Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme - Annual Report No. 2 of the 48th Parliament
September 2026
Annual Report No. 2 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 35
Authorised by
Tanya O’Neil, Chief Executive Officer
Authors
Alexandra Turnbull, Senior Team Leader
Gregor Hodge, Advocate
Contributors
Melissa Ballantyne, Team Leader
Jane Piwngernyoung, Advocate
Contact
183 Archer Street, North Adelaide SA 5006 (Central Office)
Phone: 08 8340 4450
Email: info@advocacyfordisability.org.au
Website: www.advocacyfordisability.org.au
ABN: 14 743 342 196
A Note on Terminology
In this submission, Advocacy for Disability Access and Inclusion (ADAI) uses the terminology ‘people with disabilities’ to refer to the disability community. ADAI acknowledges and respects there is a range of views about language and celebrates the right of all people to identify as they see fit.
Content Warning
Please be advised this report includes reference to abuse, violence, exploitation, sexual abuse, gambling and injury to persons with disability.
Acknowledgements
Advocacy for Disability Access and Inclusion (ADAI) would like to acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the Lands on which this report has been written. ADAI acknowledges their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respects to the people, the cultures and the Elders past and present.
About ADAI
Advocacy for Disability Access and Inclusion Inc. SA (ADAI) is a South Australian, not-for-profit organisation that has delivered independent, high-quality, person-centred disability advocacy to people with disability, their families, carers and kin, for over 40 years. ADAI provides its services across the state, with a central office in North Adelaide and offices located in Berri, Mount Gambier, Port Augusta and Port Lincoln.
ADAI was born as Parent Advocacy in 1986 after a group of parents acted as advisors to the South Australian State Government in introducing new and different disability services, and to establish the Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986. At that time, funds were provided by both the State and Federal Governments to establish Parent Advocacy. In 2006 Parent Advocacy changed its name to Family Advocacy Incorporated and to Advocacy for Disability Access and Inclusion in 2015.
Today, ADAI is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing through the National Disability Advocacy Program and the Information, Linkages and Capacity Building Program, to provide independent advocacy to any person living with disability, their family, carers and kin. ADAI is also funded to provide advocacy to people making an appeal to a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) decision through the NDIS Administrative Review Tribunal Appeals Program and is funded to provide advocacy to people accessing Supported Employment. The South Australian State Government does not currently provide funding for ADAI.
3
THE ROLE OF ADVOCACY
Advocacy is the promotion, protection and support of a person or group of person’s full and
equal human rights. Advocates work with or on behalf of a person with disability to help them
to speak out and defend their rights and interests. Advocates also work with families and
support people with the informed consent of the person with disability.
The ADAI advocacy model is underpinned by a human rights model. ADAI aims to walk
alongside our clients and ensure their voices are heard. ADAI helps individuals and families to
be involved in decision-making, and to collaborate with services to ensure people with
disabilities attain their rights and secure opportunities to participate in all aspects of life.
Advocacy acts as a safeguarding mechanism. Effective independent advocacy helps to prevent
and protect people with disability from experiencing violence, abuse, neglect and
exploitation. Advocacy can also assist people with disabilities to report abuse, violence,
neglect and exploitation. Systemic advocacy protects by leading change to ensure that
populations of people are not at risk of abuse, violence, neglect and exploitation. Advocacy
includes both preventative and protective functions.
A person is not at risk of harm just because they have a disability but having a disability can
be a risk factor to experiencing harm.¹ Only when people with disabilities experience ‘full and
effective participation and inclusion in society’ will Australia then fully achieve the goal of an
inclusive society that supports the independence of people with disability and their right to
live free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation². In Australia, almost two-thirds of
people with disability have experienced violence in their lifetime, and people with disability
are twice as likely as people without disability to experience violence in a 12-month period.³
To adequately safeguard against harm people with disability must have access to free,
accessible, independent advocacy. Funding for advocacy services is important to ensure that
avocates can maintain and increase their safeguarding supports. Advocates assist people to
identify risks, eliminate harm, report abuse and build safe pathways away from exploitation.
¹ ADAI Disability Royal Commission Omnibus, 2023, page 21.
² United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, opened for signature 30 March
2007, 999 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 May 2008), art 3 (c).
