CHAMBERS, Ms Alisa, Deputy Commissioner, Regulatory Strategy and Sector Capability, NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission [by video link] CHEEVER, Mr Ben, Acting General Manager, Legal and Chief Counsel, National Disability Insurance Agency DARDO, Mr John, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Integrity, Transformation and Technology Services, National Disability Insurance Agency [by video link] DURHAM, Ms Amity, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Participant Experience and Service Design, National Disability Insurance Agency [by video link] LEWIS, Ms Larissa, Acting Assistant Secretary, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing McKAY, Ms Penelope, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Partners and Providers, National Disability Insurance Agency [by video link] MAITLAND, Mr Andrew, General Manager, National Operations and Performance, Service Delivery, National Disability Insurance Agency [by video link] MYERS, Ms Catherine, Deputy Commissioner, Regulatory Operations, NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission [by video link] RULE, Ms Erin, Acting First Assistant Secretary, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing SCHAFER, Mr Ross, First Assistant Secretary, Carers, Autism, Markets and Safeguards Division, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing SHAM, Ms Laura, Deputy Commissioner, Data and Regulatory Transformation Program and Enabling Services, NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission SWAINSON, Mr Matthew, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Enabling Services, and Chief Operating Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency THOMPSON, Ms Phoebe, Chief Corporate and Commercial Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency WADE, Ms Natalie, Acting Commissioner, NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission [10:01] CHAIR: Welcome. There are some very familiar faces here, and it's lovely to see you. We're very interested to have a constructive discussion with you. Thank you very much for being with us today. Would anyone like to make an opening statement? No? Then I will start by asking a few questions before I hand over to Senator Liddle. The first one is related to the NDIA, and I will throw that open to whoever wishes to respond. I'd like to just get an understanding of the current status of the implementation of changes to the NDIS following the passage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026. I do understand that this has evolved through time and the legislation has just been passed. But I think that there are many in the community who would like to understand the consultation on that with the scheme itself but also where you feel that it's at in terms of implementation. Mr Swainson : There's probably a range of elements to your question. It's quite a large question. CHAIR: I get that. Mr Swainson : We might start with the policy side of it and ask the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing to talk about where we are from a legislative point of view. Then we might move to the agency. We've got a range of witnesses online that can talk to everything from our ICT uplift to our workforce uplift and also some of the more operational policy work we're doing. CHAIR: I think we could be here for a few hours! Mr Swainson : That's right! We'll try and be as succinct as we can and move through the various range of issues, if that's okay. CHAIR: Yes, thank you. Ms Rule : Firstly, as a recap, the bill passed the parliament on 19 August and received royal assent on 20 August. Prior to that, the department commenced consultation and engagement with the community. I might get some help from Ms Lewis to speak through the consultation processes that are either underway currently or have already— CHAIR: Thank you. It's come up with witnesses the need for greater clarity, and I do think that's something that as an inquiry we see as a very valid point. Ms Rule : Before we go to the public inquiries, I'll quickly mention as well that there's been significant state and territory engagement through meetings of disability ministers and regular meetings with senior officials from secretary level through to my level. Ms Lewis : We have done a range of public consultations, and those public consultations commenced in June. We have a list that I could organise to be tabled which is on our website. It was actually just updated yesterday. CHAIR: That would be really helpful. Thank you. Ms Lewis : I can definitely do that. Would you like to know what public consultations are open? CHAIR: Yes, I think just as much for people who are online listening today it would be very useful. Ms Lewis : I might just list them all for clarity. We had a consultation that occurred over the month of August on the Inclusive Communities Fund. That opened on 3 August and closed on the 31st. On commissioning supported independent living, that consultation opened on 11 August and it will close on 13 September, in a couple of days. New framework planning rule consultation opened on 19 August and will close on 14 October. Eligibility assessment based on functional capacity access opened on 31 August and closes on 2 October. Support, coordination and connection opened on 7 September and closes on 5 October. We will have consultations occurring on market reforms for social and community participation and capacity-building activities which should open this month and close next month, in October. Expanded differentiated pricing will also open for consultation this month and also close in October. CHAIR: Have the organisations and individuals that are able to contribute to the consultation been given sufficient time in order to be aware that this consultation is occurring? I couldn't say it's a lengthy timeframe. In my capacity as a local MP, I would like to see that organisations are given sufficient notification such that they can take part. Do you feel confident that that's occurred? Ms Lewis : I do because we have been keeping our communication products up to date as much as possible. Before the legislation passed, we did have a plan that was publicly available, and we do consult and engage regularly with disability representative organisations. So, as soon as we have a change of date in consultation, we ensure that that's updated live on our website. Also we're ensuring that, when we do go out with public consultation, that it's accompanied by a range of accessible materials. