Inclusion Tree

Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026

hello@inclusiontree.com.au — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:18:48 +0000

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

28th May 2026
Submitted by Michaela Kennedy, Inclusion Tree Pty. Ltd.
Publication: I consent to this submission being published.

Introduction

Inclusion Tree welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the Bill). This submission responds directly to the Bill and the legislative powers it would create, consistent with the Committee’s request that submissions address the provisions of the Bill itself.

We acknowledge and support the need for reform. We acknowledge the need for improved safeguards, better governance, stronger compliance and long-term sustainability planning. However reform cannot come at the expense of participant safety, dignity, choice and control.

Inclusion Tree is a participant-centred disability service provider with direct experience supporting people with disability to access, navigate and sustain NDIS supports in real-world settings. Our 60 staff work alongside over 1000 participants and many more nominees, families,
workers, allied health professionals and other providers, and we see first-hand the impact that legislative and administrative change has on daily life, continuity of supports, and participant safety.

Our position is that the Bill should not pass in its current form. If Parliament decides to proceed, it must make substantial amendments to protect participants, uphold procedural fairness, preserve choice and control, and ensure any reform is phased, transparent, and genuinely co-designed with the disability community.

Overall position

The Bill is presented as a sustainability and reform measure, but in actuality it is a broad enabling bill that would give Government and the NDIA CEO expanded authority to reshape major parts of the NDIS through later developed rules, operational settings and administrative processes.

Inclusion Tree acknowledges that the NDIS must be sustainable, and that action to strengthen integrity, quality and consistency is appropriate. However, sustainability cannot be pursued by creating broad powers first and leaving critical participant protections to future instruments that receive less scrutiny.

We support stronger safeguarding mechanisms, better fraud prevention, improved provider accountability, participant protections, and measures that ensure funding is used effectively and ethically. However, we are concerned that aspects of the Bill risk shifting the Scheme away from its foundational principles of participant choice, control and inclusion.

Our central concern with the Bill is what it allows to happen later. The Bill opens the way for significant changes to access, planning, budgeting, pricing, service models and market arrangements without embedding sufficient safeguards for people it is meant to protect, in the Act itself.

Due to the incredibly short time frame to provide a submission, our response is a combination of our own words, what we know about the experiences of the people we serve and AI assistance. It is not as thorough as we would have liked, we are open to further consultation and collaboration to ensure these reforms achieve their intention of making the NDIS sustainable for future generations and not cause significant harm to people with disabilities, their families and those that support them.

Summary of the proposed changes

Based on the Bill materials, fact sheet and Government reform documentation, our understanding is the Bill would support or enable a series of substantial changes across the Scheme, including:

tighter access pathways based more heavily on functional capacity and standardised evidence directly linked to the eligible disability, rather than existing diagnostic pathways and therapeutic evidence;
implementation of New Framework Planning from 2027;
resetting social, civic and community participation budgets from 1 October 2026;
new commissioned arrangements or tighter controls for plan management, support coordination and some home-and-living supports;
stronger provider registration, payment, information-gathering and compliance powers;
more prescriptive claims and payment controls across the scheme;
expanded regulatory and administrative powers intended to deliver lower growth and a more tightly targeted Scheme.

These are not minor technical changes. Together, they amount to a structural redesign of how people access the Scheme, what supports they can retain, and how participant choice and control may operate in practice.

The speed at which these changes are proposed have the potential to create significant harm to the people we support and their support networks, destabalise the sector and create irreparable damage to many lives.

Key concerns – not necessarily in priority order

Excessive reliance on delegated powers

A major concern is that too much of the reform architecture is left to later rules or subordinate instruments rather than being stated clearly in the Act. This weakens parliamentary scrutiny, reduces certainty for participants and providers, and makes it harder to assess the full impact of the reforms at the time Parliament is asked to legislate.

For participants, that uncertainty is not abstract. It means they may not know what supports will remain available, how future eligibility tests will operate, how budgets will be recalculated, or how their existing supports may be affected until after the legal powers have already been granted.

For providers, it destabalises the ability to stratergise, plan, invest and support our workforce during this unknown period. The risks to ensure compliance with Industry Relations laws becomes intangible, we are already seeing many providers decide to leave, which then puts
greater strain on those who put people first and are dedicated to best practice.

Risk of reduced access before alternatives exist

The Bill sits within a broader reform package intended to reduce NDIS growth and more tightly target who receives support. Inclusion Tree is deeply concerned that people may lose access to the NDIS, or parts of their supports, before equivalent alternatives are genuinely available
through health, mental health, education, housing or foundational support systems.

In practice, unmet need does not disappear when an NDIS support is removed. It is transferred onto families, unpaid carers, hospital systems, crisis responses, and already overstretched community organisations.

Functional capacity definition may unfairly exclude key cohorts

Another major concern is the Bill’s move to define access and eligibility more heavily through functional capacity rather than allowing diagnosis and clinical evidence to remain central parts of the assessment process. In principle, understanding functional impact is important. In practice, however, a narrow or overly standardised model of functional assessment risks disproportionately disadvantaging people whose disability is not always visible, linear or easily measured in a single assessment setting.

This is particularly concerning for people with autism, intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, neurological conditions, developmental disability, and other invisible or fluctuating conditions. These cohorts may have support needs that are profound in daily life but variable across settings, masked in formal assessments, or only fully understood when diagnosis, history, environment, fatigue, sensory load, executive functioning, communication barriers and cumulative impairments are considered together.

Inclusion Tree is especially concerned that diagnosis appears to be treated as less relevant to access, despite diagnosis often being critical to understanding the nature, permanence, presentation and likely impact of an impairment. Functional assessment should not be used as a substitute for diagnosis. Rather, diagnosis and functional impact should be considered together, as complementary forms of evidence. A whole of life approach is essential to understanding someone’s actual support needs.

The public material around the reforms indicates that children aged 8 and under with developmental delay and/or autism and low to moderate support needs will no longer be eligible for the NDIS under the new settings. This raises a serious concern that the legislative changes, while framed as neutral, may in practice target autistic children and other cohorts whose support needs are significant but may not fit narrow assumptions about impairment severity or visibility.

Review rights appear weakened at the same time as discretion increases

Inclusion Tree is concerned that the Bill expands administrative discretion and system control while failing to strengthen review rights in equal measure. If access, planning and funding decisions are increasingly driven by functional thresholds, standardised evidence and centrally determined rules; participants must retain strong rights to reasons, reconsideration and external, independent review.

Without robust review rights, errors in functional assessment may become entrenched. This is particularly dangerous for people with autism, intellectual disability, psychosocial disability and fluctuating conditions, whose support needs may be misunderstood, minimised or assessed out of context. A participant who presents well in an assessment, masks disability in unfamiliar environments, or has variable function across days and environments should not lose access to support simply because the assessment model fails to capture the full reality of their life.

Weak protection of choice and control

The Bill creates a pathway for greater commissioning and tighter market controls in areas such as support coordination, plan management and some home-and-living supports. Inclusion Tree is concerned that these changes will reduce participant choice and control by narrowing provider options, standardising service responses, and shifting decision-making power away from participants and toward centrally controlled systems.

Choice and control is not a secondary design feature of the NDIS. It is one of its foundational principles. Legislative reform that narrows participant autonomy must be approached with extreme caution and justified by evidence of better participant outcomes, not only administrative efficiency or cost saving outcomes.

Social and community participation supports at risk

The proposed reset of social, civic and community participation budgets is particularly concerning. These supports are often treated in policy debate as discretionary or peripheral, however our experience is that they are frequently essential to routine, safety, connection, confidence, emotional wellbeing, skill development and prevention of isolation.

Reducing these supports may produce short-term budget savings on paper while causing long-term increases in crisis presentations, family strain, mental health deterioration and withdrawal from community life. Increases in these outcomes will cause greater cost in the future.