³ Buckmaster L and Clark S, ‘The National Disability Insurance Scheme: a quick guide’, Parliament of
Australia, Department of Parliamentary Services, (Research paper, 8 May 2019) pp1–2.
4
Introduction
ADAI welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme’s, Annual Report No. 2 of the 48th Parliament.
ADAI understand the committee is tasked with inquiring into the following:
- the implementation, performance and governance of the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and
- the administration and expenditure of the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and
- such other matters in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament.
ADAI have chosen to focus on the implementation of the new NDIS legislation, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026 (the Act), and its impact on Participants.
5
Discussion
- Plan Suspensions
a. Contacting Participants
ADAI are concerned the Act has altered the requirements around Plan Suspensions. Now,
under Part 7, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) may revoke a person’s status as a Participant if the CEO is satisfied:
(i) the CEO has made reasonable attempts to contact the participant for the purposes of making a request under section 36 or 50 for information or reports; and
(ii) the participant is not contactable.4
The Act sets out the requirements pertaining to ‘reasonable contact’ as;
-
at least 5 attempts have been made to contact the person using the person’s preferred form of contact; and
-
the last of those attempts was made at least 3 months, and not more than 4 months, after the first of those attempts; and
-
if the person’s preferred form of contact is not in writing, at least one additional attempt has been made, during the period between the first and last of the attempts, to contact the person in writing.
The Act then allows a Participant’s Plan to be revoked if they remain uncontactable for 90 days after their plan has been suspended, meaning the Participant loses access to the NDIS.
In ADAI’s experience, contact from the NDIA, and their associated entities or partners in the community, is unpredictable in its form and timing, and often inconsistent with the disability needs of Participants.
ADAI are aware of contacts regularly;
- coming from out-of-state phone numbers with no prior notification that an attempt to call will be made.
4 National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Also National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026) 40A.
- failing to identify who they are and where they are calling from.
- not leaving a clear message or a phone number through which the client may return the call.
Consequently, participants often misunderstand the source and purpose of these calls and reasonably assume they are spam, leading them to terminate or ignore the communication.
ADAI have also heard from Participants about NDIA Partners in the community, or Local Area Coordinators, who, without notice, may call three times in an hour and then mark down words to the effect of ‘uncontactable after extensive attempts’ when attempting to organise a Plan Review, which has then been completed without any input from the Participant.
ADAI are concerned the NDIA’s inadequacies in making and keeping contact with Participants currently disadvantages them. ADAI holds further concern for this being applied to ‘reasonable attempts’ for contact which may result in a Plan revocation.
ADAI is concerned that, in the absence of clearer Rules and the NDIA’s inconsistent consideration to them regarding what constitutes ’reasonable contact’, it risks improperly revoking Participant plans.
ADAI Recommends;
Rules be implemented to ensure ‘reasonable contact’ is defined and consistently adhered to. For Example, ADAI suggests;
i. The NDIA or Partner must state who they are and why they are calling Participants.
ii. The NDIA or Partner, must send participants a text message or other written communication with sufficient notice, stating they will attempt to call, and provide the type of phone number to expect the call from e.g. NSW or Unknown or Private Number.
7
b. Accessibility
Currently, the Act does not require contact attempts to meet a Participant’s accessibility needs. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Plan Administration) Rules 2013, Principles set out that:
people with disability should be supported in all their dealings and communications with the Agency so that their capacity to exercise choice and control is maximised in a way that is appropriate to their circumstances and cultural needs.
ADAI are concerned the Act does not clearly state the Participant will be fully supported in their communications with the Agency, and therefore choice and control will be curtailed.
Case Study 1
An NDIS Partner, or Local Area Coordinator (LAC) contacted an ADAI client to conduct a Planning Meeting. The Client requested that their Advocate be involved in the call and the LAC suggested they didn’t need one and did not allow her to contact the Advocate. The client felt that this meeting was not accessible for them without an Advocate.
ADAI Recommends;
Rules be implemented to ensure the NDIA is affording Participants procedural fairness through this process. For example, ADAI suggest:
- i. The NDIA record an emergency contact for a Participant.
- ii. An administrative process be introduced to ensure that Advocates and support people can be added as a contact to a Participant’s file, enabling a Participant to request an Advocate or support person be included in any meetings or communications.
