Submission 757
PODC Submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 757
Executive Summary
PODC’s position on sustainability and fraud prevention
Parents of Deaf Children supports a strong, safe and sustainable National Disability Insurance Scheme. The NDIS is an essential part of Australia’s disability rights framework and, for many Deaf/deaf children and families, it has created access to supports that were not available before the Scheme’s rollout.
PODC recognises that scheme sustainability, fraud prevention, participant safety and provider accountability are legitimate and important public policy objectives. Fraud, exploitation, unsafe services and improper claiming harm participants, families and the integrity of the Scheme. Targeted and proportionate measures to address these issues are necessary.
However, sustainability must not be achieved by reducing access to the supports that enable Deaf/deaf children to develop language, communicate with their families, participate safely, build identity and achieve outcomes in line with their peers.
PODC’s concern is that the Bill is not limited to fraud prevention or internal administration. The Explanatory Memorandum identifies both scheme growth and fraud as key vulnerabilities, and the Bill includes substantial changes to access, functional capacity, permanence, early intervention, planning, reassessment, funding, plan renewal, suspension, claiming, plan management and automation. We believe that these areas are key concerns for the disability community.
Many of these changes are participant-facing. They affect children, families and participants who are using the Scheme appropriately. They may change how people enter the Scheme, how their needs are assessed, how supports are funded, whether families can seek reassessment, how parental responsibility is applied, and whether supports may be redirected to other systems. For Deaf/deaf children, these are not abstract administrative issues. They may directly affect access to Auslan, Deaf mentors, interpreting, captioning, assistive technology, family language supports, disability-specific psychology and communication access.
Submission 757
Why PODC does not support the Bill proceeding in its current form
PODC does not support the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 proceeding in its current form.
Our concern is not with the stated goals of sustainability, integrity or participant safety. Our concern is that the Bill proposes broad participant-facing changes without adequate safeguards for Deaf/deaf children, families, carers and participants.
For Deaf/deaf children, language access is developmental, relational and rights-based. It supports communication, family connection, learning, social participation, safety, identity, emotional wellbeing and the child’s ability to express their views. Language access cannot be delayed while families navigate complex reassessment, review or appeal processes.
Deafness/deafness does not cause language deprivation. Lack of timely, accessible and meaningful language exposure does -and that harm is preventable. Before the NDIS, many services available to Deaf/deaf children were focused primarily on speech and hearing outcomes. Families often had limited or no access to Auslan in the home, Deaf mentors, bimodal bilingual pathways, family language supports, disability- specific psychology, or holistic support that understood access burnout, communication fatigue, executive functioning, theory of mind, social participation and the impact of delayed or restricted language access.
The NDIS has changed what is possible for many families. It has enabled children and families to access supports that were not previously available in a meaningful or consistent way. This progress should be protected, not narrowed.
Submission 757
PODC is particularly concerned that the Bill may:
- underestimate the functional impact of communication barriers where a child appears to cope because of family labour, speech, technology, masking or familiar routines;
- create pressure for Deaf/deaf people to exhaust medical, auditory or technological pathways before language access is accepted;
- narrow early intervention by focusing on reducing impairment rather than preventing harm caused by lack of access to language;
- require supports to arise too narrowly or “directly” from an accepted impairment, despite language access, fatigue, wellbeing, participation and family communication being interconnected;
- treat parents and carers as the child’s default interpreter, Auslan teacher, communication support worker, access coordinator or substitute service system;
- redirect families to other systems that do not actually provide timely, accessible, skilled or culturally safe language access;
- reduce or alter plans without meaningful consultation or practical review safeguards;
- allow children to lose access to language while families wait through reassessment or review processes;
- rely on automated or standardised processes that may not capture the real-world needs of Deaf/deaf children.
PODC submits that the Bill requires substantial amendment and stronger safeguards before it proceeds.
Submission 757
1.3 Short consultation timeframe and need for further consultation
PODC is also concerned about the very short consultation timeframe for a Bill of this scale and significance.
The Bill is lengthy and complex. It proposes changes that may significantly affect children, families, carers, participants, providers and the future operation of the NDIS. Families and representative organisations have had limited time to analyse the Bill, consult members, gather evidence and prepare detailed responses.
PODC has prepared this submission within the limited time available. We have also commenced a member survey to gather family experiences and intend to share it more broadly through our social media channels. This will help document what Deaf/deaf children, young people and families are already experiencing in relation to NDIS access, Auslan supports, interpreting, family language supports, assistive technology, reassessments, plan reductions and communication access.
