Protecting foundational NDIS principles (Individual advocacy) | External submission

Submission 631

SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE COMMUNITY

AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

INQUIRY INTO THE NATIONAL DISABILITY

INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT

(SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE

GENERATIONS) BILL 2026

MAY 2026

Submission 631

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

We respectfully acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we live, work, and meet. We pay our respects to Elders past, present, and emerging.

We recognise their enduring connection to their land, waters, and skies and honour their rich cultural heritage and knowledge systems.

We commit  to  listening,  learning, and  standing  in

solidarity  with  Aboriginal and  Torres  Strait  Islander

peoples, walking alongside them in the ongoing journey towards justice and reconciliation.

Contact for this submission:

William Robin

Alicia Rodriguez

2 MULTICULTURAL DISABILITY ADVOCACY AUSTRALIA

www.mdaa.org.au

Submission 631

MDAA is a peak advocacy organisation representing people with disability from multicultural backgrounds, their families and carers. Our work is grounded in human rights, cultural safety, and the lived experience of the communities we represent. Through our advocacy we observe firsthand the ways in which policy settings and system design impact participants’ ability to exercise choice, control, and dignity.

This submission draws on MDAA’s advocacy experience with multicultural communities, as well as concerns raised directly by participants, families and carers regarding the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

MDAA supports the long-term sustainability and integrity of the NDIS. However, sustainability cannot be achieved through reforms that reduce access to justice, increase administrative barriers, or shift disproportionate burdens onto participants, families and informal supports. The NDIS must remain grounded in the principles of human rights, equity, dignity, choice and control.

Introduction

MDAA recognises the importance of ensuring the long-term viability of the NDIS and acknowledges the need to address exploitation and poor practice within the sector. However, many of the proposed reforms risk creating additional barriers for people with disability who already experience systemic disadvantage. MDAA is particularly concerned about the impact of these reforms on people from multicultural backgrounds, people with complex intersectional barriers, people living with trauma, and people with limited informal support networks.

The proposed reforms appear to assume that participants have stable support systems, high levels of administrative capacity, strong English literacy, digital access, confidence navigating government systems, and the emotional resources to repeatedly engage in complex bureaucratic processes. In MDAA’s experience, this assumption does not reflect the lived reality of many NDIS participants. For many multicultural participants, the NDIS already represents an overwhelming and highly complex system. Participants frequently require intensive advocacy and support simply to understand correspondence, gather evidence, communicate with the NDIA, request reviews, and navigate planning and reassessment processes.

Submission 631

The Bill would also increase the Scheme’s reliance on standardised assessment processes, prescribed thresholds and automated administrative action. These mechanisms may appear efficient, but they can disadvantage participants whose needs are not communicated in precise English, whose experiences are shaped by trauma, or whose answers depend heavily on how questions are asked. Many participants have experienced significant trauma, including family violence, displacement, racism and systemic discrimination. Administrative processes that may appear neutral on paper do not translate this way in practice and create barriers to meaningful participation.

MDAA is concerned that several aspects of the Bill may unintentionally undermine the NDIS principles by shifting greater responsibility onto participants and families without ensuring they have the capacity, resources or support to safely manage these obligations.

The Need for an Intersectional, Trauma-Informed and Culturally Safe

Approach

MDAA strongly emphasises that disability cannot be understood in isolation from broader social and structural inequalities. People with disability from multicultural backgrounds often experience intersectional disadvantage, where disability intersects with racism, trauma, cultural stigma, poverty, language barriers and social exclusion. These intersecting factors significantly affect a person’s ability to access and engage with the NDIS.

A trauma-informed approach recognises that many participants have experienced trauma that affects communication, trust, emotional regulation, memory, executive functioning and engagement with institutions. Trauma-informed systems aim to minimise harm and support participant safety, dignity and empowerment.