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. Did you want to add anything further? Mr Schafer : I might just quickly add the other power in the bill was not related to consultation. The change is for the minister to be the pricing decision-maker. That instrument to deliver the first pricing review should be over the next month or so. CHAIR: In terms of rollout of change, have you got any response on what is coming? Mr Swainson : I do. I've got a number of witnesses online who are going to contribute to this. Since the passage of the bill through parliament, the agency has released a significant package of communication material both on its website and through a range of channels. We've got a participant newsletter that goes to every participant; that's one of our most significant communication channels. There's quite a package of materials. I might ask Amity Durham to start with where things are at from her work. Andrew Maitland is also online; he can talk from a service delivery operational readiness perspective. Ms Durham : I'll give a bit of an overview. Part of my responsibility in the agency is the oversight of the reforms and the delivery of the reforms across all aspects of our business. The first tranche of reforms included in the bill—now the amendments to the act—commenced on 27 August. Those changes included new arrangements for plan reassessments, updated timeframes for access decisions, a clearer definition of functional capacity and the transfer of NDIS pricing decisions to the Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We've taken, in the agency, significant preparation to support the implementation of the new arrangements. As Mr Swainson said, we've published numerous materials on our website. We've also been coordinating engagement and communication with NDIS participants, providers and relevant stakeholders, and we've been working closely with our staff to make sure that they are aware and are implementing those changes. The laws also included a range of reforms that will be introduced over time. Most immediately, they include changes associated with support determinations that will commence in October 2026 and new claiming timeframes that will commence from December 2026, and the new arrangements for renewing plans will commence in February next year. There is a range of other reforms being implemented in stages. You'd be aware we are also moving to a new way of planning that we call 'new framework planning'; those changes will commence in April next year. There is a lot of activity right across the agency and with all our stakeholders to ensure readiness for those measures. CHAIR: It is a time of great transition. One thing that has come through from witnesses today is the need for clarity on what is occurring ahead. Are you providing participants with any type of timeline information about what is occurring over the next 12 months? Ms Durham : Yes, there are some resources. There is a timeline included on the department's website which sets out all those changes. We're also communicating those through our engagement with participants and stakeholders. CHAIR: Was there some other information that needed— Mr Swainson : Andrew Maitland, who's here representing our service delivery arm, can supplement any information Ms Durham provided. Mr Maitland : There are a couple of things we're doing at the moment. I will break them into two parts. The first part is around engagement. We are working closely with the department to ensure that the rollout of these changes is fully understood clearly and in a way that is nonthreatening to participants. It is a time of high anxiety whenever we make this level of change, and we need to make sure there is clear communication and understanding. One of the things we have been doing is running some targeted consultation with our disability representatives, carer organisations and participant reference group on ways to ensure that changes to plan reassessments and support determinations are well understood and as easy as possible for participants to follow. These sessions commenced in late August and are continuing through September. In terms of communications, which, as you noted earlier, are critical to the successful implementation of these reforms, we have a full schedule of activities that includes information in webinars on our website and working with various community organisations to ensure that they have a clear understanding of what we are endeavouring to roll out. As Ms Durham noted, we commenced with the first change on 27 August, which was a change to the way in which plan reassessments are considered as to who can lodge them as well as to what constitutes a significant change of circumstances. Our frontline teams have been fully trained to progress those changes. To date, we have had limited concerns raised—and most of them have been around ensuring that our participants and the people who support them understand the changes that have been made. CHAIR: Thank you. In terms of the principle that people with permanent complex disability remain on the NDIS, and that those that will move to another system of supports will be provided with the care and support they need to live their best life, there is a feeling coming through from a number of participants and witnesses who've spoken today, and in feedback that many of us are getting, that there is concern. Do you feel confident in the ability to provide a level of support for people with disability, whether they remain on the scheme or whether they are being supported by state and territory services? That's something that has come up as a concern. I'm just wanting your feedback on that. Ms Rule : All governments, through National Cabinet, represented by the Prime Minister and the chief ministers and premiers of all states and territories, have agreed to work together to reform the NDIS and create a system of supports outside the NDIS. There's been a series of National Cabinet agreements related to that and a significant amount of work on reform of the scheme, as we've been discussing now, and in the form of the National Health Reform Agreement in terms of hospital funding, and joint work on the development of foundational supports outside the scheme. The first tranche of foundational supports is the Thriving Kids initiative, which— CHAIR: That is a question I was going to ask you. Thriving Kids is the first significant change. The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing may be best placed to give us an update on how the phased