Given the compressed timeframe, this submission should be understood as an initial response. PODC strongly recommends that further consultation occur before the Bill proceeds and before any rules, instruments, thresholds, assessment methods or implementation settings are finalised. Further consultation must include Deaf/deaf people, Deaf/deaf children and young people in accessible ways, families, carers, Deaf-led organisations, parent-led organisations, disability representative organisations, legal services and providers with specific expertise in Deaf/deaf children’s language and communication access needs.
Reform of this significance should be developed in partnership with the people it will affect.
Submission 757
Summary of key safeguards required
PODC recommends that the Bill should not proceed in its current form.
At a minimum, the following safeguards are required:
- Protect language and communication access supports. Auslan, Deaf mentors, interpreting, captioning, assistive technology, family language supports, disability-specific psychology and communication access must be recognised as legitimate NDS supports where they arise from disability-related language and communication access needs.
- Require functional capacity assessments to use a language access lens. Assessments for Deaf/deaf participants must consider real-world communication environments, family labour, masking, fatigue, access burnout, participation, safety, privacy, decision-making and the limits of technology.
- Prevent medical, auditory or technological pathways becoming preconditions for language access. Cochlear implants, hearing technology, auditory-verbal therapy, speech therapy, future gene therapies or communication devices must not become preconditions for access to Auslan, interpreting, Deaf mentoring or other language access supports.
- Protect early intervention that prevents language deprivation. Early intervention for Deaf/deaf children must support timely access to language, family communication, identity, participation and wellbeing. It must not be limited to reducing impairment.
- Prevent parental responsibility replacing funded access. Parents and carers should be respected and supported. They should not be treated as unpaid interpreters, Auslan teachers, communication support workers, access coordinators or substitute service systems.
- Maintain language access during reassessment, review or appeal. No Deaf/deaf child should lose access to essential language and communication supports while decisions are being reviewed.Long reassessments, reviews could cause harm.
- Require alternative supports to be real, not theoretical. The NDIS should not redirect families to another system unless the support is actually available, timely, accessible, skilled, culturally safe and appropriate for the child’s language and communication needs.
Submission 757
-
Protect Deaf-led, community-based and small providers. Fraud prevention and provider regulation must be proportionate and must not unintentionally remove culturally safe providers, Deaf mentors, Auslan tutors or small specialist services from the market.
-
Require transparency, accessible reasons and human review for automation. Any automated process affecting access, planning, funding, reassessment, claims or supports must include accessible explanations, transparency about the information relied upon, and meaningful human review.
-
Require further consultation before rules and instruments are finalised. Further consultation must occur with Deaf/deaf people, families, carers, Deaf-led organisations, parent-led organisations, disability representative organisations and legal services before key rules, instruments, thresholds or implementation settings are made.
PODC is willing to work constructively with government, Parliament, the NDIA and the disability community to strengthen the NDIS. However, reform must be guided by the rights, dignity and lived experience of the children, families and participants it affects.
For Deaf/deaf children, the central issue is clear: language access is not optional, and it cannot wait.
Submission 757
About Parents of Deaf Children
PODC’s role as a parent-led organisation Parents of Deaf Children is a parent-led organisation supporting families of Deaf/deaf children and young people. PODC works alongside families as they navigate systems that are often complex, fragmented and difficult to access, including the NDIS, early intervention, health, hearing services, education, community participation and disability supports.
PODC’s work is grounded in the lived experience of families raising Deaf/deaf children. We provide information, peer support, family capacity-building, advocacy support and systemic representation. We also work with Deaf/deaf people, Deaf-led organisations, professionals, service providers and government stakeholders to improve understanding of what genuine language and communication access requires in practice.
PODC’s role is not to promote one pathway for all children. Deaf/deaf children are diverse, and families make different choices based on their child’s needs, strengths, identity, language access, family context, culture, community, hearing technology, and communication preferences. PODC supports families to make informed choices and to access the supports required to give effect to those choices.
Submission 757
Families and children represented by this submission
This submission represents the concerns of families raising Deaf/deaf children and young people who rely on the N DIS to access disability-related supports. These supports may include Auslan, family language supports, Deaf mentors, interpreting, captioning, assistive technology, therapy, disability-specific psychology, communication access and participation supports.