Many participants supported by MDAA experience trauma responses triggered by reassessments; inefficient reviews and repeated requests for evidence; anxiety associated with complex administrative systems; shame and stigma associated with disability within some communities; social isolation and lack of informal supports; and difficulty accessing culturally safe practitioners and services that can accurately reflect their needs. The proposed reforms do not adequately account for these realities and move the scheme further away from its work towards being culturally safe.

Submission 631

Without sufficient flexibility, time and meaningful engagement with participants and their carers, the NDIS risks delivering processes that are procedurally efficient but culturally unsafe. Systems that do not account for trauma, language barriers, cultural context and complex lived experiences cannot be truly responsive to the needs of multicultural communities.

Culturally safe and trauma-informed engagement requires relationship building and adequate time with participants and their carers. Many people from diverse backgrounds require additional time to build trust, communicate through interpreters, explain complex experiences and safely disclose support needs shaped by trauma, migration, poverty, racism and social exclusion.

Rigid administrative processes and standardised engagement approaches often fail to capture the realities of participants’ lives and may unintentionally retraumatise or exclude people who are already experiencing disadvantage.

Concerns Regarding Restrictions on Plan Reassessment Requests

MDAA is deeply concerned by the proposal that only participants, plan nominees or persons with parental responsibility for a child may request plan reassessments. As we understand it, under the proposed changes, support coordinators, advocates, plan managers and other providers would no longer be able to request reassessments on behalf of participants.

In practice, many participants do not have the capacity to independently request reassessments, particularly when their condition deteriorates, their supports become inadequate, or they experience crisis. Similarly, we are seeing increasing instances of carer burnout by the time a plan reassessment is initiated. This significantly impacts a person’s ability to effectively engage in the necessary processes.

Often, it is an advocate, support coordinator, family member or community worker who first identifies that a participant’s circumstances have changed, their support needs have increased, or they are at serious risk. This is increasingly so as we see an overemphasis on the claim of parental responsibility and the shame involved for many that this implies they are not doing enough. Removing the ability for trusted supporters to initiate reassessment requests may result in participants falling through systemic gaps until they reach crisis point.

Submission 631

This issue is particularly significant for multicultural communities, where participants may have limited family networks in Australia or where family members themselves are overwhelmed by caring responsibilities, employment pressures, financial hardship or language barriers. MDAA is concerned that the reforms place significant emotional and administrative burdens onto participants who may already be struggling with mental health challenges, trauma, or family violence.

Importantly, it is our direct experience that the reassessment process itself can be highly distressing. Participants are often required to repeatedly justify their disability and related impairments, recount traumatic experiences, gather extensive documentation and navigate unclear processes. Without advocacy and external support, many participants may simply be unable to engage.

The result is likely to be delayed intervention, increased crises, greater carer burnout and poorer long-term outcomes.

Overreliance on Informal and Family Supports

MDAA is concerned about the attempts to narrow down the existing reasonable and necessary criteria with additions that will effectively increase the amount of support the NDIA expects families and other informal supports to provide. While families naturally play a critical role in children’s lives, the Bill risks embedding unrealistic assumptions regarding the capacity of parents and carers to meet complex disability related support needs.

In practice, many parents are already providing extraordinary levels of unpaid care, often at significant personal, financial and emotional cost.

Many families supported by MDAA experience various intersectional barriers including financial stress, single parenthood, family violence and lack of extended family support. Single mothers from multicultural backgrounds are particularly vulnerable to carer burnout and social isolation. Many families cannot reasonably substitute professional supports funded through the NDIS, regardless of their willingness or commitment to care.

MDAA is concerned that increased reliance on informal supports risks increasing carer burnout, compromising the wellbeing of both carers and children, and disproportionately disadvantaging families already experiencing poverty or social exclusion. 6

Submission 631

Case Study

Jacob is a seven-year-old child diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 3 and Severe Intellectual Disability. He requires constant supervision and substantial support across all aspects of daily living, including personal care, behavioural support and emotional regulation. Jacob uses continence aids for toileting, regularly absconds from the family home, smears faeces throughout the house, and experiences frequent and significant behaviours of concern. As he grows older and physically stronger, his behaviours have become increasingly difficult for his parents to safely manage, with Jacob now physically overpowering them during behviour escalations.