rollout of Thriving Kids is proceeding. Ms Rule : Unfortunately, we don't have the right officer here to provide the most up-to-date information on the rollout. We would be happy to take that on notice and provide that information to the committee. CHAIR: A lot of the community I represent and across the nation wants more clarity on that rollout. Providing information about the timeframe, the key principles and what point we're at would be helpful. The intent is to provide young people aged zero to nine with that level of support under a new part of serving people with disability. I think it's really important in terms of clarity: anything that we can do to give people greater support and to reduce anxieties is a very good thing. I've got one more question before I hand over to Senator Liddle. In terms of the safeguards around the risk of fraud to the NDIS scheme, there is a lot going on in that space. Would the safeguards commission be the right organisation to respond to how that is proceeding? Mr Cheever : It's probably all three of us. We work quite closely together, whether that's through the Fraud Fusion Taskforce or through the legislative measures in parliament. In the recent passage of legislation, we saw a good five or six measures in this space. A couple of months earlier, we saw the integrity bill pass as well. And the commission and the NDIA work operationally very close together. We're also conscious that the joint standing committee has published its report for its inquiry into the integrity of the NDIS, and we're working with government to see how we respond to that report. CHAIR: I must admit a number of you took part in our inquiry into the integrity of the scheme, and it is pleasing to note that a number of the recommendations that we put forward have now been adopted into law. It's always good for a committee's work to be acknowledged by government, and I think some of your evidence influenced what our recommendations were. So that was of great value. Mr Swainson : If I may, before we move on from this topic, I think you asked originally a question about communication. For those watching, for some real clarity about how participants can get further information about changes coming, I thought I might supplement that evidence. We have a lot of information available on our website. If people log on to that website, ndis.gov.au, the head banner on that discusses changes to the NDIS, and that is for participants or providers or anybody watching. They can get a lot of information about the changes that are coming and how they can get involved. That website gets about two million views on that per month; that gets a lot of traffic. We also put out a fortnightly participant newsletter, and that's something that people should rely on to get information about changes coming. That goes out fortnightly to all our participants. We've got a really high opening rate for that newsletter. I think about 60 per cent open that newsletter, which is quite high for industry standards. For people watching, there are a lot of channels to get further information about the changes that are happening. We understand that more information and ability to explain what's happening can assist with anxiety in community. You asked the question 'where can people get information?' and those are some really good channels for people to access that information. CHAIR: I'm sure that'll be helpful for people that are online. Ms Wade : Chair, if I might address your question on fraud from the perspective of the commission— CHAIR: Yes, that would be great. Ms Wade : As you're aware, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission is a partner organisation within the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, and addressing fraud within the NDIS is a priority for us as the regulator for NDIS supports and services. In 2025-26, as part of the work on the FFT, or the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, there were 78 compliance outcomes, including 58 banning orders, eight revocations of registration, three suspensions of registration, three refusals of registration, five banning order variations. These are really important outcomes that we achieved as the regulator to ensure that the NDIS provider market delivers not only quality but also safe services for people with disability and that the money that participants get goes to the services that they need rather than to other activity. CHAIR: I know you're an organisation that can't always give opinion on things, so it's challenging. But, in relation to the commissioning process for providers, are you able to give us any feedback on that as a proposal? Registration is the other issue. What should be the extent of registration? I know there are some challenges around everyone being registered, but I'm just wanting your thoughts on that. Ms Wade : I'll hand over to the department on the policy for commissioning. But certainly, with respect to registration, we have welcomed decisions made by government to create categories of registration that address the highest risk. Certainly, since we have seen SIL, supported independent living, and platform providers being required to be registered in the market, we have got greater visibility of the market to some of the highest risk supports for people with disability, which is really important. But I'll hand over to the department to talk about the commission. Mr Schafer : Just to expand on the registration point, it's also worth pointing out that there's a complementary package there. So, in addition to the commission expanding the categories of mandatory registration, the NDIA are developing a new IT system that will give them greater visibility of transactions, but also, as part of that, it requires nearly all providers to enrol in the system, giving that extra level of visibility. So there's the higher risk end, with that registration step, but then a greater level of visibility across the entire system. In terms of plan-management commissioning, I'll ask my colleague Erin. Ms Rule : The government announced that it would commission a panel of plan managers in order to improve the quality of the market for participants. This was announced in the 2026-27 budget. It is also about improving the integrity of the plan-management sector by reducing fraudulent behaviour, sharp practices and conflict of interest and improving governance for providers. So it's a significant change to this sector of service delivery for participants in response to those concerns with the