The children and families represented by PODC are not a single group with identical needs. Some children use Auslan as their primary language. Some use spoken language. Some use both Auslan and spoken language. Some use hearing technology, including hearing aids or cochlear implants. Some require additional support because of other disabilities, developmental differences, access barriers, delayed language exposure, fatigue, anxiety, executive functioning challenges or social participation barriers.
What unites these families is the need for systems to recognise that Deaf/deaf children require timely, meaningful and accessible language and communication support. This support must be responsive to the child’s actual life, not based on assumptions about speech, hearing technology, family capacity or what another system might theoretically provide.
Submission 757
Parent voice, child voice and lived experience evidence
Parent voice is essential in understanding the practical impact of NDIS reform on Deaf/deaf children. Parents and carers see the daily reality of what happens when language access is available, and what happens when it is delayed, reduced or denied.
Families often carry a significant access load. They coordinate services, support communication, explain missed information, manage appointments, advocate across systems, support emotional regulation, and help their child participate in family and community life. This lived experience is evidence. It should inform how policy is designed, how risk is understood, and how safeguards are built.
Child voice is equally important. Deaf/deaf children and young people must be supported to express their views in ways that are accessible to them. This may require Auslan, visual supports, interpreters, captioning, extra time, trusted communication partners or other adjustments. A child’s views cannot be meaningfully heard if the process does not provide access to language and communication.
PODC submits that parent voice and child voice should be treated as central safeguards in any reform that affects access, planning, funding, reassessment, early intervention or review rights.
Submission 757
PODC member survey and ongoing family consultation
PODC has commenced consultation with families in response to the Bill. We have recently sent a survey to our members to gather family experiences and will also share it more broadly through our social media channels.
The purpose of this survey is to understand what families are already experiencing in relation to NDIS access, language and communication supports, Auslan, Deaf mentors, interpreting, captioning, family language supports, assistive technology, reassessments, plan reductions and review processes.
Because the consultation timeframe for this Bill has been very short, PODC has not been able to undertake the full level of family consultation that would usually be appropriate for reforms of this scale. This submission should therefore be read as an initial response informed by PODC’s ongoing work with families, with further family evidence to be gathered and used in continuing advocacy.
PODC strongly encourages further consultation with Deaf/deaf children and young people, families, carers, Deaf-led organisations, parent-led organisations, disability representative organisations and specialist providers before the Bill proceeds or any related rules, instruments, thresholds, assessment tools or implementation settings are finalised.
Submission 757
What the NDIS Has Made Possible for Deaf/deaf Children
Pre-NDIS service gaps and the historical focus on speech and hearing outcomes
Before the rollout of the NDIS, many families of Deaf/deaf children had very limited practical choice in the supports available to their child. In many areas, services were not available at all, were difficult to access, or were shaped by narrow eligibility, location, cost, service philosophy or workforce availability.
For many families, support for Deaf/deaf children was historically focused primarily on speech, hearing technology and listening outcomes. These supports may be important for some children and families, but they do not represent the whole picture of what Deaf/deaf children need to develop, participate and thrive.
There was often limited recognition of language access, family communication, Deaf identity, Auslan access, communication fatigue, access burnout, social participation, mental health, executive functioning, theory of mind, and the developmental impact of delayed or restricted access to language.
This meant families who wanted access to Auslan, Deaf mentors, bimodal bilingual pathways, family language supports or holistic disability-informed services often had few realistic options. In many cases, families were expected to fit into the service models that existed, rather than being supported to choose the pathway that best reflected their child’s needs.
Submission 757
Choice, quality and control since the NDIS rollout
The NDIS has changed what is possible for many Deaf/deaf children and families.
For the first time, many families have been able to exercise genuine choice and control over the supports they access. This has enabled families to choose providers and approaches that better reflect their child’s language, communication, developmental and family needs.
This is particularly important because Deaf/deaf children are not all the same. Families need the ability to choose supports that fit the child, rather than being required to follow a single pathway.
The NDIS has also enabled families to access supports closer to home, build a team around the child, and seek providers who understand Deaf/deaf children’s broader access needs. This has improved family capacity, community participation and the ability of children to access supports in everyday life, not only in clinical settings.
For many families, this has represented a significant shift from limited service availability to genuine choice, quality and control.
Submission 757
Access to Auslan, Deaf mentors, family language supports and bimodal bilingual pathways
One of the most significant changes since the NDIS rollout has been improved access to language and communication supports that many families could not previously access in a meaningful or consistent way.