The intensity and constant nature of Jacob’s support needs resulted in his mother experiencing severe carer burnout and mental health deterioration, ultimately leading to her involuntary hospitalisation for several months as an inpatient. Following this, Jacob’s father became the sole carer for Jacob and his siblings while also working full-time and managing significant financial, emotional and household pressures. Evidence from his Occupational Therapist provided to the NDIA stated that Jacob’s father was overwhelmed and unable to sustainably maintain the required level of care without additional supports and was also at serious risk of burnout.

Despite a clear change in circumstances and compelling evidence that the family had reached crisis point, the NDIA declined additional funding. The NDIA stated that providing substantial support to a young child was a “typical parental responsibility” and that the requested supports would replace what could reasonably be expected from family supports. The response from the Agency went on to suggest that the mother may herself now be eligible for the NDIS.

This case demonstrates the serious risks associated with proposed reforms that increase expectations on informal and family supports. The level of care required in this case extends far beyond what would ordinarily be considered “typical parental responsibility” for a seven year-old child. Despite clear evidence of severe carer burnout, mental health crisis and unsafe caring arrangements, the family was still expected to continue absorbing extensive care responsibilities.

Submission 631

The case raises serious concerns that narrow interpretations of “reasonable parental responsibility” may continue to minimise or dismiss significant family harm, including situations where a primary carer has already been involuntarily hospitalised due to the cumulative impacts of caregiving. If this is the reality under the current framework, MDAA is deeply concerned about the impact of further tightening provisions relating to informal supports and parental responsibility.

This case also highlights the danger of policies that prioritise preserving informal supports over the wellbeing, safety and sustainability of the families expected to provide them. It also ignores the fact that the NDIS was established to recognise disability-related supports as a shared societal responsibility rather than relying solely o family care.

Concerns Regarding Functional Capacity Assessments

MDAA acknowledges the objective of improving consistency in decision making. However, the proposed emphasis on standardised functional capacity assessments raises significant concerns.

The Bill defines functional capacity by reference to a person’s ability to undertake an activity without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications, and in a context that excludes, as far as possible, environmental and personal circumstances. MDAA is concerned that this framing may produce an artificial picture of capacity if it is applied without culturally safe safeguards, proper communication support and consideration of how people function in real life.

Functional assessments that are not culturally safe or trauma-informed risk producing inaccurate outcomes for multicultural participants. MDAA is aware of multiple instances where the lack of cultural safety, poor communication support and trauma-informed practice has significantly impacted the outcome of a NDIA decision.

Standardised assessments may fail to account for:

Language barriers and interpreting needs Trauma responses Mental health fluctuations Cultural differences in communication styles Stigma associated with disability or intersecting identities Gendered barriers to disclosure

Submission 631

Educational disadvantage Different understandings of disability Distrust of institutions The cumulative impact of social disadvantage

Participants from multicultural backgrounds may underreport difficulties due to shame, fear, survival responses or previous experiences of persecution. Others may present differently in formal assessments than they do in everyday environments. There are also serious concerns regarding the availability of culturally safe assessors and interpreters.

On this note, MDAA is particularly concerned that standardised assessments may privilege participants who are articulate, confident, English-speaking and experienced in navigating systems, while disadvantaging participants who are isolated or culturally marginalised. The NDIS is already heavily reliant on participants communicating their needs in a way that fits Agency expectations. Where language barriers, interpreters, cultural concepts of disability, shame or trauma affect communication, the risk is not simply misunderstanding. The risk is loss of access, loss of supports, or an incorrect finding that a person does not meet the relevant threshold.

Case Study

MDAA supported a participant who was required by the NDIA to undergo an Independent Medical Examination conducted by an Occupational Therapist to assess their functional capacity. The participant had previously disclosed experiences of domestic and family violence, significant trauma and gender dysphoria.

