversely or beneﬁcially affected; and

(d) the following are examples of the kinds of decisions that may affect the rights or interests of an individual:

(i) a decision made under a provision of an Act or a legislative instrument to grant, or to refuse to grant, a beneﬁt to the individual;

(ii) a decision that affects the individual’s rights under a contract, agreement or arrangement;

(iii) a decision that affects the individual’s access to a signiﬁcant service or support.

This amendment gives affect to a support of the position outlined within the PRIS Act (WA). A plan issued by the NDIS, it’s staff or the CEO which is made by application of the computer program I-CAN or any other such variant, is a decision which is substantially and directly related to a decision under the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act (2024), and will have a signiﬁcant impact on the participant.

This proposed amendment would allow the CEO to rely on an artiﬁcial intelligence model that applies a generalised framework across highly diverse individuals while excluding meaningful consideration of personal circumstances and environment. At the

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

same time, the bill would narrow access to unscheduled reassessment, thereby reducing opportunities for review or appeal where decisions are affected by that process.

The computer model (AI) selected (I-CAN) is designed for people with a disability aged 16 years and above and can only be used by trained and certiﬁed I-CAN assessors. Noting they publish that the I-CAN training is available to following people:

• Allied health clinicians with a tertiary qualiﬁcation, such as: • Occupational Therapist • Physiotherapist • Speech Pathologist • Social Worker • Dietitian • Psychologist • Exercise Physiologist • Rehabilitation Counsellor • Counsellor • Psychotherapist • Registered nurses (RN) • Enrolled nurses (EN) • Clinicians with an Education degree • NDIS Behaviour Support Practitioner

However; proposed addition at section 32L at 4A states

The assessment must be undertaken by

(a) a member of the staff of the Agency mentioned in section 169: or

(b) a consultant engaged by the agency under section 171: or

Agency under section 169 is taken to refer to the National Disability Insurance Agency and it’s staff employed under the Public Sector Act, consultants under section 171 refers to contracted service providers employed by that agency, therefore the NDIS uses the I-CAN tool, employed by its own staff, in house, who hold none of these qualiﬁcations or skills recommended by the developer of the tool.

They are not equipped to read the medical evidence provided by participants and employ a once off support needs assessment which is designed for adults and does not adequately describe the variance and spectrum of support needs facing neurodivergent people and do so in isolation of any environmental or personal circumstances.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

The Australian Autism Alliance has voiced concern and calls for 10 key steps as a minimum standard to validate the tool is appropriate for autism and for a safe, fair rollout:

Co-design from the outset with Autistic people, their families and representative organisations.
Independent clinical veriﬁcation of both the tool and the broader process to ensure accuracy, fairness, and clinical validity. This is both before rollout and during implementation.
No mandatory application of the tool until the combined system – including personal and environmental questionnaires and targeted assessments – has had a phased pilot and validation so it is ﬁt for person, as well as ﬁt for purpose.
Dry runs using diverse personas and a large, diverse Autistic sample (including people with complex communication needs, high masking, high support/dependent, co- occurring conditions and intersectional priorities) before any mandatory use.
Accredited assessors with appropriate skills and expertise – trauma-informed, culturally competent, and a deep understanding of autism and other disabilities.
Professional reports recognised, from trusted clinicians, are able to be incorporated if needed, and to be given genuine weight in decisions.
Final assessment reports veriﬁed by participants and/or their supporters before budgets are set.
Accessible processes, including for supported decision-making and complex communication needs, participant right to choose/change assessor, bring a trusted person to assessments, safe environment options and protocols with alternatives to home visits.
Transparency and traceability between assessment ﬁndings and the budget allocated, with safeguards and independent oversight.
Ongoing public reporting on lessons from early implementation.

System Impact A central concern is that these changes may shift disability-related costs rather than reduce them. Unless states receive substantial additional funding, the overall cost of support is unlikely to fall.

There is currently no clear evidence that state systems in education, health, or disability will receive the funding or reform needed to absorb these costs effectively.

In Western Australia, participants were required to move into the national scheme, making a return to more state-dependent arrangements difficult to justify if the core issue is federal administrative inefficiency.

Many families consider current problems to be driven more by system design, pricing settings, weak oversight, and poor administration than by participants themselves.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 541

Better assessment and decision-making at the outset would reduce the public cost of reviews while improving outcomes for participants.

There are also valid concerns about the use of automated tools in plan review, particularly where children, neurodivergence, or complex functional needs are involved and nuanced human judgement is essential.

Recommendations The following reforms would provide a more direct path to both savings and better outcomes.

Require provider registration and enforce consistent workforce and quality standards.
Use appropriately qualiﬁed decision-makers who can interpret medical evidence and legislation accurately, reducing unnecessary reviews and appeals.
Publish within the annual report the full cost of all internal reviews, all tribunal matters, all court proceedings, and all external experts used to defend decisions. In particular, focus on the cost of decisions which are amended or stood aside.
Review accountability settings for self-managed funding to ensure public funds are used consistently and appropriately.
Assess support needs based on whole-of-person functional impact rather than creating artiﬁcial distinctions between conditions.
Apply meaningful penalties to fraudulent providers and recover improperly claimed funds.
Review pricing settings to ensure they reﬂect genuine service costs and do not encourage inﬂated charges.

Closing Statement I respectfully urge the Government to ensure that reform is guided by functional need, evidence, fairness, and practical service access. Any changes to the NDIS or replacement programs should strengthen support for children and families, improve public accountability, and avoid simply transferring cost and complexity into other systems.