This includes access to Auslan in the home, family language supports, Deaf mentors, Deaf/deaf role models, bimodal bilingual pathways, interpreting, captioning, assistive technology solutions and communication access supports.
These Access supports help children communicate with their families, build relationships, develop identity, participate in community life, understand information, make choices and express themselves.
Family language supports are particularly important. Deaf/deaf children need access to language in the home and in everyday family life. Parents and siblings also need support to build shared language with the child. Without this, families can be left relying on guessing, routines, simplified communication or crisis responses, rather than meaningful communication.
Bimodal bilingual pathways have also become more accessible for many families through the N DIS. This has allowed children to access Auslan alongside spoken language, hearing technology and other supports where appropriate. For many children, this provides greater language security and supports communication across different environment
Submission 757
Holistic supports for access burnout, communication fatigue, executive functioning, theory of mind, wellbeing and participation
The NDIS has also helped families access more holistic supports for Deaf/deaf children.
PODC’s experience is that many Deaf/deaf children need support that goes beyond speech, hearing or technology. They may need support to manage communication fatigue, access burnout, emotional regulation, executive functioning, social understanding, theory of mind, self-advocacy, confidence, identity and participation.
These needs do not arise because Deafness/deafness itself causes delay or difficulty. They often arise when children do not have full, timely and accessible language and communication access across their everyday environments.
The NDIS has enabled some families to access disability-specific psychology, occupational therapy, speech and language supports, Deaf mentors, communication access supports and providers who better understand the whole child. This has allowed families to respond earlier and more effectively to the impact of delayed access, inaccessible environments or fragmented systems.
This more holistic approach is important because children do not develop in separate systems. Language, communication, identity, emotional wellbeing, family connection, learning, participation and self-advocacy are interconnected.
Submission 757
Why this progress must be protected
The progress created through the NDIS should not be lost through reform. PODC supports sustainability, but sustainability must preserve the supports that prevent avoidable harm and improve long-term outcomes. For Deaf/deaf children, early and meaningful access to language and communication support is protective. It supports development, family connection, confidence, participation and independence.
When children receive the right access and support early, their outcomes improve. Over 时间，some developmental support needs may reduce as children build language, confidence, self-advocacy and independence. However, communication access needs often remain across the life course.
This distinction is critical: support needs may change, but access needs remain.
Reform must not return families to a system where supports are limited to speech and hearing outcomes, where Auslan is treated as optional, where Deaf mentors and family language supports are unavailable, or where families are expected to carry the access load alone.
A sustainable NDIS should protect the gains made for Deaf/deaf children and ensure that families continue to have genuine choice, quality and control over the supports their children need to communicate, participate and thrive.
Submission 757
4. Sustainability Must Protect Language and Communication Access
PODC supports a sustainable NDIS
PODC supports a sustainable NDIS that remains available for current and future participants. Sustainability is important, and the Scheme must be protected from fraud, exploitation, poor practice and misuse.
However, sustainability should not be understood only as short-term reduction in plan costs. For Deaf/deaf children, sustainability must also consider the long-term cost of delaying or reducing access to language, communication and family support.
A sustainable NDIS should fund the right supports at the right time. For Deaf/deaf children, this means timely access to language and communication supports that enable development, participation, family connection and independence.
Submission 757
Deafness/deafness does not cause language deprivation - lack of access to language does
Deafness/deafness itself does not cause language deprivation. Language deprivation is caused by lack of timely, accessible and meaningful language exposure.
This distinction is critical.
If a Deaf/deaf child does not have access to language in the early years, the resulting impacts may be wrongly treated as part of the child’s Deafness/deafness, rather than as the consequence of preventable access barriers.
NDIS reform must not create or worsen those barriers by delaying, reducing or redirecting supports such as Auslan, Deaf mentors, family language supports, interpreting, captioning, assistive technology and communication access.
Early language access as prevention
Early language access is preventative. It supports communication, family relationships, emotional wellbeing, participation, identity, self-advocacy and learning.
For Deaf/deaf children, early intervention should not be limited to reducing impairment. It must also prevent avoidable harm caused by lack of access to language.
When children and families receive the right supports early, children are better able to develop language, express themselves, participate in family and community life, and build confidence. Families are also better supported to communicate with their child and make informed choices about their child’s pathway.
This is not only good practice. It is a sustainable approach because it reduces the risk of more intensive support needs later.