Throughout the assessment process, the participant reported feeling unsafe, judged and retraumatised. MDAA advocates who reviewed the assessment observed language and commentary within the report that appeared heavily biased, deficit-focused and lacking in trauma-informed practice. The participant’s disclosures regarding trauma and identity were not handled sensitively, and interactions during the assessment were experienced as invalidating and distressing.

The participant described the process as emotionally harmful and disengaged from supports following the assessment due to heightened anxiety and mistrust of the system.

Submission 631

This case highlights serious concerns regarding the proposed expansion of functional capacity assessments across the NDIS, particularly in circumstances where there remains limited clarity regarding how “functional capacity” will ultimately be defined and assessed under the legislation.

MDAA is concerned that the disability sector is not currently equipped to deliver functional capacity assessments at the scale proposed, particularly in a manner that is culturally safe, trauma-informed and responsive to complex lived experiences. There are already significant workforce shortages across allied health professions, including limited availability of practitioners with expertise in trauma-informed practice, domestic and family violence, psychosocial disability, gender diversity and culturally safe assessment.

Without substantial safeguards, oversight and workforce development, there is a real risk that expanded functional capacity assessments will result in inconsistent, biased outcomes that are retraumatising experiences for participants. This is particularly so for people from multicultural backgrounds, victim-survivors of violence, LGBTQIA+ participants and people with psychosocial disability. Assessment processes must not become reductive exercises that ignore the social context of disability.

This case demonstrates that assessment processes are not neutral administrative exercises. The language used, the assumptions made, and the way information is gathered can profoundly impact a participant’s dignity, safety and willingness to engage with the NDIS.

MDAA acknowledges that many of the concerns raised in this submission will ultimately depend on how legislative provisions are operationalised by NDIA staff, assessors and decision-makers. Consistent and equitable implementation requires clear guidance, accountability mechanisms, cultural safety standards, access to specialist advice, and adequate support for staff responsible for applying complex legislative criteria. Without these safeguards, there is a risk that outcomes will vary significantly depending on the individual decision-maker, assessor or communication circumstances involved.

Submission 631

Automation, Communication Barriers and Risk of Discriminatory

Outcomes

MDAA notes the proposed power to allow automated administrative action within the NDIS. Automation may assist with administrative efficiency and consistency, and if designed appropriately, has the potential to reduce some of the variation in outcomes that can occur due to differences in individual decision-making, participant advocacy skills, familiarity with the NDIS, or ability to navigate complex processes. However, MDAA holds concerns about the practicable ability to see these ideal outcomes. Automation must be implemented carefully to ensure it does not unintentionally reproduce or amplify existing inequities. Multicultural participants may face particular risks where automated systems rely on incomplete records, misunderstood language, inconsistent assessment notes, provider descriptions, or patterns of support use that do not fully capture the circumstances surrounding a participant’s needs.

MDAA has observed matters where ordinary language used by participants or family members has been interpreted as evidence of incorrect use of supports, or as justification to deny funding, rather than as evidence of a communication barrier. In a case supported by MDAA, the use of the word “child care” when referring to day-stay only respite for their child (the participant) was used as justification to deny additional funding. That incorrect wording was subsequently relied upon to suggest the support was not reasonable and necessary, without sufficient consideration of English language barriers, cultural translation, or the fact families often use everyday language rather than technical NDIS terminology when describing disability supports. Denial of this support resulted in involuntary hospitalisation of a parent due to severe carer burnout.

These examples highlight the importance of ensuring administrative systems do not assume records, descriptions or language used by participants are always interpreted correctly. In some circumstances, what appears to be non-compliance may instead reflect a communication issue requiring clarification.

MDAA has also observed significant variation in assessment outcomes depending on how information is elicited. In one matter, a participant completed an assessment process with two different assessors. One assessment resulted in a finding that access criteria were met, while the other did not. The difference appeared to arise largely from whether

Submission 631

relevant information was elicited, and whether the participant was effectively supported to explain their functional impairments.