- iii. If a Participant requires an Advocate or support person to be present during the phone call, advance notice be provided in writing to enable the Advocate or support person enough time to be available for the contact, and to ensure supported decision-making is being practiced.
8
c. The Participant was uncontactable due to crisis.
The Act now sets out if the person the CEO is attempting to contact is the Participant, an attempt does not count if before suspending the plan the CEO becomes aware that at the time the attempt was made, the Participant was in the care of a hospital or other institution, or experiencing homelessness. 5 There is no process in place for the CEO to reinstate a plan if, after suspending a plan, it is determined the Participant was in the care of a hospital or other institution, or experiencing homelessness. There is not enough emphasis on the responsibility of the NDIA to examine whether the Participant may be experiencing complex intersecting vulnerabilities that impact their ability to communicate effectively with the Agency before suspending a Plan which may lead to that Plan being revoked.
ADAI recommend an administrative process should be implemented to ensure that mainstream providers, health care professionals, advocates, etc. can contact the NDIA when a Participant enters hospital, another institution, experiences homelessness or a crisis e.g. domestic violence. The NDIA should then record this change and ensure that the Participant’s plan is not suspended or revoked. The NDIA, or their Partners, should also be contacting Participants if they become aware that their circumstances have changed significantly and risks have been identified, to ensure their supports continue to be reasonable and necessary.
ADAI Recommends;
i. An amendment be inserted that sets out a clear path for the CEO to un- suspend a Plan if it has been determined the Participant was in the care of a hospital or other institution, or experiencing homelessness, at the time of the attempted contact, and the Agency was unaware.
ii. An administrative process be implemented that allows mainstream providers, Advocates, etc. to notify the NDIA when a Participant enters hospital or institution, experiences homelessness or crisis.
iii. This notification process should prompt the NDIA to contact the Participant, without the threat of a Plan Suspension.
5 National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Also National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026) 79, (1D).
9
d. Plan Suspension Poses a Risk to Participants
The Act does not require the NDIA to consider whether Plan Suspension may pose a risk to the Participant. Suspending a Participant’s Plan interrupts access to essential disability supports, including personal care, assistance with daily living, transport, behaviour support and support to participate safely in the community. This may expose Participants to an increased risk of injury, neglect, abuse, exploitation, homelessness, hospitalisation or contact with the justice system, particularly where they have complex support needs, limited informal supports or difficulty communicating with the NDIA.
A suspension may also destabilise established support arrangements and place additional pressure on family members and unpaid carers. These risks may arise precisely because the Participant is difficult to contact, meaning that an inability to respond should prompt safeguarding action rather than the removal of supports.
Case Study 2
ADAI is supporting a client in a process to gather information and understand his rights in regards to his decision-making arrangements. The client is an NDIS Participant with high needs, who lives in Supported Independent Living (SIL) accommodation. He currently has an informal decision-making process in place, and no formal guardian or family members who assist him with the administration of his Plan. The client’s symptoms have increased recently and his SIL provider reached out to ADAI with concerns about his decision making. ADAI is assisting the client to get some legal advice about his next steps, and to speak to his GP about his cognitive abilities. The client rarely answers his phone or opens his letters. ADAI Advocates book appointments with him through his support workers. If the client was to be contacted by the NDIA about his Plan, he would be likely to ignore this contact. If uncontactable the client’s plan would be suspended per the new Act, putting him at increased risk of harm.
ADAI Recommends;
-
i. An amendment be inserted requiring The CEO to consider any safeguarding risks before suspending or cancelling a Participant’s Plan, and if identified, reconsider the decision to suspend or cancel a Participant’s Plan.
10
2. Plan Reassessments
a. Ability of Third Parties to Act on Participant’s Behalf
Changes have been made to when and how Participants can ask for Plan Reassessments
before their scheduled reassessment date. Only Participants, Plan Nominees or Child
Representatives are now able to ask for this type of Plan Reassessment. This change means
third parties with consent, such as Advocates, can no longer request a Plan Reassessment on
behalf of a Participant.