Submission 757
Support needs may change, but access needs often remain lifelong
As Deaf/deaf children grow, their support needs may change. With early and effective access, some children may need less developmental support over time as they build language, confidence, independence and self-advocation.
However, communication access needs often remain across the life course.
A Deaf/deaf young person or adult may continue to need Auslan, interpreting, captioning, assistive technology, communication access or other adjustments to participate fully in family life, community life, employment, health care, decision-making and social connection.
Ongoing access need should not be treated as evidence that support is excessive or unsustainable. It may simply reflect a lifelong disability-related access requirement.
Why short-term reductions may create long-term costs
Reducing or delaying language access may appear to lower costs in the short term, but it risks creating greater long-term costs for children, families and the broader service system.
If Deaf/deaf children lose access to language and communication supports, the impacts may include increased family stress, reduced participation, communication breakdown, social isolation, emotional distress, reduced independence, delayed self-advocacy and greater reliance on more intensive supports later. A sustainable NDIS should not shift costs onto families or other systems by removing access before safe alternatives exist. It should preserve the supports that prevent avoidable harm and help children build the skills, confidence and independence they need over time.
Submission 757
Current Act, Proposed Changes and PODC Concerns
PODC supports measures that strengthen the NDIS, improve safety and address fraud. However, the proposed changes below go beyond fraud prevention. They directly affect how participants access the Scheme, how supports are assessed, how plans are funded, and how families can respond when needs change.
For Deaf/deaf children and families, these changes must be considered through a language access lens.
| Area | Current position | Proposed change | PODC concern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ministerial powers and funding reductions | Supports are assessed through individual planning and reasonable and necessary decision-making. | The Bill would allow Ministerial powers to set maximum amounts, intensities or ratios for classes of supports or participants. It may also allow funding for specified support categories to be reduced by a percentage. | This risks moving away from individualised planning. A support may be recognised as needed, but not funded at a level that provides real access. For Deaf/deaf children, this could affect Auslan, Deaf mentors, interpreting, captioning, assistive technology, family language supports or participation supports. |
| Plan renewals | Plans may currently be varied, reassessed or rolled over through existing administrative processes. | The Bill would formalise plan renewals and allow alterations to be applied when a plan is renewed. Some alterations may not be reviewable in practice. | Deaf/deaf children’s language, developmental and family needs can change quickly. Plans should not be renewed or altered without meaningful consultation, accessible reasons and review safeguards where supports are affected. |
Submission 757
Current Position
| Area | Proposed change | PODC concern |
|---|---|---|
| Access and functional capacity | Functional capacity is currently considered as part of access decisions, but without the same prescriptive definition and future threshold framework. | Deaf/deaf children may appear to have lower functional barriers because they speak, use technology, rely on family, avoid inaccessible settings, or cope in familiar routines. |
| Functional capacity must assess real-world communication access, not surface-level coping. |
| Future access rules | Access is currently assessed case by case against the legislative criteria. | Future rules may determine how functional capacity is assessed and may limit who is considered to meet access requirements. Generic tools or thresholds may not capture language access, communication fatigue, access burnout, family communication, Auslan access, or the limits of hearing technology and assistive technology. |
| Permanence and “appropriate treatment” | Permanence is required, but the current framework does not include the same broad requirement to have undertaken all “appropriate treatment.” The Bill introduces an “appropriate treatment” framework before an impairment is accepted as permanent or likely to be permanently. | This may place pressure on Deaf/deaf participants to exhaust medical, auditory or technological pathways before their language access needs are accepted. Cochlear implants, hearing technology, future gene therapies, or communication devices must not become preconditions for Auslan or communication access.
Submission 757
Current Proposed PODCA rea . . concern pos1t1on change
Early Early The Bill changes For Deaf/deaf children, early intervention intervention the language intervention must not be supports may be supports may be considered where they mitigate or alleviate the impact of impairment. toward supports that reduce the impact of impairment. limited to reducing impact of impairment. It must prevent avoidable harm caused by lack of access to language and support family communication, to reduction participation, identity and wellbeing.
Supports Supports are currently considered in relation to needs arising from impairment. arising “directly” The Bi II wou Id require supports to arise “directly” from an accepted impairment or impairments. from This may artificially separate needs that are connected in real life. For Deaf/deaf children, impairment language access, fatigue, emotional wellbeing, family communication, impaired participation and self-advocacy are interconnected.