plan-management market that have been identified. CHAIR: So the commissioning relates to plan managers—are they individuals or are they providers who provide that service? Is the commissioning related to a set of providers who deliver that service? Ms Rule : That's correct. It will be commissioning the providers who provide that service to participants in terms of assisting them with implementing their plan. CHAIR: From your perspective, has that come from recommendations from previous inquiries or investigations? Is it well founded? I know it's difficult for you to give an opinion, but is there a view amongst the disability sector on the benefits of commissioning? Ms Rule : I might see if my agency colleagues would like to respond to this question. Mr Dardo perhaps? Mr Dardo : Thank you. We have been on the record at estimates and at the JSC inquiry on integrity around the fact that we found a significant volume of plan managers had significant indicators of fraud and that, as we've been auditing that space, we've been finding some very concerning behaviours. Those behaviours have led to a number of cases becoming criminal prosecutions in the pipeline, but they've also led to a significant implementation of manual payment reviews to try and limit the number of plan managers that are acting in an inappropriate way. But, as I've previously stated on the record, it is not physically possible to audit or prosecute your way out of it. There needs to be an uplift in the system requirements that those plan managers must have, there needs to be an uplift in the interconnectivity between us and them and there must also be a reform of that space. Without that, there's just no possible way to audit or prosecute your way to compliance with the plan-manager market. CHAIR: So the need for a digital platform that is more able to capture information and produce data that can support investigations or the quality performance of providers would be important. I think there has been investment from government in that process. Is that correct? Mr Dardo : Yes, that is correct. The government did announce, in the last budget, an investment for a digital enrolment access and payments platform. Most of that build work is over the first two financial years, so between July this year and June of 2028 we have a very detailed set of milestones associated with that work. That work does include changing the way we will integrate with some of that provider market so that we actually have an ability to gather evidence for claiming. At the moment, with the way the systems were built and the way the systems are today, we do not see a single piece of evidence from a plan manager in a submission for a claim unless we select them for an annual payment review or an audit, and we request that evidence case by case. In the future world, we would expect that our pipelines and their systems are connected and that evidence for claiming comes from the plan manager with the claiming. In addition to that, we will change the way we distribute money so that, instead of distributing money to a plan manager for a provider to be paid, we would distribute the money directly to the provider, without going through the plan manager. This is quite a critical feature, because we have found that there are some plan managers that are making claims but the money does not make its way back to the participant or the provider; the money is diverted in the plan manager world. So we must rationalise that flow of funds. CHAIR: It sounds like it's going to be a good investment in the new system. While most providers are doing the right thing, we certainly want the money that the taxpayer has provided for this scheme going to participants. Thank you for that work; it's very important work. Before I hand over to Senator Liddle, I'll ask: is there agreement from the committee and from witnesses here today that we may take a photo of everyone? Is everyone okay with that? Yes? Thank you; we appreciate that. Now I'll hand over to Senator Liddle. Senator LIDDLE: Mr Dardo, I might go to you first. I did have a question around investment in the systems procedures following the legislation, but you've answered that to a certain extent. You said that that system and that investment were to do the digital adjustments you require. I'm asking whether what was budgeted for and what you will receive will actually accommodate not just business as usual, such as improvements that were clearly required in the system to address those fraud issues, but also the add-ons that might be necessary now—because add-ons cost—as a consequence of where the legislation actually landed. Mr Dardo : I've been in the Public Service since 1992, and I don't think I've ever worked for an agency that's been happy with the amount of money it's received for any project, any piece of work or any piece of administration. We always have to look at the money we've received and the schedule for delivery and how we get the best value for money for that delivery of work. Right now, for the things that are imminent that need to be delivered, we have them scheduled, we have them resourced and we have people working on those things. The speed of that delivery is exceptional, and the quality of the people working on them—you couldn't be prouder of the effort they're putting in. That's not just in my space; it's in Amity's space, Ms McKay's space and Mr Maitland's space. It's right across the agency. As we deliver that work, like with all big programs, there is a bit of contingency in that program of work. If there is a risk to that contingency—we will look at what that means, like we do every for every program I've ever done for decades—then we will look within the agency for what we shuffle and what we move around to try and manage any risk to that contingency or any shortcoming. You can imagine that, if the agency can't manage that sort of stuff, then, at some point, there will be a discussion with government about whether there are things that could be pushed backwards or forwards to accommodate. That is normal. That is the normal routine of any large program of work. What I would say to you is that the last very, very big program of work we had to deliver was Crack Down on Fraud phase 1. That was a giant program of work at $200 million of delivery over two calendar years. We started that work a couple of months later than we would have liked to because it takes some time to get approvals from central for some of these things. We rated it red when we started. We made up some of that