Increased compliance powers without matched procedural safeguards

The Bill would support stronger enforcement, payment and information-gathering powers. While stronger integrity measures may be appropriate, they must be balanced by equally strong participant protections, including notice, reasons, review rights, reasonable timeframes, accessible communication and limits on how powers are exercised.

Without those safeguards, the effect of reform may be to increase administrative control while reducing participants’ ability to understand, challenge and remedy decisions that materially affect their daily lives. We do not want a repeat of the Robodebt situation.

Compressed consultation and legislative pace

The Bill is being considered on a short inquiry timeline. A compressed inquiry is not a substitute for genuine co-design, particularly where the changes are structural and will affect hundreds of thousands of Australians with disability, their families and the organisations that support them.

Commissioning of Support Coordination

Inclusion Tree holds serious concerns about reforms that may move Support Coordination toward commissioned provider models and increasingly outcome-based or time-limited approaches. Support Coordination is not an optional administrative service. It is one of the most important safeguarding and stabilising functions within the NDIS, particularly for participants with complex disability, trauma, psychosocial disability, unstable housing, family breakdown, behavioural complexity or significant health-related challenges.

Our 50+ Support Coordinators collectively support more than 1,000 participants. In practice, this work involves daily responses to crisis situations, provider collapse, abuse and neglect concerns, safeguarding incidents, housing emergencies, mental health deterioration, carer burnout, failed hospital discharges, family violence, service withdrawal, and situations where a participant is at immediate risk of homelessness, institutionalisation or harm. In many of these circumstances, Support Coordinators are the only professionals holding fragmented systems together and preventing complete breakdown.

These realities are fundamentally inconsistent with a policy assumption that Support Coordination can be delivered as a short-term, standardised or “set and forget” service. Disability is not static, and participants do not simply become stable and no longer require coordination. Needs can escalate suddenly because of illness, trauma, provider withdrawal, housing instability, exploitation, psychiatric crisis, or the death of a parent or carer. In those moments, Support Coordination becomes the critical intervention that prevents system collapse. The most important outcomes are often not easily measured in short-term output frameworks: preventing homelessness, avoiding hospitalisation, reducing the risk of abuse, maintaining fragile support networks, and ensuring a participant remains safe and connected to community.

For this reason, cuts to Support Coordination are not genuine savings; they are cost shifting into health, emergency, mental health, housing, child protection and justice systems. We are equally concerned that the proposed commissioning approach has not been explained with sufficient clarity. It remains unclear how providers would be selected, how participant choice would be preserved, how continuity of care would be managed, how conflicts of interest would be prevented, and how workforce shortages and regional service gaps would be addressed.

Participants often build trusted relationships with Support Coordinators over many years, and those relationships are frequently central to wellbeing, trust and safety. Any reform that destabilises them risks significant harm. Support Coordination must remain participant-led, flexible, relationship-based and responsive to changing circumstances. Without strong Support Coordination, the broader NDIS system risks destabilisation.

Legislation of this scale should not proceed on the assumption that detail can be fixed later. Participant protections should be designed before powers are granted, not after.

Recommendations

Inclusion Tree recommends that the Committee either recommend that the Bill not be passed, or that it only be passed subject to substantial amendment. At minimum, the following changes are needed.

Recommendation 1: Put key protections in the Act

The Act itself should set out core participant protections, including continuity of support, minimum procedural fairness standards, rights to reasons and reviews, consultation duties, and boundaries on delegated rule-making powers.

Recommendation 2: No reduction or removal of support without equivalent alternatives

The Bill should expressly prevent participants from losing NDIS access or funded supports unless alternative and/or foundational supports are already funded, available, accessible and appropriate to the person’s needs.

Recommendation 3: Preserve review rights and statement-of-reasons obligations

Any decision affecting access, budgets, plan structure, eligibility pathways, commissioning allocations, or reduction of support should attract clear notice, a written statement of reasons, and accessible internal and external review pathways.

Recommendation 4: Require diagnosis and functional impact to be considered together

The Bill should be amended so that diagnosis, clinical evidence, longitudinal history and functional impact must all be considered together when determining eligibility and support needs. Functional assessments should not operate as a narrow gateway that discounts autism, intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, invisible disability or fluctuating conditions.

Recommendation 5: Protect review rights for access and planning decisions

The Bill should expressly preserve strong internal and external review rights for any decision based on functional capacity, including rights to reasons, access to the evidence relied on, and the opportunity to submit further clinical and functional evidence.

Recommendation 6: Protect participant choice and control in commissioned models

The Bill should not permit commissioning of support coordination, plan management, home-and-living supports or other key functions unless Parliament is satisfied that participant choice and control will be preserved, conflict of interest risks are managed, and thinning markets will not worsen.

Recommendation 7: Protect social and community participation supports

The Bill should be amended to prevent blunt resets or formula-driven reductions to social, civic and community participation supports without individualised assessment, consultation, and review rights.

Recommendation 8: Limit compliance powers with safeguards

Any expanded information-gathering, payment, claims or enforcement powers should be subject to statutory limits, privacy protections, proportionality requirements, and rights of review where those powers have the potential for adverse affects.

Recommendation 9: Require genuine co-design and public consultation

The Act should require meaningful consultation and co-design with people with disability, families, advocates and providers before major rules or framework settings are made under the Bill.

Recommendation 10: Strengthen parliamentary oversight

Key rules made under the Bill should be subject to enhanced parliamentary scrutiny, including disallowance and transparent publication of impact analysis, consultation outcomes and participant safeguards.

Recommendation 11: Transitional protections must be explicit

The Bill should include explicit transitional protections so that current participants are not exposed to abrupt service reductions, reassessment shocks, or loss of intermediary supports while new systems are being developed and tested.

Recommendation 12: Monitor impacts on participants and markets

Any implementation of the Bill should be accompanied by mandatory public reporting on participant outcomes, review rates, service gaps, provider exits, thin-market impacts, and cost-shifting into health and other systems.

Recommendation 13: Protect Support Coordination as a safeguarding function

The Bill should not permit reforms to Support Coordination that reduce it to a commissioned, time-limited or narrowly outcome-based service. Support Coordination must remain participant-led, flexible, relationship-based and responsive to changing needs, particularly for participants facing crisis, complexity or safeguarding risks. Any future model must preserve participant choice and continuity of trusted relationships, prevent conflicts of interest, protect access in regional and thinning markets, and recognise Support Coordination as a critical safeguarding and system-stabilising function rather than an optional administrative support.

Additional observations from practice

Inclusion Tree supports participants who rely on supports not as optional extras, but as essential elements of daily living, safety, regulation, participation and stability. When legislation enables support reductions without strong safeguards, the consequences are rarely neat or contained. Participants do not simply “transition” in an orderly fashion because a policy model assumes they will. Many instead experience confusion, distress, service disruption, disengagement, and increased dependence on family or crisis systems.

Similarly, provider systems do not absorb these changes without cost. Frontline organisations carry the burden of explaining unclear reforms, managing disrupted supports, supporting through administrative barriers, and trying to prevent harm when the legal framework becomes more restrictive or uncertain.

Conclusion

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of Australia’s most important social reforms. It should be strengthened with care, evidence and genuine accountability. The Bill, in its current form, gives too much power with too few protections.

Inclusion Tree urges the Committee to recommend that the Bill not be passed unless it is substantially amended to embed participant safeguards, preserve review rights, protect continuity of support, maintain choice and control, and ensure that no person loses essential support before safe and appropriate alternatives are in place.

Reform must not be judged only by whether it reduces projected expenditure. It must be judged by whether people with disability remain supported, safe, included and able to live ordinary lives with dignity and autonomy.

Inclusion Tree is committed to supporting people with disabilities and their families through this reform as well as engagement with Government to ensure sustainability of the scheme.

Michaela Kennedy
Managing Director
michaela@inclusiontree.com.au
0409 646 665

Small Wins, Big Hearts

hello@inclusiontree.com.au — Tue, 09 Jun 2026 03:26:52 +0000

Small Wins, Big Hearts:

How Our Team at Inclusion Tree Celebrates Every Step Forward

At Inclusion Tree, we know that progress doesn’t always come in giant leaps. Sometimes it arrives as a quiet phone call, a signed form, or a participant seeing their fruit trees for the first time in years.