Cheaper Value for money is already relevant to support decisions. alternatives The Bill would strengthen consideration of lower-cost or comparable alternatives. and value for Lower cost does not mean equivalent access. A communication device is money not the same as Auslan interpreting for a Deaf Auslan user. Hearing technology is not a substitute for language access. Supports must be assessed by whether they provide meaningful access, not only whether they are cheaper.
Submission 757
Area Current position Proposed change PODC concern
Parental Families are The Bill Parents and carers responsibility recognised as strengthens the should be supported, important, and presumption that not used as a substitute plans should parents provide service system. Families consider and substantial care should not be treated as respect the role of and support for unpaid interpreters, family and carers. children. Auslan teachers, communication support workers, access coordinators or advocates in place of funded supports
Reassessment Participants can The Bill would Deaf/deaf children and review request limit when cannot wait through reassessment, participants can long reassessment or and there are request review processes while current reassessment, language access is safeguards where extend reduced, removed or the Agency does timeframes, and delayed. A review not respond reduce practical process is not an within the safeguards where adequate safeguard if required the Agency does the eh ild loses access timeframe. not act. during the delay.
Suspension for Existing contact The Bill would Deaf/deaf participants being “not and suspension allow plan and families must have contactable” processes apply. suspension where accessible the N DIA considers communication before a participant not any adverse action is contactable after taken. Phone calls, reasonable standard letters or attempts inaccessible notices should not be treated as sufficient where communication access needs are known or should be known.
Submission 757
| Area | Current position | Proposed change | PODC concern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claiming and record keeping | Claims can currently be made within a longer timeframe, and the Act is less prescriptive about participant record keeping. | The Bill would reduce claim timeframes and introduce record-keeping obligations for participants, nominees and providers. | This may increase administrative burden on families already managing complex supports. Safeguards are needed so families are not penalised for technical compliance issues that do not involve fraud or misuse. |
| Plan management | Families currently have broader flexibility in how plan management is arranged. | The Bill would move toward a smaller pool of registered plan management providers with additional requirements. | This may reduce choice and flexibility, particularly for families who rely on plan managers who understand Deaf/deaf access needs, Auslan supports, interpreters, |
| Provider choice | Families may currently use a range of registered and unregistered providers, depending on plan management and support type. | Fraud and compliance reforms may increase requirements for providers and change market participation. | Safeguards are needed to ensure small, Deaf-led, community-based and culturally safe providers are not unintentionally pushed out of the market. |
Submission 757
| Current Area | Proposed change | PODC concern |
|---|---|---|
| Automation decision-making and review remain central to many processes. | Human | The Bill would allow automated administrative action in some areas, with scope for future expansion. |
| Families must have accessible reasons and meaningful human review. |
PODC’s concern is that these measures, taken together, may shift the NDIS away from individualised, participant-directed planning and toward broader cost-control mechanisms that operate directly on participants and families.
For Deaf/deaf children, the risk is that language and communication access may be delayed, reduced, redirected, or treated as optional. Any reform must include safeguards that protect the child’s right to language, family communication, participation, safety and development.
Submission 757
Who Carries the Burden?
This section considers whether the Bill’s proposed changes primarily affect NOIA administration, providers, or participants, families and carers.
POOC supports a sustainable NOIS and proportionate measures to prevent fraud, exploitation and unsafe practice. However, many of the proposed changes place the practical burden of sustainability on participants and families, rather than only strengthening administration, provider regulation or fraud control.
| Proposed change | NOIA administration | Providers/fraud control | Participants, families and carers | Who carries the greatest burden? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provider registration changes | The NOIA and regulators may gain greater oversight of the provider market. | Providers may face stronger registration and compliance requirements. | Participants may have fewer providers to choose from if small or specialist providers leave the market. | Providers first, but participants and families carry the burden if access markets shrink. |
| Civil penalties and enforcement powers | The NOIA gains stronger compliance and enforcement tools. | Providers may face stronger consequences for misconduct or non-compliance. | Participants may also be affected if penalties or information requirements are applied broadly. | Providers and participants, depending on how enforcement powers are used. |
Submission 757
Participants, Who carries
Proposed NDIA Providers/ families and the greatest
change administration fraud control carers burden?
Information- The NOIA gains Providers may Participants, Shared
gathering broader power need to nominees and burden, but
powers to request produce more families may families may
information and information be required to carry the
documents. during repeatedly practical
compliance provide workload.
activity. evidence or
documents.