time. We still delivered it in a less than two-year timeframe. We delivered everything in that program of work, and we ended up delivering it under budget. Can I just say—while we might start some programs in a bit of a shaky space or a shaky timeframe, we can quite often make it up. I couldn't tell you today where we will land in nine months or 12 months or 24 months, but, for what we're doing right now, we're working around the clock to make sure we deliver it. Senator LIDDLE: Okay, so you've got the resources and you've got the people. What I'm interested in understanding is whether, based on the timeline that you set for those changes to occur, you're actually meeting that timeline that you identified or expecting to that to blow out a little bit and that you'll have to make it up. Mr Dardo : I think it's important to recognise that there are lots of different programs that work that we're talking about. There is a program of work which is related to the uplifts in integrity: the digital enrolment access and payments platform. That program of work is starting a couple of months later than we would have liked, for the bulk work, just like CDoF 1 did. This program is starting a couple of months later. That doesn't mean we've missed—we had a milestone we had to deliver. We've already delivered one of those. There's another one due in a couple of months. We'll deliver that one. But there are some milestones that we're looking at right now, and we're looking at whether we move them back one or two months because of a later start. That later start, again, is a routine thing in a lot of agencies because it takes time to get either a release of funds based on the architecture or the program of work, whatever it might be. We will probably make most of that up, and I'm pretty confident that we will deliver everything we've promised to deliver in two years within that two years. It is unlikely we will come back. The reason for that is a lot of that capability delivered CDoF 1, and there is a routine and a rhythm for how that program of work will be delivered. There are other pieces of work, in relation to recent legislative announcements, that are due in December or February or July or October. For some of those pieces of work, we've either already built in trialling or are on schedule because the policy or the guidelines or the clarity or the concept is very simple and clear. There are other pieces of work where, as you can imagine, it takes time to get some of those things clarified. If those things are clarified and resolved by the time we need to start building, we are okay. If there is a slippage in a policy guide or in the clarity of what we're trying to do, then, clearly, the IT and digital program of work may be at risk. What I want to emphasise here is that IT and digital are always the easiest part of the problem. That is not the challenge. The challenge is the clarity of requirements. As long as those requirements keep being delivered in a timely way, we are okay. If those requirements have to shift a little bit or change a little bit or consultation requires something to change in some future piece of work, then there is a chance that something may slip or change. Senator LIDDLE: Thank you. I'd just like to say, Ms Rule, that the community supports for Thriving Kids and the transition of participants to Thriving Kids are probably two of the biggest things that I've heard, over and over again, so it would have been nice to have some of that information. I'm going to be very specific in a similar question to make sure that it's clear what I'd like answered. The Thriving Kids rollout was supposed to begin on 1 October after the start of the rollout was delayed from 1 July 2026. We've certainly heard the concern about that from participants. There is still no information on what Thriving Kids will look like, and stakeholders and parents are rightly concerned. What I want answered, please—and obviously you're taking this on notice—is: When will the rollout of Thriving Kids actually begin? Is it going to be on 1 October 2026? That's my first question. The second one is: What implementation plan does the department have for the rollout from 1 October 2026 to 1 January 2028? And will there be services actually accessible on 1 October for children? And if the answer is no, what contingency is in place to ensure that people are not left wondering or without a service to go to? The other thing I heard from you was about the states and territories. They've said they're going to work together, but in that letter that they sent to other committees of this parliament they also said that they're not ready. I'm interested to know: in those conversations that have been had at a different level, is there any indication that they're still not ready and that they won't be ready? Ms Rule : We'll certainly take those specific questions on notice for the committee. What I am aware of is that there is significant work with officials. There is a standalone, specific senior officials' group for the Thriving Kids rollout. They met in person in Sydney for two days last week. I'm not a member of that officials' group, which is why I would not like to speak for the very latest on where everything is up to. I am aware that they're working to commence services from 1 October, but that would be a scaled-up service provision over coming months, guided by each jurisdiction's plans for implementation, including the Commonwealth's plans for implementation, the information for which, yes, we will take on notice to get for you. Senator LIDDLE: You may not be able to answer these, but the additional questions I'd like to pose are: Given that participants are aware of those dates that impact their access to NDIS, can you tell me if you've already seen people transition away, knowing that that's going to happen? Or are people just hanging on until that point in time to do something else? Do you have any indication of what behaviours we're seeing of people who are currently on the scheme? Ms Rule : In terms of Thriving Kids, there are no changes to access until 1 January 2028. That would be to divert new entrants to the scheme. It would not be removing current children from the scheme. There are certainly no changes in the legislation. I couldn't speak to whether families are changing their behaviours. Senator LIDDLE: You've said that you're doing lots of information sessions, but we just keep hearing the same information from people, over and over again, about their level of concern. I would also like