We asked our staff: “What’s a small win that felt big?” Their answers reminded us why we do what we do. Every win, no matter how small it looks on paper, can change a life.

Here’s what they shared.

Bec C.

“Got a participant approved for SDA, a better property for life.”

Getting approval for housing is more than just having a place to rest your head at night. It’s about having a place to call home. A place you feel safe, somewhere you know is just for you, allowing you to build a better and more stable life.

Chey

“Found the Victoria aid and equipment program to support a participant while waiting on funding.”

Sometimes things can’t wait for approvals to be made, to make sure every box is ticked, “I’s” dotted and T’s” crossed. Sometimes a need must be met right away, even if it’s just a temporary solution while you wait. Chey’s work ensured that her participant didn’t see their standard of living slip while the slow wheel of bureaucracy turned in the background.

Lisa

“Found a pathway for young people diagnosed with dementia to get access to a team of NDIS planners.”

While dementia is often seen as a disease that affects the elderly, particularly those over 65, we often forget that dementia can affect anyone at any age. This can cause those who are under the age of 65 to have their symptoms overlooked, diagnoses missed, and symptoms ignored until the disease has manifested completely. By finding a path for younger people to access the NDIS, she has ensured they can maintain their standard of living for longer.

Kel

“A plan review with a great planner.”

Sometimes a routine paperwork session can be improved when you are working with someone who gets it. Enabling you to get the best outcome possible for your participant.

Drew

“A provider that hadn’t been doing much reporting went to panel, got a kick up the butt, and now they’ve been reporting after a year and a half.”

While it’s disheartening to see others in our space not doing the work they should. There is a sense of grim satisfaction that comes from seeing the existing process working as it should and having the desired result come out the other end. At the end of the day, it means there is now more quality work being done for participants, and that’s all we can ever hope for.

Renee

“Getting a team of independents who had gone a little rough together for some team meetings, getting on track.”

We all have our bad days, but when you find yourself continuously butting heads with each other, that’s when problems arise. This is compounded further when you’re meant to be working with participants. The support you provide can begin to slip, and the participant can lose their consistent services. Renee was able to cool tensions, ensure support could continue, and respect the participant’s needs.

Karli

“Learning about restrictive practices and how to report to the commission.”

Learning about challenging topics can yield significant benefits. Restrictive practices may be uncomfortable to study, but recognising their signs and understanding their impact equips you to help participants avoid abuse and preserve their quality of life. Submitting clear, concise reports also supports participant outcomes; precise reporting ensures cases are addressed promptly.

Gregor

“My participant wanted to study as part of her goals. She found a great bookkeeping course with support through TAFE, and we’re in the last stages of getting started. She is super happy about it.”

Helping someone take the next steps in their education is a momentous achievement. While on the surface it might not seem like much, being able to access information, learn, and get qualified opens doors to careers. Accessing a reliable wage is the pathway most of us take to lead rich and fulfilling lives.

Blake

“I’ve supported a participant who, due to funding constraints, had to reduce his weekly travel support from Delungra to Inverell for shopping and switch to a fortnightly schedule. It wasn’t ideal, but he managed by doing a larger shop every two weeks to get by.

Nonetheless, we submitted a plan change request and recently secured enough funding to restore his weekly trips to town and add support for one Saturday each month dedicated to leisure activities. In the context of substantial NDIS plans and supports, it was rewarding to help someone who was making do with less access secure the additional funding needed to make daily life easier and more enjoyable.”

While sometimes making do with what you have is a reasonable response to sudden changes, it doesn’t mean it’s the right one. I think most of us would feel pretty left out if we were suddenly told that we could only do our grocery shopping once a fortnight; it’s no different for people on the NDIS who have no other choice. Being able to get these weekly shopping trips back is amazing, and having a little left over for a monthly leisure activity is icing on the cake.

Rebekah

“A win for one of my participants is that I helped her get approval for a motorised wheelchair to access her acerage property. She was very happy as she had not been able to see her fruit trees for several years, and it was one of her loves prior to her decline in health.”

Imagine suddenly being locked out of random parts of your home; it would feel unfair, and your home would feel more alien to you. By being able to explore her land, Rebekah’s participant now has her freedom back and her home.

At Inclusion Tree, we don’t measure wins by size; we measure them by what they mean to the person living them. A plan review, a reporting provider, a wheelchair to reach an orchard, these are not small things; they are real impacts made in people’s lives.

To our participants, every tiny victory of yours becomes our biggest celebration. To our staff, thank you for seeing what matters.

If you would like to join our team and have your own small wins, check out our career page.

Beyond Mobility

hello@inclusiontree.com.au — Mon, 11 May 2026 06:26:13 +0000

Beyond Mobility

How Assistive Technology Rebuilds Lives, Connection, and Community

For many of us, the morning routine is automatic: roll out of bed, make a coffee, check our phones, and head out the door. But for over 2.5 billion people globally, these simple tasks present daily barriers. That’s where Assistive Technology (AT) steps in, not just as a tool, but as a bridge back to life.

According to the World Health Organisation, AT can be anything from a pair of glasses and a hearing aid to advanced speech recognition software or an all-terrain wheelchair. And here’s the thing, most people don’t realise: the majority of people who use assistive technology use more than one product. Integrated services matter because real life isn’t one-dimensional.

With an ageing global population and a rise in noncommunicable diseases, an estimated 3.5 billion people will need AT by 2050. Yet today, in many countries, most who need it simply cannot access it.

But this post isn’t just about statistics. It’s about quality of life, mental health, and the one thing we all crave: genuine connection.

More Than Gadgets: AT as a Lifeline to Independence

Living with a disability often means navigating a world not built for you. Assistive technology changes that, restoring independence and dignity.

From powered wheelchairs that ease physical strain to therapeutic footwear that prevents amputations for those with diabetes, the right tool at the right time transforms daily living. The WHO highlights that early provision of hearing aids for young children supports language development, education, and future employment. For older people, timely AT can mean living at home safely for longer, rather than facing premature institutional care.

The Silent Crisis: Isolation When AT is Absent

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare paints a stark picture: social isolation and loneliness harm both mental and physical health. They’ve been linked to emotional distress, high blood pressure, impaired immune function, premature death, and even dementia.

When people lack access to assistive technology, they don’t just struggle with tasks; they lose community. Prolonged isolation isn’t just lonely; it’s dangerous.

Conversely, more frequent social contact is associated with better overall health. But not all contact is equal. Unhealthy relationships can enable negative behaviours like substance abuse. That’s why meaningful, accessible connections matter.

Why Community Is Medicine for the Mind

The Mental Health Foundation explains that being part of a community powerfully benefits our wellbeing:

Reduces isolation: Regular social interaction protects against anxiety and depression.
Builds belonging: Feeling connected activates brain regions that calm us under stress.
Provides purpose: Volunteering or participating in community activities boosts self-esteem and confidence.
Eases psychological distress: Strong networks help buffer against discrimination, marginalisation, and unexpected crises.
Increases life satisfaction: People with strong community ties feel happier, more fulfilled, and more resilient.

For marginalised groups, teenagers, single parents, and people with long-term health conditions, community isn’t a luxury; it’s a protective shield.

A Success Story: Roderick’s Track Back to Life

Theory is important, but stories hit harder.

When Roderick finally received his Action Track chair through the NDIS, he described the moment as “bittersweet.” After five years of fighting for something he genuinely needed, he felt like he didn’t deserve it, a feeling far too many participants know.

But that chair opened his world again.

He can now visit his mate’s property and help maintain the land. He’s back to fishing, something he’s always loved. His mate jokes that he has to stay a bit further back from the water now, so he doesn’t become “croc bait.” That humour says everything about what the chair has given him: freedom, connection, and the ability to enjoy the outdoors safely.