While automation may improve consistency in some areas, these examples demonstrate the limits of treating assessments, records or functional capacity information as entirely objective. Communication conditions, assessment approaches and the quality of information gathered can materially affect outcomes.

The impact of automation is likely to be particularly significant when combined with reassessment processes, plan suspension powers, prescribed functional capacity thresholds, or narrower interpretations of reasonable and necessary supports.

For this reason, MDAA considers it important that appropriate safeguards accompany any expanded use of automation. Automated processes should not be solely relied upon for decisions that reduce access, suspend supports, restrict reassessments, recover funds or identify alleged misuse without meaningful human oversight and review. Human review should include culturally safe communication practices, access to interpreters where required, consideration of alternative explanations, and opportunities for participants, nominees, advocates or trusted supporters to provide further information before adverse action is taken.

MDAA further suggests the NDIA should be required to monitor and publicly report the impact of reassessment, access, plan suspension, funding reduction and automated decision-making processes on participants from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Public reporting is essential to understanding whether automation is delivering more equitable and consistent outcomes or whether unintended disparities are emerging. Transparency should not depend on external stakeholders identifying inequitable impacts after they have already occurred.

Failure to Consider Individual Circumstances and Access Barriers

MDAA is extremely concerned about provisions indicating that the NDIA may not consider whether a person’s individual circumstances restrict their ability to access treatment, including financial and geographic barriers.

Submission 631

If implemented as proposed, these provisions risk fundamentally undermining equitable access to the NDIS.

MDAA continues to insist that people do not experience disability in a social vacuum. Access to treatment and supports is profoundly shaped by poverty, location, family violence, trauma, language, migration history, service availability and cultural safety.

Ignoring these realities creates a deeply inequitable system in which participants are effectively penalised for circumstances beyond their control.

The practical accessibility of mainstream systems must be considered when assessing whether alternative services are genuinely available. A theoretical service pathway is not a meaningful alternative if a participant cannot access it because of cost, long waitlists, interpreter barriers, cultural unsafety, digital exclusion, lack of transport or fear of engaging with institutions.

MDAA strongly rejects any approach that treats disability supports as entirely separate from the broader social determinants affecting access and participation.

Reduced Funding Flexibility and Administrative Burden

MDAA is concerned that reduced flexibility within plans and increased administrative requirements will disproportionately affect participants who already face barriers navigating the NDIS.

Many multicultural participants rely heavily on support coordinators, advocates and trusted community organisations to manage budgets, understand rules and respond to NDIA requests.

educed flexibility may particularly disadvantage participants who experience fluctuating conditions or have limited service availability in their area.

Administrative complexity itself can become a barrier to participation. When systems become too rigid or difficult to navigate, participants with the greatest support needs are often the first to disengage.

Submission 631

Advocacy, Safeguards and Access to Justice – Particularly Where There

Are Increased Powers to Suspend Participants’ Plans

MDAA is concerned that several reforms may reduce participants’ practical ability to challenge decisions, advocate for their needs and meaningfully participate in decision-making.

This concern is compounded by the proposed powers of the NDIA to suspend participants’ plans. If the NDIA requests information or reports related to planning, and the participant does not respond, the Bill would give the Agency the power to suspend the person’s plan. Advocates are often facilitating communications between the NDIA and participants, particularly when Agency attempts to communicate with people from diverse backgrounds are not culturally safe. In this reality, requests are often not understood or are misunderstood without greater efforts to provide clarity.

Suspension powers must not operate on the assumption that non response equals refusal or disengagement. For many multicultural participants, non-response may reflect language barriers, unstable housing, trauma, digital exclusion, fear, low literacy, carer burnout, or lack of trusted support to interpret what the Agency is asking. Many participants supported by MDAA would not have successfully accessed or maintained supports without advocacy, primarily due to burnout in attempting to navigate these processes alone.