to ask you about consultation. I've explained that we get people all the time talking about their concerns. When there is significant change—we heard earlier about the anxiety that is created in people about the need to consider their plans in a different way because of the legislative change. They may or may not ultimately be affected, but there's still some work from them that has to go into considering their change. What would you say to those people who are concerned right now about how to either get some resources or secure some additional advocacy to help them transition, even if it's to an understanding that their plan won't be affected? Ms Rule : I'll start and I'll see if my agency or commission colleagues would like to supplement that. But, as Ms Lewis said, we have a significant focus at the moment in working with our relationships with disability representative organisations. We have the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee as well, which meets monthly. We've had six round tables up to date on a range of reform topics with representative organisations as well as other sessions with provider representatives. The focus of those sessions is to promote the understanding of the reforms and to gain feedback on how we can—in some cases, if there is a need there for immediate implementation, there is a strong focus on how to communicate to participants, providers and their supporters. If the reforms are in the long-term—for example, the access changes reforms don't start until 1 January 2028—that will be guided by the advice of the Technical Advisory Group as well as consultation to help shape those rules that will be required. The focus of the consultations with stakeholder organisations is to understand how we can engage publicly and what their levels of expertise and interest are and to have a close process with them on reforms that will take some time to be designed and do have some technical aspects to them. It is a challenging piece in the access space, for example, to explain technical concepts, and we do have a technical advisory group discussing things in a technical way, but we would like then for that advisory group and our representative organisations to help us to make that real for participants and ensure that it's informed by a meaningful public consultation. Senator LIDDLE: I appreciate you reiterating that those changes in relation to the legislation won't take place until 1 January. So there would be no-one who's had their funding reduced, increased or remain unchanged since the legislation was passed but hasn't come into effect. I'm just trying to find out, if people have a plan and the plan is reassessed, whether it is reassessed in line with the new legislation or is it reassessed in line with the current legislation and therefore nothing changes. Mr Schafer : That's probably a question for the agency, but, just to add very briefly to Ms Rule's response, in recognition of the require for additional advocacy, the budget included $15.9 million for disability representative organisations specifically to support community engagement on the design and implementation of reforms. There's been some funding contribute to that as well. But the agency might want to talk about current planning. Mr Swainson : I think our Chief Executive Officer, Mr Graeme Head, provided some very clear evidence on this at the last Senate estimate hearings. I think he also tabled some communication that he had presented to staff about ensuring that participants could continue to use and access the funding that was in their plans until any change had occurred. That remains the case and that remains our consistent messaging to our service delivery staff. Clearly, the agency and our staff will apply the law as it stands, as it was passed by statute books. I might ask our representative from service delivery, Mr Andrew Maitland, to also supplement that information, but I do want to be very clear that our positioning has been and has remained that participants should continue to access the funding that is in their plans right now. Mr Maitland : I can confirm absolutely that there have been no changes to the way that we conduct a reassessment once we've decided to do one and accepted a plan change case. As you're aware, the criteria for accepting a plan change case did change on 27 August. However, the actual reassessment process has not changed in what we consider and how we go through it. I can confirm that we are aware of some suggestions and raised concerns that this has happened. We've investigated every single one of those and found no evidence that a reassessment has been conducted applying changes that may occur in the future. By that, I specifically mean the support determination changes to come in from 1 October. Absolutely, there are no changes to the way we have conducted a plan reassessment at this point in time, and, even once the changes come in, the plan reassessment will be conducted in the same fashion and the support determination will be applied after the reassessment process has been worked through. I think it's also critical to highlight that plans do go up and plans do go down. It might be worth giving you some numbers on this to really clarify it. In the two financial years ending in June of this year, there were 129,591 plans where there was a reduction; however, there were 288,484 plans over that period that increased. I also think it's worth highlighting that the reductions over that period amounted to $3.474 billion, whereas the increases amounted to $12.293 billion. Very clearly, plans have continued to rise, the average plan value has continued to rise and we have not at this juncture made any changes to the reassessment process that have tried to pre-empt any legislative change. I hope that answers your question. Senator LIDDLE: Yes. Thank you. I'll go back to something in a minute, but can you please tell me if there has been any increase in complaints since the reforms have been put in place. Mr Maitland : I'll need to take some of that on notice to give you the actual data, but we are tracking through our national contact centre any inquiries that are coming in in respect of the legislative changes. I'd highlight that at this point the only significant change that has been implemented is around plan reassessments and who can lodge a plan reassessment and what constitutes a significant change in circumstance. Obviously, when there's a level of change like that, there will be increased inquiries and concerns raised as