Roderick can service his own car without strain and access parts of his home he hasn’t reached in years. And after 17 years, he’s finally looking forward to feeling the sun on his back and the wind in his hair.

His message to others navigating the system is simple:
“Hang in there. Speak directly to the delegate. Don’t give up.”

The Bottom Line

Assistive technology isn’t about “special treatment.” It’s about levelling the playing field. It reduces stress and fatigue, supports learning and employment, and enhances safety at home. But most importantly, it keeps people connected to the people and places they love.

Whether it’s a hearing aid that lets a grandchild hear “I love you,” or an all-terrain chair that lets a fisherman see the waves again, AT is ultimately about humanity.

As the WHO reminds us, improving access to assistive technology helps achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by ensuring no one is left behind in education, employment, politics, or the quiet, precious moments of everyday life.

If you or someone you know needs AT, don’t give up. Seek out communities, ask questions, and advocate fiercely. The right tool isn’t just a device. It’s a door back to your world.

Update – 28 April 2026

hello@inclusiontree.com.au — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 05:48:21 +0000

Inclusion Tree position statement - NDIS reform announcements April 2026

The recent NDIS announcements are likely the most significant proposed changes to the scheme. As a person-centred provider, we are concerned about the impact on our participants, families, and all people living with disability. We will work to mitigate negative effects and fiercely advocate for the rights and well-being of those affected.

What has been proposed

The Minister outlined a broad NDIS “reset” by 2030, starting with tighter eligibility criteria based on functional impairment. This will be followed by a reduction in projected participant numbers to around 600,000, rather than growth beyond 900,000. Next, spending will be reduced by $16 billion, accompanied by lower annual growth to around 2% for 4 years before returning to 5%. Subsequently, tighter controls on social and community participation budgets will be implemented, followed by expanded provider regulation, greater oversight of digital payments, and greater use of commissioning for intermediaries.

The Government also confirmed that the New Framework Planning has been delayed to 1 April 2027 and announced a new $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund intended to strengthen community-based alternatives outside the Scheme.

Our position

The NDIS should be treated as a core national investment in rights, inclusion and social participation, not merely as a cost centre to be restrained. Cost discipline matters, but action on fraud, exploitation, and poor-quality practice are necessary; the answer cannot be to reduce access to the supports that sustain lives.

These reforms could risk limiting access to the supports participants rely on every day. By Compressing plans, tightening eligibility and shifting costs onto families. There is a real risk of a knock-on effect that could have a deeper impact on other health services that are either overstretched or non-existent in communities, leaving vulnerable people in the lurch.

The Minister’s announcement indicates the reforms are intended to result in around 160,000 fewer participants in the Scheme over the coming years. Such a reduction could create a risk for people with disability suddenly losing access to the supports they depend on for their day-to-day lives. They are also at risk of deteriorating development if a replacement system isn’t made available for these people.

We believe the Government should also turn its attention to reducing inefficiency within the NDIA itself. Recent audits have found that the NDIA has failed to meet several key performance markers that impede its ability to operate effectively. We don’t believe it is prudent to seek saving measures from external parties when internal efficiencies are in greater need of attention.

When it comes to broader budget questions, if the government is serious about protecting vulnerable people in our community and remaining fiscally responsible, other methods should be considered instead of cutting disability supports. Much of the resource extraction industry has experienced unprecedented profits, with very little of that wealth captured by this country to benefit its people. New taxes on gas and thermal coal exports that are currently under consideration would be a far better focus for the federal government to improve both this and future budgets, rather than targeting Australians with disability.

Impact on participants

For participants, the greatest risks are uncertainty, exclusion and service loss. People with complex but not always easily measurable needs may be particularly exposed if new access pathways rely too heavily on narrow functional tests or administrative assumptions.

Participants may also face reduced flexibility if social and community participation supports are wound back. A reduction means less help attending appointments and community activities. The Government has stated that these budgets will be reset, and public reporting indicates that average spending in this category is expected to fall from about $31,000 to about $26,000, with implementation beginning in October 2026 if legislation passes. For many people, these are not optional extras; losing these supports could increase isolation, make it harder to maintain routines, reduce skill-building, threaten wellbeing, and challenge having safe participation in everyday life.

Impact on providers and organisations

For service providers, the announcements signal a period of major instability and adjustment. Organisations will likely face more compliance obligations, more scrutiny, and potentially major changes to how some services are funded, especially in areas such as support coordination and plan management.

For quality providers, this isn’t only a policy issue but also a practical one: when administrative settings become more restrictive, unclear, or fragmented, organisations spend more time grappling with the system to achieve the best possible outcome for participants. That burden is rarely reflected in pricing, yet it has real consequences for workforce sustainability and service continuation.

What is needed now

Any reform agenda must be staged, transparent and genuinely co-designed with people with disability, families, advocacy bodies and frontline providers. In order to be consistent with the principle of “nothing about us, without us” referenced in the Minister’s address. No participant should lose support before replacement systems are in place and proven to work.

This position reflects the broader sentiment emerging across the disability sector: anti-fraud measures are supported, but fear and uncertainty are growing; detail is urgently needed; and any transition away from the current Scheme must be matched by fully funded, accessible and available alternatives.

There is a growing concern across the sector that reforms framed primarily around reducing growth and cost-cutting treat people as a budgetary burden rather than focusing first on reasonable outcomes, human rights, and the continuity of support.

Our call

The NDIS should be strengthened, not narrowed. Reform should improve quality, fairness and long-term sustainability, and it must do so in a way that protects rights, preserves participant choice and control, and recognises the essential role that skilled, values-driven service providers play in helping people live safe, connected and ordinary lives.

The test of these reforms will not be whether the numbers come down or costs are saved. The real test will be whether people with disability remain supported, included in the community and safe, whether the NDIA are required to become more efficient and accountable, and whether the government is willing to treat disability support as a national priority.

Easy English Version

The Moments

hello@inclusiontree.com.au — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 01:26:27 +0000

The Moments That Remind Us Why We Do This Work

In any job, there are days that feel routine, days when you tick boxes, follow plans, and go home tired. But in disability support, especially at Inclusion Tree, the work is never just a job, it’s a privilege. Sometimes, finding real value in what you do doesn’t come from a big milestone. It comes from a single moment: a laugh, a breakthrough, or a small act of trust that changes everything.

For NDIS Participants, progress doesn’t always look like a straight line. It looks like someone is trying a new food for the first time in years. It looks like a quiet “yes” after a hundred “no’s.” Those are the moments that remind our staff why they show up, day after day.

We asked two of our team members to share a moment that stopped them in their tracks and reminded them exactly why they do this work. Here’s what they said.

JJ and the Muffins

“JJ has a very limited range of foods that he eats. His mum fed him the same thing every day for years and years, so he isn’t open to trying new things. It’s a really bland selection too: dry toast, gold brand chick nuggets, and chips. Every single day.

When he moved into the SIL house, staff started gently trying to introduce him to new foods, or at least to get him to try them. He’s been with us for six months now.

Each Saturday, one of our staff members would bake chocolate muffins. Every time, she would ask JJ if he wanted to help. And every time, he would say, ‘No, please.’

But she kept asking. Kept trying. Week after week.

Then, out of the blue recently, she asked again, and he got up, ran out to the kitchen, and grabbed the muffin mix from the cupboard. We don’t know what changed. But he was keen to help.

He helped make the muffins. And then he actually sat down and ate them afterwards. So now we have a new food in his diet. Not the healthiest, sure, but it’s a start. And for us, that moment was everything.”

From Support Work to Support Coordination

“I’m new to Support Coordination, but in my previous role as a support worker, I loved seeing how much my support made a big difference in people’s lives. Every single day, there are moments where I can see how doing what I do helps people continue living their lives the best way possible.

For some of our Participants, they wouldn’t even be able to live independently if it wasn’t for all of us support workers showing up.

Now, I’m looking forward to transferring my caring skills into a more administrative role as a Support Coordinator. Even in this short time, I can already feel how crucial this work is, keeping people engaged in life, supporting independent living, and helping improve quality of life. That’s why I do this work.”