Any reforms that reduce the practical accessibility of advocacy or increase participant burden without additional safeguards risk worsening inequities within the Scheme.

MDAA is also concerned about the speed and scope of the proposed reforms and notes widespread concerns within the disability community regarding limited consultation timeframes.

Meaningful co-design requires adequate time and accessible engagement with people with disability, including people from multicultural backgrounds.

Submission 631

Our Recommendations

Recommendation 1 Amend the Bill to allow trusted supporters, including support coordinators, advocates and authorised providers, to request plan reassessments where participants consent or where there are clear safeguarding concerns.

Recommendation 2 Require all reassessment, planning and functional assessment processes to be trauma-informed, culturally safe and accessible, including mandatory access to qualified interpreters and culturally safe communication supports.

Recommendation 3 Ensure that individual circumstances, including financial hardship, geographic isolation, trauma, family violence, housing instability, language barriers, digital exclusion and barriers to accessing treatment, remain relevant considerations in NDIA decision-making. The NDIA should also be required to consider the practical accessibility of mainstream and alternative services before determining that supports are available outside the NDIS.

Recommendation 4 Amend the Bill to explicitly recognise the risks of carer burnout and ensure that assumptions regarding informal and family supports do not replace reasonable and necessary funded supports.

Recommendation 5 Develop strong safeguards to ensure functional capacity assessments do not disadvantage multicultural or traumatised participants, including independent oversight, cultural safety standards, review rights, access to interpreters, safeguards addressing communication barriers, and mechanisms to address situations where question framing, language barriers or communication failures may affect outcomes.

Recommendation 6 Maintain flexibility within participant plans to allow for fluctuating needs, crisis responses and culturally safe service delivery.

Submission 631

Recommendation 7 Require meaningful consultation and co-design with people with disability, families, carers, advocacy organisations, multicultural communities, disability representative organisations, and state and territory governments before implementing major NDIS reforms affecting participant access, reassessment, functional assessment, plan management or participant safeguards.

Recommendation 8 Require the NDIA to monitor and regularly publish access, reassessment, plan suspension, funding reduction and review outcomes by cultural and linguistic background, and implement strong safeguards for automated decision-making, including human review before adverse decisions, culturally safe communication checks, interpreter access, transparent reasons and accessible review pathways.

Conclusion

MDAA supports efforts to strengthen the integrity and long-term sustainability of the NDIS. However, sustainability cannot come at the expense of equity, accessibility and human rights. The proposed reforms risk disproportionately impacting people with disability who already face the greatest systemic barriers, including people from diverse backgrounds.

MDAA urges the Committee to carefully consider the cumulative impact of these reforms on participants who may lack the resources, support networks or capacity to safely navigate increasingly complex administrative systems. Particular attention should be paid to the combined effect of reassessment restrictions, increasing reliance on informal supports, functional capacity assessments, automation and administrative complexity, which together may create significant barriers for participants already experiencing disadvantage.

The Committee should require clear safeguards, meaningful consultation, public accountability and ongoing monitoring so the impact of these reforms can be identified, scrutinised and addressed before inequities become entrenched.

Submission 631

Public reporting is essential to accountability. Governments and agencies should not rely on advocacy organisations, researchers or other stakeholders to identify inequitable impacts long after harm has already occurred. The NDIA should proactively monitor and publicly report these impacts so they can be identified and addressed before they become entrenched.

The NDIS was established to provide people with disability with choice, control and the supports necessary to participate fully in Australian society. MDAA asserts any reforms intended to secure the future sustainability of the Scheme must also protect these foundational principles. Sustainability and integrity should not be achieved by increasing barriers for those who already face the greatest challenges accessing and navigating the system.

MDAA respectfully urges the Committee to ensure the final legislation incorporates stronger safeguards, culturally safe practices, accountability mechanisms and meaningful consultation to ensure the NDIS remains equitable, accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of all participants.