participants become more familiar with the process. I can take it on notice and we can provide data that we are tracking, if that's okay. Senator LIDDLE: Alright. I'd like to ask a question about fraud and integrity leakage. Today, there's a story in my local newspaper in South Australia that talks about the worst of the worst in who made the list of NDIS fraudsters. Are you already seeing the difference that you expected or you anticipated in relation to addressing and responding to those incidents of integrity leakage or fraud that might reduce the cost to the NDIS? Mr Dardo : I will separate it out into a couple of different categories. If the question is in relation to 'as a result of the most recent legislative reforms', then the answer is no because many of those reforms don't take effect for some time and/or even the things that are due to take effect in the next few months require new operating procedures, new protocols, new training—a few things. Those need to be landed and implemented. So, for the most recent announcements, the answer would be no, not at this point in time. But, if we're talking about, for example, the implementation of crackdown on fraud phase 1, the two-year build that we did, we've absolutely seen a raft of changes, and some of those changes were necessary because they either had been called out in previous ANAO reports or were pointed to by the ANAO report on payment compliance. They were timely changes—things that we implemented as the ANAO was looking at us or after they looked at us. We have absolutely seen an enormous range of changes, and I might touch on a few of them. Before we implemented those system uplifts—and I've been on record saying this before—we could not see evidence, for example, in the self-managed space for the majority of claims, and there was no requirement for evidence to be uploaded or for a description or an ABN to be provided. Since we implemented the system uplifts and we introduced the 24-hour payment delay to allow us to assess those payments, we've been able to do an enormous amount of work to identify high-risk payments and take them through a separate treatment strategy. The ability to stop those problematic payments before they've gone out has generated significant savings. But what it has also done is reduce the risk to a participant or a provider of a debt, because we're not letting money out that we're then trying to raise a debt for. There has been a significant uplift in the ability to detect problematic providers, and that has allowed us to act as providers through things like manual payment reviews. It has allowed us to increase the activity in relation to prosecutions or other actions through the Fraud Fusion Taskforce. The cumulative value of the things we implemented just up until June 2026 in terms of benefits is over $4.1 billion. That's a combination of cash savings for the scheme—savings of money not going out of the scheme when it shouldn't—and redirected funds, where funds are being redirected to genuine disability services or supports instead of being sent to dodgy providers. These are benefits to the broader community in terms of reduced wastage and also benefits to people in the scheme in terms of redirecting funds to genuine services and genuine supports. There are more interventions coming from those things that were delivered, and, as those interventions come, we expect to see those benefits continue to increase. The final thing I'll say on this is that it's easy to think about this as a dollar issue. The most important thing to remember is that most people are trying to do the right thing. There are providers that are trying to do the right thing. Every time money is misdirected or misused, either it creates a safeguarding risk for participants or it destroys the level playing field for other genuine providers. So doing this is also about making sure that participants get the full value of the scheme and the value that's in their plans. Ms Sham : There are some examples that we can provide to you of the uplift in powers and how the commission has already been able to implement those, particularly around the auditor and consultant market. If you like, we can pass to Catherine Myers, who's online, who can provide you with an example of how those powers have already been used and are being used in the construct of improved registration and reshaping of the market to really weed out bad actors. Senator LIDDLE: Thank you. In terms of the legislation, the coalition supported the legislation going through but was critical that there wasn't enough focus on addressing fraud and integrity leakage in the legislation. So where is the most change going to come from? Is it the work you're already doing, or is it the legislation itself, given that that doesn't kick in until a later date? Mr Dardo : I think you're asking me the question— Senator LIDDLE: I am, sorry. Mr Dardo : The numbers I've provided are from the initiatives that have been implemented, which are a combination of legislative changes in October 2024 and funding decisions by government announced in budgets, such as crackdown-on-fraud system uplifts. So they are from things already implemented. From those interventions that are ongoing and continue to be implemented, there will be further savings. So that will continue. Some of the changes that have been announced in the latest wave of reforms will allow us to tackle what I refer to as the middle range of noncompliance. In that middle-range space, we have been limited in our ability to be agile in tackling noncompliance and identifying and removing non-genuine providers from the scheme. Some of those reforms are tackling that mid-range level of compliance. Of itself, it might not generate significant dollar value, but what it does is give us a safeguarding risk by removing bad providers from the scheme, detecting and removing them in a more agile way. I think we've spoken about the other reforms—the plan management reforms and the enrolment reforms. They will create more transparency of the market, and we are assuming that the majority of the money associated with improving that market, improving transparency of providers or improving transparency of evidence for plan managers is actually going to be money that is redirected for appropriate use in the scheme, as opposed to assuming that the majority of that is a saving to the scheme. That is why you will not see very significant dollars associated with those reforms. Those reforms are mostly around trying to ensure that the money that