Record- The NOIA may Providers Participants Participants,
keeping have clearer must retain and nominees nominees
requirements records for records and may need to providers.
audits and meet retain records and
payment compliance for years and
checks. expectations. manage
evidence of
claims
...
90-day The NOIA may Providers may Families may Participants
claiming have shorter need to face problems and families
timeframe claim windows invoice and if providers may carry
to administer. claim faster invoice late, the risk if
claims are timing fails.
delayed, or
carers are
managing
complex
supports.
27
Submission 757
| Proposed change | NDIA administration | fraud control | families and carers | the greatest burden? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Information-gathering powers | The NOIA gains broader power to request information and documents | Providers may need to produce more information during compliance activity. | Participants, nominees and families may be required to repeatedly provide evidence or documents. | Burden, but families may carry the practical workload. |
| Plan management changes | The NOIA gains more control over who can provide plan management. | Plan managers face stronger requirements and possible market restriction. | Families may lose flexibility if choice is reduced. | And families |
| Functional capacity definition | The NOIA may gain a more standardised basis for access decisions. | Limited direct provider impact. | Participants may need to fit within defined methods, thresholds or classifications. | Because eligibility and access are directly affected. |
| Future access rules and thresholds | The NOIA may gain more control over access criteria and assessment methods. | Limited direct provider impact. | Families may need to prove eligibility through tools or rules that may not capture real-life barriers. | And families. |
28
Submission 757
Participants, Who carries
Proposed NOIA Providers/ families and the greatest
change administration fraud control carers burden?
Permanence The NOIA may Limited direct Participants Participants
and have a narrower provider may need to and
"appropriate pathway for impact, except show families.
treatment" deciding where treatment
permanence. options have
been explored
involved. or justify why
they have not
pursued
them.
Early The NOIA may Providers may Children and Children and
intervention apply a need to frame families may families.
wording narrower early evidence have to show a
intervention differently. more direct
test. reduction of
impairment
rather than
prevention of
harm.
Supports The NOIA may Providers may Families may Participants
arising have a narrower need to need to prove and families,
"directly" basis for produce more complex links with added
from approving specific between burden on
impairment supports. reports linking supports, providers
supports to impairments writing
either accepted and daily life evidence.
impaired impairments. needs.
1 l
29
Submission 757
| |Participants, Who carries| |NDIA|Providers/change | |families and|the greatest | administration|fraud control|
columns|carers|burden?|
Permanence The NDIA may Limited direct Participants Participants and have a narrower provider may need to and “appropriate pathway for impact, except show families. treatment” deciding where treatment permanence. options have been explored pathways are or justify why involved. they have not pursued them.
Funding The NDIA may Providers may Participants Participants, reductions reduce face pressure receive because for support expenditure to reduce less funding access to categories across groups of prices or even where support is supports. service levels. the support is reduced. needed. … Supports The NDIA may Providers may Families may Participants arising have a narrower need to prove with added “directly” basis for produce more complex links burden on from approving specific between providers impairment supports. reports linking supports, writing either supports to impairments evidence. supported by|accepted impairments. needs. daily life
Plan The NDIA may Providers may Families may Participants renewals reduce workload experience have plans and families. and by renewing disruption if renewed or alterations plans more supports altered administratively. change without without a full meaningful planning consultation. process. j
30
Submission 757
Who carries the greatest burden?
NDIA administration
Change control
Providers/fraud Participants, families and carers
Reassessment restrictions
The NOIA may receive fewer reassessment requests and have longer timeframes to respond.
- Providers may need to supply more evidence to meet stricter thresholds.
- Families may have fewer practical ways to respond when needs change.
Parental responsibility assumptions
The NOIA may reduce funded supports by relying more on family responsibility.
- Limited direct provider impact.
- Parents and carers may be expected to absorb more support, coordination and access labour.
Alternative supports/other systems
The NOIA may redirect responsibility to other systems or services.
- Providers outside the NOIS may be expected to meet needs, whether or not they have capacity.
- Families may be left navigating gaps between systems.
Submission 757
| Providers | Participants, | Who carries |
|---|---|---|
| NOIA change | ||
| fraud | ||
| families and | ||
| carers | ||
| the greatest | ||
| administration | ||
| suspension | ||
| control | ||
| burden? |
Suspension The NOIA gains Limited Participants Participants, a mechanism to direct may lose access particularly “not contactable” suspend plans provider because communication communication where contact is impact. was inaccessible, made. delayed or not access barriers.