Why These Moments Matter

JJ didn’t just eat a muffin, he took a step toward trusting someone new. Our other staff member reminds us that whether you’re in the kitchen or behind a desk, every role at Inclusion Tree exists for the same reason: to help Participants live a life of choice, dignity, and genuine connection.

These aren’t just “feel-good” stories. They’re proof that consistency, patience, and heart change lives, slowly, quietly and beautifully.

Come Grow with Us

Moments like these don’t happen by accident. They happen because of incredible people like you, people who see value in the work, who keep showing up, and who believe that small wins are worth celebrating.

If these stories resonated with you, we’d love you to join our team.

We’re currently recruiting for several roles across support work and support coordination. Whether you’re experienced or just starting your journey in disability, if you bring care and curiosity, we’ll help you grow the rest.

Check out the jobs we’re hiring for right now on our Careers Page or send us a message to learn more.

Let’s create more of those moments, together.

NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee

hello@inclusiontree.com.au — Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:41:34 +0000

NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee

Inclusion Tree submission – 29 March 2026

Introduction

Inclusion Tree welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee’s February 2026 consultation. We provide this submission from the dual perspective of:

A disability support provider delivering supports across community, therapeutic, and
developmental contexts; and
A Registered Training Organisation (under development), responsible for developing and
delivering workforce education aligned with contemporary, rights-based disability practice.

Our submission is grounded in person-centred, relationship-based, and strengths-based practice, informed by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). We explicitly embed Supported Decision Making, Active Support, and Conscious Care and Support as essential practice frameworks that must underpin both how supports are delivered and how evidence of effectiveness is interpreted.

Who we are and who we support:

Inclusion Tree provides human-centred support services, in most all States and Territories of Australia. Our services are individually tailored, strengths-focused, trauma-informed, and inspired by leading edge practices and social innovations.

We enjoy compassionately inquiring together to co-create solutions that make a difference to the people experiencing disability and mental health.

We know that investing in our people and acknowledging their gifts is what makes our business thrive. We are committed to nurturing the personal and professional development of all our staff through an intentional culture of growth and learning.

We do this through providing Support Coordination, Capacity building, workforce training and allied health services to NDIS participants. We support 860 participants of which 63% manage their own supports through independent workers and ‘service for one’ models.

We are currently developing a Registered Training Organisation to deliver education.

We actively participate in industry working groups, events, roadshows, as well as policy and consultation sessions, advocating tirelessly for the rights of individuals to maintain control of their lives.

How we currently engage with the NDIS?

We engage with the NDIS in many ways, both personally with loved ones on the NDIS, and professionally with the participants we support. We do this by:

Supporting participants and nominees to engage the NDIS, to choose their own providers and make informed decisions on how to best utilise their funding to achieve their goals.
Supporting participants to implement their NDIS plan through providing links to registered, unregistered and mainstream providers.
Build capacity and support participants and nominees to understand the NDIS and navigate the processes.
Support exploration of a variety of service delivery models to ensure progress towards nominated goals.
Meet with NDIS planners to review participant’s plans with the participant and nominees.
Monitor and track the eUectiveness of NDIS supports and provide the NDIS with supporting documentation and updates as required.
Assist participants with ongoing supports and derive ways to iterate supports if there are changes in their circumstances.
Coordinate and collate reports and assist participants with plan reviews, identifying goals, and changes in circumstances.
Participating in auditing processes to demonstrate compliance to risk, policy, service delivery and procedural requirements.
Deliver best practice training to families and supports of people experiencing disability and mental health.
As an organisation, we advocate for people’s rights by attending industry working groups, events, roadshows, also policy and consultation sessions.

Overarching Principles for Evidence Assessment

Human Rights and the UNCRPD

Across all supports under review, Inclusion Tree strongly recommends that evidence assessment explicitly align with the UNCRPD, particularly:

Article 3 – Respect for dignity, autonomy, individual choice
Article 12 – Equal recognition before the law (supported decision making)
Article 19 – Living independently and being included in the community
Article 26 – Habilitation and rehabilitation
Article 27 – Work and economic participation (including workforce development)

Evidence frameworks that prioritise outcomes such as function, behaviour change, or skills acquisition without equal weighting to autonomy, wellbeing, participation, and rights risk endorsing supports that are technically effective but ethically misaligned.

Conscious Care and Support

Conscious Care and Support requires practitioners to work with awareness of power, trauma, relational impact, and context. Evidence reviews should therefore:

Consider how supports are delivered, not just what is delivered
Examine impacts on sense of safety, agency, identity, and connection
Recognise harms arising from intensity, compliance-based approaches, or deficit-focused models, even when short-term gains are demonstrated

Early Intensive Behavioural Interventions (EIBI)

Inclusion Tree Position

Inclusion Tree recognises that early childhood supports can support learning, communication, and participation. However, we urge the Committee to ensure that any endorsement of EIBI:

Avoids prescriptive intensity as a proxy for effectiveness
Rejects deficit-focused or compliance-driven interpretations of outcomes
Centres the child’s right to development, play, agency, and relationships

Key Recommendations

Person-Centred and Relationship-Led Delivery
Evidence should distinguish between approaches that are:

Relational, developmental, and responsive
Versus those that prioritise standardisation, compliance, or behavioural normalisation

Supported Decision Making for Children and Families
Families must be meaningfully supported to:

Choose approaches aligned with their values and the child’s interests
Adjust intensity, goals, and methods over time

Active Support and Everyday Contexts
Evidence should value:

Learning embedded in natural routines
Skill development in meaningful contexts (home, childcare, community)

Outcomes Beyond Skill Acquisition
Assess outcomes including:

Child wellbeing and enjoyment
Parent wellbeing and sustainability of care
Long-term participation rather than short-term behavioural change

Positive Behaviour Support (PBS)

Inclusion Tree Position

We support Positive Behaviour Support as a rights-based, person-centred framework when practised as intended. However, we caution against interpretations that reduce PBS to:

A technical behaviour management tool
A compliance or risk-containment mechanism

Key Recommendations

PBS Must Remain a Human Rights Practice
Evidence should privilege PBS models that:

Reduce restrictive practices
Increase quality of life, autonomy, and participation
Explicitly recognise behaviour as communication

Supported Decision Making as Core Practice
PBS plans must be:

Developed with the person, not merely for them
Supported by accessible communication, advocacy, and trusted relationships

Workforce Capability and Supervision
Evidence assessments should consider:

Practitioner competence and reflective supervision
Risks of poor outcomes linked to unqualified or unsupported practitioners

Whole-of-Environment Approaches
PBS effectiveness should be evaluated in the context of:

Environmental fit
Relationships
Consistency across settings

Social Skills Training (Children and Young People)

Inclusion Tree Position

Social skills do not develop in isolation from relationships, identity, belonging, and lived experience. Inclusion Tree is concerned that narrowly framed social skills training can unintentionally prioritise behavioural conformity over authentic communication, self-advocacy, and social inclusion.

Evidence assessment must therefore recognise that social competence is context-dependent, relational, and culturally embedded, rather than a discrete skill set that can be standardised or universally measured.

Key Recommendations

Strengths-Based and Neuro-Affirming Practice
Evidence should clearly differentiate between programs that:

Teach compliance with neurotypical social norms, and
Support young people to understand themselves, communicate authentically, set boundaries, and build relationships in ways meaningful to them.

Social difference should not be framed as deficit. Supports should align with UNCRPD Articles 7 and 24, which recognise the evolving capacities of children with disability and the right to inclusive education and participation.

Active Support in Real-World Contexts
Greater evidentiary weight should be given to approaches that embed social learning within:

Peer relationships
Community participation
Shared activities of interest

Skills practiced in isolation without supported transfer into daily life often fail to generalise and may inflate perceived effectiveness without lasting impact.