ADAI Advocates walk alongside Participants and advocate with them. Consent is obtained at
each step, and the Participant is involved in the Plan Reassessment Application process. ADAI
considers that the benefits of having an independent Advocate submit an application for a
Plan Reassessment on behalf of a Participant include:
-
The Advocate is cc’d on any correspondence and is able to assist the Participant to
respond to any further requests for information.
-
If the Participant does not have email, an Advocate can receive an electronic copy of
correspondence. Many Participants do not have email and if they want to share any
further correspondence with their Advocate, they would then have to make a copy
and mail it or bring it physically into the office.
-
The Advocate can escalate a Plan Reassessment on behalf of a client when a
Participant urgently needs additional supports or is at risk.
-
It enables Participants, who require a support person for communications with the
NDIA, easy access to someone who can assist them communicate and enable
supported decision making.
-
Some Participants do not understand questions from the NDIA and will rely on an
Advocate to explain the questions posed by the Planner. Without an Advocate
attached as a contact person within the process, they may have greater difficulty
understanding what information they need to provide, how to explain the urgency of
their situation, and how to escalate a reassessment when they are at risk.
11
Case Study 3
ADAI supports a client who has an NDIS Plan and is funded for around six hours of supports a day. The client has an intellectual disability, and her Plan is managed by a court appointed Guardian. The client has been in and out of the Prison over the past few years. When the client runs out of cigarettes she will try and find money for cigarettes through illegal means. She does not engage in this risky behaviour when she is supported in the community. Even after multiple arrests neither her court appointed Guardian nor the NDIA, modified her plan even though the NDIA must be notified as soon as a Participant enters custody.
The client had an Advocate apply for a Plan Reassessment with her to increase her supports in the community. With the new changes it is unlikely that anyone would have been able to assist the client to apply for a Plan Reassessment herself.
ADAI Recommends;
- i. An amendment be inserted permitting Advocates to submit a Plan Reassessment Application on behalf of Participants.
12
b. Conditions for Conducting Reassessment of Participant’s Plan on Request
The NDIS Review process acts as a safeguarding measure. It enables Planners and Participants to identify and provide evidence of risks and build safety measures into a Participant’s Plan.
In ADAI’s experience, just having a Guardian does not necessarily significantly improve safeguarding measures for Participants. Having an Advocate support with the application for a Plan Reassessment assists the Participant, making the process more accessible and enables them to gather clear and useful evidence for the Reassessment process. ADAI see better outcomes for the Participant, with a clearer understanding of their rights and responsibilities.
An Advocate is more likely to be aware of any risks to the Participant, which can be clearly identified, and evidence of their impact can then be gathered and communicated the Reassessment process.
The Act also changes when a Participant can request a reassessment of their Plan. They can now only ask for a reassessment before the scheduled date if there is a significant and ongoing change to their functional capacity and support needs, or, living, education, work, or informal support arrangements. ADAI are concerned the definition of a ‘significant change’ is subjective and therefore may be applied differently depending on the individual reviewer.
Case Study 4
Client, age 60’s, and his mother, age 90’s, came to seek ADAI’s assistance with a Plan Reassessment Request. The client received a new Plan and it did not include Support Coordination. The client’s mother has been coordinating his supports for him. The client will require NDIS supports for life. The NDIS Planner had not considered that the client’s mother’s age may be making it difficult for them to coordinate these services.
With the new Plan Reassessment rules the client would be unable to make this request until something happens, rather than considering that something may happen with his informal support arrangements.
13
The 2023 Independent Review sets out the NDIA’s responsibility as they perceived it, regarding
Participant safeguarding as one in which the NDIA are required to assess risks to Participants
throughout the planning pathway. The Review considered the NDIA are responsible for ‘the
quality of plans and reasonable and necessary funding for supports and services, including to
mitigate risk; and supports informed decision-making and capability development of
participants’.6 There should be a positive duty on the NDIA to ensure there is a pathway to
review a Participant’s Plan if a risk of harm has been identified.
ADAI Recommends;
i. An amendment be inserted to include one of the ‘Conditions for
conducting reassessment of Participant’s plan on request’ be the
identification of a risk of harm to the Participant.
6 Independent Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, ‘NDIS Participant Safeguarding
Proposals Paper on Participant Safeguarding’, May 2023, pg.13.