Automation The NDIAmay Providers Parti cip ants Participants process some maybe may be affected and families if decisions more affected by decisions human review efficiently. through made without meaningful. automated full context or explanation. payment or claim decisions.
Submission 757
Summary and Conclusion
PODC recognises that the Bill is directed toward two significant policy objectives: improving Scheme sustainability and strengthening the response to fraud, exploitation, unsafe services and improper claiming.
PODC supports both objectives.
A sustainable NDIS is essential for current and future participants. Fraud and exploitation harm participants, families, ethical providers and public trust in the Scheme. These issues should be addressed through targeted, proportionate and rights-consistent measures.
However, PODC does not support the Bill proceeding in its current form.
While the Bill is framed around sustainability and fraud prevention, the practical impact of many of the proposed amendments falls most heavily on participants, families and carers. Some provisions are directed toward provider regulation, payment controls, compliance and NOIA administration. However, many of the most significant changes affect ordinary participants who are using the Scheme appropriately.
They affect how people access the NDIS, how functional capacity is assessed, how supports are funded, how plans are renewed, how reassessments occur, how parental responsibility is interpreted, how participants are redirected to other systems, and how families can respond when supports are reduced, delayed or no longer meet need.
Submission 757
Based on the areas of reform identified in the Bill and explanatory materials, PODC’s assessment is that the practical impact is broadly weighted as follows:
. Approximate .
Area of impact . ht· Explanation we1g mg
Participant, 60-70% Many of the most significant changes affect family and carer access, functional capacity, reassessment, plan impact renewal, support funding, parental responsibility, alternative supports, suspension, claiming and practical review safeguards. These changes will be felt directly by participants and families.
Scheme 20-30% A significant purpose of the Bill is to manage sustainability and Scheme growth and reduce expenditure. cost control However, many sustainability measures appear to operate through participant access, planning and funding settings rather than only through improved administration or system stewardship.
Fraud prevention, 10- 20% Some provisions are clearly directed toward provider fraud, compliance, provider regulation, compliance and payment controls, record keeping and integrity enforcement. PODC supports targeted integrity measures, but these do not account for the full practical impact of the Bill.
This assessment is not intended to suggest that sustainability and fraud prevention are unimportant. Rather, it shows that the Bill’s practical burden is not evenly distributed. The largest share of impact appears to fall on participants, families and carers. For Deaf/deaf children and families, this burden is significant.
Parents and carers are already stretched. They often carry substantial unpaid access work, including coordinating supports, managing communication barriers, advocating across systems, supporting family communication, repairing communication breakdowns and suring their child can participate in everyday life.
Submission 757
If the Bill proceeds without stronger safeguards, families may be required to carry even more responsibility at the same time as access to supports becomes more uncertain.
PODC is concerned that the Bill may achieve sustainability by shifting practical risk and administrative burden onto participants and families, rather than by focusing sufficiently on fraud prevention, provider misconduct, improved administration and stronger system stewardship.
For Deaf/deaf children, this risk must be understood in the context of language access.
Language access is not optional. It is not a preference. It is central to development, family connection, participation, identity, safety and wellbeing.
Deafness/deafness does not cause language deprivation. Lack of timely access to language does - and that harm is preventable.
The NDIS has enabled many families to access supports that were not previously available in a meaningful or consistent way, including Auslan in the home, Deaf mentors, family language supports, bimodal bilingual pathways, disability-specific psychology, assistive technology and more holistic support for children impacted by delayed or restricted language access.
This progress should not be lost through reform.
A sustainable NDIS should not be built by making children and families carry the cost of reform. It should protect participants, strengthen safeguards, address fraud proportionately, improve administration, and ensure that families using the Scheme appropriately are not left with reduced access, greater uncertainty and increased unpaid labour.
PODC therefore recommends that the Bill not proceed in its current form.
At a minimum, the safeguards identified in the Executive Summary should be incorporated before the Bill progresses, and there should be further consultation with Deaf/deaf people, children and young people, families, carers, Deaf-led organisations, parent-led organisations, disability representative organisations, legal services and specialist providers before any rules, instruments, thresholds or implementation settings are finalised.
Submission 757
PODC is willing to work constructively with government, Parliament, the NDIA and the disability community to strengthen the NDIS.
However, reform must not narrow access to language, communication, family connection and participation for Deaf/deaf children.
For Deaf/deaf children, language access cannot wait.
A sustainable NDIS must protect the supports that enable children to communicate, belong, participate and thrive.