Relational and Participation-Based Outcomes as Core Measures
Inclusion Tree recommends that evidence assessment prioritise outcomes such as:

Sense of belonging and inclusion
Ability to initiate or sustain relationships
Self-confidence and social self-efficacy
Reduced social anxiety through supported participation

These outcomes are more reflective of real-world impact than short-term improvements on standardised social skills scales.

Supported Decision Making for Young People and Families
Social skills supports should be chosen and adapted through supported decision making, ensuring that:

Young people have a voice in goals and methods
Families understand different philosophical approaches and implications
Participation remains voluntary, respectful, and person-led

This is essential to upholding Article 12 of the UNCRPD in child and youth contexts.

Robot-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT)

Inclusion Tree Position

Inclusion Tree recognises the potential of Robot-Assisted Gait Training to support mobility, physical conditioning, and rehabilitation for some people with disability. However, we strongly emphasise that RAGT must be understood as a tool within a broader, person-centred habilitation or rehabilitation pathway, not as an outcome in itself.

Evidence must reflect the principle that walking is not synonymous with participation, autonomy, or quality of life.

Key Recommendations

Person-Centred Goals Must Drive Use of RAGT
Evidence should clearly distinguish:

Outcomes that matter to the person (e.g. reduced fatigue, confidence, endurance, comfort, participation), from
Clinically observable biomechanical or gait improvements alone

RAGT should only be recommended where it aligns with the person’s own goals and priorities, consistent with UNCRPD Articles 19 and 26.

Supported Decision Making and Informed Choice
People must be supported to make informed decisions about:

The purpose of RAGT
Potential benefits and limitations
Alternative approaches

This includes honest conversation about whether the intervention supports participation, independence, or wellbeing — rather than implied expectations about “normalising” movement.

Active Support and Functional Transfer
Evidence frameworks should prioritise whether gains achieved through RAGT:

Translate into everyday activities
Reduce reliance on supports
Enhance participation in community life

Without supported transfer into functional contexts, improvements risk remaining clinic-bound and of limited lived value.

Psychosocial and Identity Impacts Must Be Considered
The experience of RAGT can have emotional and identity impacts, particularly where:

Walking is positioned as a preferred or superior outcome
Assistive mobility options are implicitly devalued

Evidence assessment should include consideration of:

Dignity
Emotional safety
Validation of diverse mobility identities

RAGT as Part of an Integrated Support Pathway
RAGT should be evaluated in comparison with — and in combination with — supports such as:

Physiotherapy and occupational therapy
Active Support approaches in daily routines
Assistive technology and environmental adaptation

Effectiveness should be measured by overall quality-of-life outcomes, not isolated physical metrics.

Workforce Development and Evidence Interpretation

As an RTO in development, Inclusion Tree emphasises that workforce capability critically mediates outcomes across all supports under review.

Evidence assessments should explicitly consider:

Level and quality of practitioner training
Reflective supervision and ethical oversight
Capacity for person-centred adaptation rather than protocol-driven delivery

Supports shown to be effective in controlled conditions may produce very different outcomes when delivered by an under-trained or unsupported workforce.

Concluding Position

Inclusion Tree strongly recommends that the Evidence Advisory Committee:

Embed human rights, person-centredness, and supported decision making as core evaluative criteria
Avoid privileging outcomes that reflect compliance, intensity, or standardisation over lived experience
Recognise that effectiveness is inseparable from how supports are delivered, by whom, and in relationship with whom

A rights-based NDIS evidence framework must assess not only whether a support works, but for whom, in what context, and at what human cost or benefit.

Unlocking Independence

hello@inclusiontree.com.au — Mon, 09 Mar 2026 07:09:23 +0000

Unlocking Independence:

Your Guide to Assistive Technology with Inclusion Tree

What is Assistive Technology?

Assistive technology (AT) is so much more than just equipment; it’s a gateway to independence, inclusion, and opportunity. The World Health Organisation defines assistive technology as an umbrella term for assistive products, systems, and services that help maintain or improve an individual’s functioning in cognition, communication, hearing, mobility, self-care, and vision.

From simple tools to complex systems, assistive technology can range from:

Physical products: wheelchairs, glasses, prosthetic limbs, white canes, and hearing aids
Digital solutions: speech recognition software, time management apps, and captioning tools
Daily living aids: non-slip bathmats, modified cutlery, and large-print labels
Complex systems: powered wheelchairs, communication devices, and adjustable beds

The key principle? Assistive technology helps you do things you can’t do on your own, or helps you do things more easily and safely.

Who Needs Assistive Technology?

The need for assistive technology is far more common than many realise. According to the World Health Organisation:

Globally, more than 2.5 billion people need at least one assistive product. With an ageing population and a rise in noncommunicable diseases, this is expected to reach 3.5 billion people by 2050.

World Health Organisation

Most people will need assistive technology at some point in their lives. While some may require it temporarily, such as after an accident or illness, others may need it throughout their lives.

Assistive technology is most needed by:

Older people, helping maintain independence and safety at home
Children and/or adults with disabilities, supporting development, education, and participation
People with long-term health conditions such as diabetes, stroke, and dementia

The Life-Changing Benefits of Assistive Technology

The right assistive technology can transform lives, not just for the user, but for their families and communities too. Here’s what the research shows:

For children: Early provision of hearing aids supports language and communication development, limiting negative impacts on education, future employment, and community participation.

For mobility: Appropriate wheelchairs facilitate access to education and employment while reducing healthcare costs associated with secondary complications, such as pressure sores.

For health management: Therapeutic footwear for diabetes reduces foot ulcers and prevents amputations, reducing the burden on healthcare systems.

For ageing: Timely provision of assistive technology helps older people live independently and safely at home for as long as possible.

The broader benefits are undeniable; assistive technology enables inclusion and participation in family, community, and all areas of society, including political, economic, and social spheres.

NDIS Funding for Assistive Technology: What You Need to Know

The NDIS provides funding for assistive technology that meets the reasonable and necessary criteria. But understanding how the funding works can feel overwhelming.

Let’s break it down.

How the NDIS Categorises Assistive Technology

The NDIA uses three cost categories for assistive technology:

Low Cost AT
Under $1,500 per item
Example: Continence products, non-slip bathmats, walking sticks, basic shower chairs
Where Funding Sits: Core – Consumables budget

Mid Cost AT
$1,500 – $15,000 per item
Example: Standing hoists, custom shower chairs, ankle-foot orthotics, some power wheelchairs
Where Funding Sits: Capital budget

High Cost AT
Over $15,000 per item
Example: Custom-made wheelchairs, complex communication devices, ventilators
Where Funding Sits: Capital budget (quote required)

Understanding AT Product Risk

The NDIS also considers the risk level of assistive technology, which determines the advice you need before purchasing.

Low risk AT products are:

Unlikely to cause harm in day-to-day life
Available for trial or purchase in retail stores
Easy to set up and use safely without professional advice

Higher risk AT products may be:

Complex (like power wheelchairs)
Known to have caused harm
Used for restrictive practices
Requiring professional advice, setup, or training for safe use

Important: Some items are considered higher risk, even if they’re low-cost, such as bed poles and weighted blankets, which require professional advice to ensure safe use.

What Evidence Do You Need?

The evidence required depends on the cost and risk level:

Low cost AT: At least $500 is included in your Capacity Building budget for advice. For higher-risk low-cost items, you’ll need written advice before purchasing.
Mid cost AT: You need written evidence from an AT advisor (like an occupational therapist) explaining what you need, why it’s the best value, and how it helps your goals. No formal assessment required, but advice must be in writing.
High cost AT: You need both a recent assessment (within 2 years) from a qualified AT assessor AND a quote. For items over $15,000, the NDIS requires this before approval.