14
3. Changes to Social and Community Funding
The Act sets out that support budgets for social, civic and community participation supports and capacity building daily activities will be progressively reset as Participants’ Plans are reassessed or renewed.
ADAI are concerned a reduction in social, civic and community participation supports may result in an increased risk to the Participant or a reduction in safeguarding.
The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing website states that ‘Safeguards are in place to ensure Participant safety and wellbeing. For example: Only social, economic and community participation and improved daily living skills supports will be impacted. Other parts of Participants’ Plans will not be impacted’.
ADAI argue Social, Economic and Community Participation is a safeguarding measure.
Case Study 5
ADAI supports a client who received a reduced amount of social and community funding in his 2022 Plan. The client has an Acquired Brain Injury and partakes in risky behaviours, including gambling, and is at risk of exploitation. Despite therapeutic interventions the client’s risk-taking behaviours did not improve. When he was without structured funded activities in his day, he would get bored and go to the local pub and sometimes engaged in risky sexual behaviours to procure money for gambling. In his 2022 Plan the NDIA considered that the client was eligible for around two hours a week of Social and Community Funding. Eventually after significant advocacy support over many years this amount was increased to eight hours a day for funded day programs and support to access the community.
The client’s risk-taking behaviours reduced significantly and he has stopped gambling. His risk of exploitation and abuse has been reduced through the increase of community supports.
15
Participant Safety Policy
Outlined in the Participant Safety Policy are six Principles that guide the work of the NDIA and
their Partners. Principle 1, Safety culture, ‘Safety and wellbeing of people with disability is
embedded in organisational leadership, governance, processes, practice, and culture to
promote responsibility and accountability within the NDIA and Partner organisations.’⁸ The
Policy also sets out the NDIA ‘understand(s) and consider(s) the importance of relationships
and social connections when working with Participants to identify risks and develop
safeguards.’⁹
These supports act as safeguarding measures for Participants. There is no requirement to
ensure the NDIA protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm, by
implementing necessary supports. There is no requirement that the NDIA must consider
whether reducing supports would this put the Participant at risk of harm.
ADAI Recommends;
-
i. The NDIA must undertake a risk assessment when reassessing necessary
supports to ensure that in removing a Participant’s social, civic and
community participation supports or capacity building daily activities,
they identify whether they may increase the risk of harm to the
Participant.
⁸ National Disability Insurance Scheme, ‘Participant Safeguarding Policy’, April 2023, page 8. ⁹ Ibid, page 13.
16
4. Plan Variation Pathway
A new Plan Variation pathway will be created for high support needs Participants who require continuous 24-hour care to meet their disability-related care needs. These Participants will be able to apply for a plan variation within 90 days of a support determination applying to them.
ADAI argues many Participants have high support needs but will not be eligible for this pathway. ADAI supports many clients with high support needs and complex needs who are not funded for 24-hours of supports a day. Sometimes this may be because they have accepted a lower amount of funding to ensure that they have some funded supports. In addition, ADAI see many parents of adult children who still provide a carer support role, and this is not recognised as forming part of 24/7 care.
Case Study 6
ADAI supported a client and his family. They were requesting overnight supports for the client due to his risk of falls and his tendency to get up and mobilise in the night. The NDIA refused to increase the in-home supports.
The client got up in the night to get something to eat, fell over resulting in significant harm and no one was there to assist.
The Independent Review into the NDIS found that ‘some participants will face higher risks and significant difficulty building good natural safeguards. The NDIS must have more targeted, intensive safeguarding options available to support these participants.’10
Having Plan Variation pathways for Participants with intensive support needs is a valuable addition to the administration of review pathways, but 24/7 care is a very high bar for assistance.
The NDIS Review noted a ‘number of reviews have called for more intensive, direct support for participants in complex and more vulnerable circumstances who have very low personal and/or social capital to support them to ensure a proactive and holistic approach to
10 Independent Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, ‘NDIS Participant Safeguarding Proposals Paper on Participant Safeguarding’, May 2023, page 22.
ADAI Recommendations
ADAI Recommends;
-
i. The Plan Variation pathway is expanded to include Participants with complex support needs, and those who are vulnerable to abuse, neglect, exploitation and violence.
-
ii. A Case Management pathway be considered for Participants with complex support needs who are experiencing the need to make variations or reassess their Plans.