What the NDIS Won't Fund

The NDIS doesn’t fund:

General household items everyone uses (like standard kettles)
Items for treatment or rehabilitation
Modifications to public spaces or vehicles
Assessment tools used by therapists
Items more appropriately funded by other government services (like school or work equipment)

How Inclusion Tree Support Coordinators Can Help You

Navigating assistive technology funding can be complex, but you don’t have to do it alone. Our Support Coordinators at Inclusion Tree are here to guide you every step of the way

1. Understanding Your Needs and Goals

We start by listening. Your Support Coordinator will work with you to understand:

Your NDIS goals and how AT can help you achieve them
Your daily challenges and what would make the biggest difference
Whether you need temporary, long-term, or changing solutions

2. Connecting You with the Right AT Advisors

For higher-risk or higher-cost AT, you’ll need professional advice. We can:

Connect you with qualified AT assessors (occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech pathologists, etc.)
Help you understand what type of advisor you need for your specific situation
Ensure you have the right funding in your plan for assessments

3. Navigating the Evidence and Funding Process

Paperwork shouldn’t stand between you and the support you need. We’ll help you:

Gather the right evidence for your plan review or reassessment
Understand what quotes and assessments are required
Submit requests to the NDIS through the correct channels

4. Exploring Your Options

Sometimes the best solution isn’t buying new. We’ll help you explore:

Trials: Testing equipment before committing
Rental options: Ideal if your needs are likely to change
Refurbished items: Quality equipment at lower cost
Borrowing arrangements: For short-term needs or holidays

5. Choosing Providers and Comparing Quotes

With your AT advice in hand, we’ll help you:

Shop around for the best value (without compromising quality)
Understand what’s included in quotes
Make informed decisions about optional features

6. Supporting Setup and Training

Getting the equipment is just the beginning. We’ll help ensure:

Your AT is delivered and set up correctly
You receive training on safe use
You have funding for ongoing support if needed

7. Planning for Maintenance and Repairs

Assistive technology needs looking after. We’ll help you:

Understand what repairs and maintenance funding is in your plan
Access urgent repairs when needed
Plan for replacements when technology is worn out or outgrown

8. Reviewing and Adapting

Your needs may change over time. We’ll help you:

Recognise when your AT no longer meets your needs
Gather evidence for plan reassessments
Advocate for funding updates at your next plan review

Examples: How AT and Support Coordination Work Together

Sarah’s Story: Sarah needed a powered wheelchair but wasn’t sure where to start. Her Support Coordinator connected her with an occupational therapist for assessment, helped interpret the recommendations, and compared quotes from three suppliers. The result? Sarah got the right chair with the features she needed, without the stress of navigating it on her own.

Michael’s Journey: Michael’s son needed a communication device. His Support Coordinator explained the evidence requirements, helped gather reports from his speech pathologist, and ensured the funding was included in his next plan. When the device arrived, they arranged setup and training sessions.

Eleanor’s Experience: Eleanor was struggling with daily tasks as her mobility declined. Her Support Coordinator identified low-cost AT options (shower chair, handrails, large-print labels) that could be purchased immediately from her existing budget, while also arranging an assessment for mid-cost equipment for the future.

Getting Started with Assistive Technology

Ready to explore how assistive technology can support your goals? Here’s your pathway:

Talk to us about what you’d like to achieve
Review your current plan, what funding do you already have?
Identify your needs, what would make the biggest difference?
Get the right advice, we’ll connect you with qualified advisors
Choose your AT, with support every step of the way

Why Choose Inclusion Tree?

At Inclusion Tree, we believe that assistive technology is about possibility, not limitation. We’re here to help you navigate the NDIS with confidence, ensuring you get the support you need to live the life you choose.

Our Support Coordinators bring:

Expertise in NDIS guidelines and funding processes
Compassion, we listen first and plan together
Persistence, we’ll advocate for your needs

Ready to Explore Assistive Technology?

Contact Inclusion Tree today to discuss how we can help you find and fund the right assistive technology for your needs.

Whether you’re exploring options for the first time or need help with a complex AT request, our Support Coordinators are here to help you unlock independence, inclusion, and opportunity.

NDIS – New Framework Planning

hello@inclusiontree.com.au — Mon, 09 Mar 2026 01:58:39 +0000

NDIS – New Framework Planning

Inclusion tree submission – 6 March 2026

Executive Summary

We welcome the intent of New Framework Planning (NFP) to make NDIS planning fairer, more transparent, sustainable and person-centred, supported by clearer rules and a more consistent planning process. The consultation materials describe a four-step process (preparing for assessment, completing a Support Needs Assessment (SNA), building a plan and budget, and using a plan).

The materials also state that participants keep review rights via internal review and external review through the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), and that the ART continues to “stand in the shoes” of the original decision maker. However, because planning decisions will be based on the SNA and budget method rules, the content of reviews will shift toward whether the SNA accurately captured needs and whether the budget method rules were correctly applied, with the SNA treated as an “input” rather than a separately reviewable decision.

To ensure NFP achieves its stated goals while protecting participant rights and procedural fairness, we recommend eight targeted safeguards to be embedded in the rules and associated guidance. Our priority recommendation is a mandatory pre-approval “draft plan review step” so participants can correct errors before approval, reducing avoidable disputes and ensuring transparency operates in practice.

Who we are and who we support:

We enjoy compassionately inquiring together to co-create solutions that make a difference to the people experiencing disability and mental health.

We know that investing in our people and acknowledging their gifts is what makes our business grow. We are committed to nurturing the personal and professional development of all our staff through an intentional culture of growth and learning.

We do this through providing Support Coordination, Capacity building and allied health services to NDIS participants. We support 860 participants of which 63% manage their own supports through independent workers and ‘service for one’ models.

Priority recommendations

Introduce a mandatory draft-plan review step before plan approval (statement of supports, budget configuration, restrictions/requirements, funding periods, and management type).
Strengthen SNA accuracy safeguards by requiring a documented verification/disagreement step and a clear pathway for adding evidence before plan approval, not only through later reviews.
Require plain-language reasons for key discretionary decisions (restrictions, requirements, funding periods, stated supports) to support genuine choice and meaningful review.
Ensure restrictions on flexible funding are least restrictive, proportionate and time-limited, and paired with capability-building steps where appropriate.
Keep stated supports narrowly defined and applied with reasons, as genuine exceptions to flexibility.
Ensure supported decision-making is a default expectation (advocates/nominees and communication supports are actively offered and documented).
Add safeguards for plan variations made without a new assessment (notice, reasons, time limits for emergencies, and clear review-rights advice).
Ensure transition and impairment notices are accessible, supported, and include a correction mechanism for administrative errors (especially where a notice is not reviewable).

Our key concerns - Key concerns with the current draft settings

The consultation materials describe a system where delegates approve a total funding budget based on an SNA and “budget method rules,” and where reviews will examine SNA accuracy and rule application rather than debating individual supports line-by-line. In this model, early-stage accuracy and transparency safeguards become even more important, because an error in the SNA or the application of the budget method will flow through to the whole plan outcome.

While the fact sheets describe important features (flexible vs stated supports; restrictions, requirements and funding periods), they do not yet clearly guarantee a pre-approval correction step, detailed reasons for discretionary settings, or consistent verification supports that would reduce disputes and protect participant rights. We therefore propose targeted additions to the rules to operationalise NFP’s stated aims in day-to-day practice.

Recommendations (for inclusion in the rules and guidance)

Recommendation 1 – Draft plan review right (pre-approval correction step).

Step 3 materials state that the NDIA delegate checks the plan and budget and then approves it. We recommend adding an explicit requirement that a participant receives a draft statement of supports and budget settings (flexible/stated; restrictions; requirements; funding periods; management type) with a defined, supported opportunity to request corrections before approval.

Recommendation 2 – SNA verification and correction before plan approval.

Step 2 materials state the participant receives a copy of the SNA report and that concerns may lead to a replacement assessment. We recommend the rules require a documented participant verification step (or recorded disagreement), plus an accessible pathway to provide additional evidence before plan approval, so disputes are resolved early rather than only via review.

Recommendation 3 – Supported decision-making as a default expectation.

Step 2 materials provide that participants can have a nominee/family member/advocate involved. We recommend requiring assessors and delegates to actively offer and document these supports, and to ensure communication accessibility (e.g., interpreters, Auslan, Easy Read) is standard practice rather than ad hoc.

Recommendation 4 – Plain-language reasons for key discretionary decisions.

Step 3 describes that delegates consider plan duration, management, requirements, and limits/restrictions on flexible funding, and that stated supports are used for specific supports. We recommend requiring written, accessible reasons for restrictions, requirements, funding period settings, management decisions, and stated-support classification so participants can understand decisions and exercise review rights effectively.

Recommendation 5 – Restrictions must be least restrictive and time-limited.

Step 3 describes when restrictions may be used (e.g., risk of physical/mental/financial harm; inability to manage funding; participant-requested restrictions). We recommend the rules specify restrictions must be least restrictive, proportionate, evidence-based, time-limited, and reviewed, with a capability-building pathway where appropriate.

Recommendation 6 – Keep stated supports narrow and reviewable.

Step 3 states most supports will be flexible and that stated supports must be used as planned. We recommend maintaining stated supports as genuine exceptions, applied with reasons and participant input, and confirming they remain fully contestable through internal review and the ART.

Recommendation 7 – Safeguards for plan variations without a new assessment.

The review materials confirm that decisions made during plan variations and reassessments remain reviewable. We recommend that where the NDIA varies a plan without a new assessment, participants receive notice, reasons, and clear advice about review rights, with emergency variations time-limited and followed by review.

Recommendation 8 – Accessible notices and an administrative correction mechanism.

Transition to NFP includes formal notices and preparatory steps as described in the consultation material. Where any notice is framed as non-reviewable in the rules, we recommend an administrative correction pathway for notices issued in error, alongside accessibility requirements and supported engagement.

Real-world impacts

Example 1 – Accuracy early matters: Under NFP, the SNA report will inform the participant’s budget, and review processes will focus on whether needs were accurately captured and whether the budget method rules were applied correctly. If key support needs are not captured clearly (for example, support intensity across contexts, communication needs, or variability over time), the resulting overall budget may not be fit for purpose, leading to avoidable disputes and delays in achieving plan outcomes. Building in strong pre-approval checking and correction steps would reduce the likelihood that participants must rely on internal review and external ART processes to fix preventable errors.

Example 2 – Restrictions/requirements need “how-to” clarity: Step 3 anticipates that plans may include restrictions on flexible funding and/or requirements for accessing funding in some circumstances (for example, quotes, qualified professionals, or specified processes). Where these settings are not explained in plain language with practical steps, participants can experience delays commencing supports and may disengage or escalate to complaints and reviews, even when the underlying safeguard intent is reasonable. Requiring clear reasons and accessible instructions for restrictions/requirements would help NFP deliver transparency in practice and reduce avoidable friction.

Example 3 – Funding periods + market reality: Step 3 confirms funding periods will continue to apply to flexible and stated budgets in new framework plans, with some supports not subject to funding periods (for example, some one-off purchases). If funding periods are set without sufficient regard to real-world service availability (including thin markets, wait lists, or workforce shortages), participants may be unable to implement supports within the period, undermining plan stability and increasing the likelihood of review activity (including consideration of decisions about funding periods and plan management). Rules and guidance should support funding-period settings that are workable in practice and responsive to participants’ circumstances

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the consultation on New Framework Planning. We support reforms that improve transparency, consistency and participant experience, and we urge that the rules and guidance embed practical safeguards so participant rights and outcomes are protected in implementation. We would welcome ongoing engagement as the framework is refined and rolled out.

From Steel to Support

hello@inclusiontree.com.au — Tue, 24 Feb 2026 01:58:45 +0000

From Steel to Support:

Rick Scammell’s First Year at Inclusion Tree

At Inclusion Tree, our strength is our people, their unique stories, resilience, and dedication. As we celebrate Support Coordinator Rick Scammell completing his first year with us, we sat down to reflect on his incredible journey from casual worker to a full-time, indispensable member of our team.

Rick’s path to support coordination is anything but ordinary, and it’s this unique perspective that makes him such a passionate advocate for our participants.

The Outdoorsman from Warwick

Based in Warwick, QLD, Rick services a vast area stretching from Brisbane out to Goondiwindi and down to the QLD/NSW border. Outside of work, he’s a dedicated husband and father who prioritises time with his family and is also an avid adventurer. You’ll find him exploring rainforests, camping by the dam, or out on the water in his boat. He even has a unique bucket-list ambition: to fly a helicopter one day. “They said they’d be more than happy to help me do that,” Rick says with a smile. “It’s something I definitely want to tackle.”

A Life-Changing Event

Rick’s career before Inclusion Tree was in the intensely physical world of steel fixing and concreting, working on major projects like stadiums. A dirt bike accident, which left him with a T4 spinal cord injury, meaning from the chest down he is paralysed and requires the use of a wheelchair, meant an immediate end to that trade.

“Steel fixing was instantly out of the picture,” Rick recalls. After recovery, he transitioned into office administration for his old company, a role he admits he hated. Seeking a more fulfilling path that could accommodate his new circumstances, he began searching for a career that offered both purpose and flexibility.

Finding a Home at Inclusion Tree

Frustrated by rejections from other employers when he mentioned his wheelchair, Rick’s persistence led him to Inclusion Tree through a serendipitous connection. A conversation with a Plan Manager led to a phone call with his now Team Leader Kelly Dines.

“The biggest surprise for me,” Rick shares, “was how Inclusion Tree is actually structured the way they say it is. The directors… they don’t think they’re better than you. If you have an issue, you ring someone and ask, and it’s not a problem. That open-door policy is real.”

This culture of genuine support and flat hierarchy was a stark and welcome change from the rigid environments of his past.

A Year of Growth & Gratitude

Now, a year into his role, Rick has built a caseload of over 20 participants, largely through word-of-mouth and colleague referrals, a testament to the trust he builds. He sees his biggest achievement not as a single event, but in the daily progress.

“I feel good because I get to help people. Getting someone the funding they truly need feels awesome,” he says. “But it’s a two-edged sword. When the NDIS knocks something back, it cuts just as deep. You really feel for the participant.”

He’s also come to deeply appreciate the unique layers of support within Inclusion Tree, especially the Culture Stewards. “You might say something in passing on a call, and they’ll ring the next day just to check in on you. They actually do what they say they’re going to do.”

Looking Ahead & Words of Wisdom

For the future, Rick is focused on continuous learning, with an interest in the mental health space. He aspires to maybe grow into a Team Leader or Culture Steward role himself, to pay forward the guidance he’s received.

His honest advice for anyone considering this career leap?

Find the right company that will invest in training you, even remotely.
Be meticulous. “Do what you say you will do. If you don’t, you just look like a fool. For people relying on you, that follow-through is everything.”
Check your assumptions. “That’s my steepest learning curve. Always double-check, because if you assume, you’ll rock up to a meeting and nobody’s there.”

What Makes Inclusion Tree Different?

When asked what other companies could learn from his experience here, Rick is clear: “Actually, having that open communication with management. There are no silly questions, only the ones you don’t ask.”

Rick’s journey from the physical grit of steel fixing to the empathetic precision of support coordination embodies the resilience and heart at the core of our work. We are so proud of his first year and excited to support him as he continues to grow, learn, and make a profound impact on the lives of his participants.

Welcome to the team, Rick. Here’s to many more years of adventure and achievement.

Inclusion Tree is always looking for passionate, driven individuals to join our team. If Rick’s story resonates with you, explore our careers page to see how you can grow with us.

NDIS Your Way: A guide to Service for One

hello@inclusiontree.com.au — Thu, 19 Feb 2026 06:28:01 +0000

NDIS Your Way: A guide to Service for One

We were lucky enough to be a part of the Inclusion Support Solutions Webinar about the Service for One model. We would like to make the Webinar resources available to anyone who would like to know more.

Below you will find presentation slides, course resources, and a recording of the webinar. If you have any questions about the Service for One model reach out to use on 1300 126 123 or email hello@inclusiontree.com.au.