18
Recommendations
-
Plan Suspensions
a. Contacting Participants
i. The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) or Partner must state who they are and why they are calling Participants. ii. The NDIA or Partner, must send participants a text message or other written communication with sufficient notice, stating they will attempt to call, and provide the type of phone number to expect the call from e.g. NSW or Unknown or Private Number.b. Accessibility
i. The NDIA record an emergency contact for a Participant. ii. An administrative process be introduced to ensure that Advocates and support people can be added as a contact to a Participant’s file, enabling a Participant to request an Advocate or support person be included in any meetings or communications. iii. If a Participant requires an Advocate or support person to be present during the phone call, advance notice be provided in writing to enable the Advocate or support person enough time to be available for the contact, and to ensure supported decision-making is being practiced.c. Participant was in the care of a hospital or other institution or experiencing
homelessness
i. An amendment be inserted that sets out a clear path for the CEO to un-suspend a Plan if it has been determined the Participant was in the care of a hospital or other institution, or experiencing homelessness, at the time of the attempted contact, and the Agency was unaware. ii. An administrative process be implemented that allows mainstream providers, Advocates, etc. to notify the NDIA when a Participant enters hospital or institution, experiences homelessness or crisis.
19
Plan Suspension Poses a Risk to Participants
- An amendment be inserted requiring The CEO of the NDIA (and their delegated decision makers) to consider any safeguarding risks before suspending or cancelling a Participant’s Plan, and if identified, reconsider the decision to suspend or cancel a Participant’s Plan.
Plan Reassessments
Ability of Third Parties to Act on Participant’s Behalf
- An amendment be inserted permitting Advocates to submit a Plan Reassessment Application on behalf of Participants.
Conditions for Conducting Reassessment of Participant’s Plan on Request
- An amendment be inserted to include one of the ‘Conditions for conducting reassessment of Participant’s plan on request’ be the identification of a risk of harm to the Participant.
Changes to Social and Community Funding
- The NDIA must undertake a risk assessment when reassessing necessary supports to ensure that in removing a Participant’s social, civic and community participation supports or capacity building daily activities, they identify whether they may increase the risk of harm to the Participant.
Plan Variation Pathway
- The Plan Variation pathway is expanded to include Participants with complex support needs, and those who are vulnerable to abuse, neglect, exploitation and violence.
- A Case Management pathway be considered for Participants with complex support needs experiencing the need to make variations or reassess their Plans.
CONCLUSION
The reforms examined in this submission create a significant risk to Participants, especially those who have difficulty engaging with the NDIS. ADAI argue that these changes may result in a loss of access to essential supports for vulnerable people. In ADAI’s experience, difficulties with communication, changes in circumstances and reduced informal supports are often indicators of increased vulnerability. These should trigger accessible engagement, supported decision-making and safeguarding actions rather than resulting in Plan Suspension and the loss or reduction of necessary supports.
ADAI therefore asks that the Act, Rules and administrative processes require the NDIA to identify and respond to safeguarding risks at every stage of Plan administration. This includes:
- defining and consistently applying reasonable and accessible contact requirements;
- introducing an administrative process to allow Advocates and emergency contacts to be added to a Participant’s contact list to improve accessible communications;
- enabling a notification pathway for Advocates and other professionals to alert the NDIA to any changes in a Participant’s circumstances which may result in a risk of harm;
- considering risk before suspending, revoking or reducing a Plan;
- providing a clear pathway to restore a Plan where a Participant could not be contacted because of hospitalisation, institutional care, homelessness or other crisis;
- enabling Advocates to lodge Plan reassessment requests with consent;
- recognising risk of harm as a basis for reassessment;
- considering risk when removing a Participant’s supports; and
- extending Plan Variation pathways to Participants with complex support needs or vulnerability to abuse, neglect, exploitation or violence.
ADAI urges the Committee to recommend these safeguards so that implementation of the reforms is consistent with the NDIS principles of choice and control, procedural fairness and the safety and wellbeing of people with disability. A preventative, Participant-centred approach will reduce avoidable harm, preserve essential support relationships and ensure that administrative decisions do not disadvantage the people who face the greatest barriers to engaging with the NDIS.
21