is in a participant's plan is going to genuine providers and genuine services. Senator LIDDLE: Thank you. I want to go back to the NDIS. I understand there's a process in place for when a plan increases over $1 million in total. What about when a plan is substantially cut by, say, 50 per cent? How many eyes are on that to check that the decision to cut is appropriate when the cut is of that scale? Mr Maitland : When we have a variance to the previous plan that exceeds a percentage, that will be reviewed by another delegate before it is approved. That is to ensure that we are fulfilling our safeguarding obligations, obviously, in terms of making sure that the participant is not going to be put in a risk situation. So, yes, we do review it and have a second delegate when there is a risk to the participant's safety and wellbeing. Senator LIDDLE: In your quarterly reporting, I understand that you were saying that there are no support determinations cut, but doesn't the report say that, when there is reassessment, many of those are actually resulting in reduced plans? Mr Maitland : When we do a reassessment, plans can reduce—let me say that: they can reduce. As I said, the majority of plans at reassessment are still increasing. There are a number of reasons why a plan may reduce, and I think these are important to outline. The first reason could be that they've had one-off items of expenditure such as assistive technology or home modifications and we don't expect those to be repeated in subsequent plans because that capital item has been purchased. Secondly, there are changes that will arise from successful building of the participant's capacity through our capacity-building supports, a good example of which would be someone who we've worked with and the supporters have worked with to help them catch public transport. Once they have the confidence to catch public transport, they no longer need a support worker with them. That capacity-building exercise has fulfilled the insurance fundamentals of the scheme and has enabled us to reduce the plan. A third instance where we see reductions in plans is where we implement a step-down. Often, when participants transition from one stage of life or one environment to another, we ensure that they have sufficient supports at the start. To give you an example, for someone coming out of hospital where there's a hospital discharge environment, we want to make sure that that's a successful transition—also where they come out of a justice setting. However, a year on, when the participant has settled, particularly where there are behaviours of concern, we are then in a position to be able to reduce the level of support because it's safer for both the participant and their support workers. So we do reduce plans there. The fourth one, which is really worth highlighting, is that recent legislation changes to determine what is an NDIS support under section 10 of the act made it very clear what we will and won't fund, or can and can't fund, moving forward. An example that really strikes a clear distinction is that previously motor vehicles were being funded in some instances, often as directed by the ART, the Administrative Review Tribunal. Those are no longer allowed to be funded under the NDIS, and so that will also result in a reduction in the plans. I think, when we do get a reduction in plans, it actually can be a very good sign that we have been able to build the participants' functional capacity and independence, and really that is what this scheme is about—not creating dependence but trying to create independence where we can. I think that's a good outcome for society more broadly. Senator LIDDLE: Thank you. This is my last question. It's again in relation to those quarterly reports. Are you able to provide the difference between, say, the last quarterly report and the most current quarterly report, not on a dollar basis but on a percentage basis? Mr Maitland : Senator, can I just confirm: is that in terms of the number of plans that changed, in terms of value or in terms of the number of participants? Sorry. Senator LIDDLE: It's the number of plans that have changed. The actual value of those plans that has changed would be useful too. Mr Maitland : Certainly, Senator. We can provide you with that information. Senator LIDDLE: Thank you. Mr Maitland : We'll provide the most up to date and show you quarter to quarter. Senator LIDDLE: The difference? Mr Maitland : Yes, absolutely. Senator LIDDLE: Thank you. That would be very useful. CHAIR: Online we have another member of the committee, Mr Pike. Do you have a question you'd like to ask, Mr Pike? Mr PIKE: Yes, thank you, Chair. I will just build off the answer to that last one that Mr Maitland has taken on notice. I had a question on notice to the minister, No. 152 in the House of Reps questions in writing, for which I'm presuming the response came from the agency, because it was this beautiful table with the iconic NDIA purple heading and it had it broken down by quarter. I might send that through. We're just missing the last two quarters. That has all that information laid out nicely, so it'd be good if we could get that just updated for the last two. I'll make sure that I send that through to the secretariat so that can be forwarded on. I was going to ask about the I-CAN tool. Obviously, we've had a bit of media speculation in the last couple of weeks, with various experts offering different opinions on the suitability and where we're up to with it. I'm just keen to get an update as to where the agency is up to with the I-CAN tool. We're still anticipating, I think, that we're going to see this starting to get rolled out from 1 April next year. I'd just be very keen to get an understanding as to where the latest thinking is on it and whether we should anticipate that it'll start on 1 April. Mr Maitland : I might ask Ms Durham to commence with this, unless the department have anything they would like to contribute. Ms Durham : The agency is making good progress in terms of further developing the suite of assessment tools for the support needs assessment, as well as testing those tools with participants. As you noted, the support needs assessment includes, as a core needs assessment, the I-CAN version 6 tool. This has been used in Australian government programs previously, and it was developed by the University of Melbourne and the Centre for Disability Studies. In addition to that core needs assessment tool, the agency is also using a questionnaire to understand participants' personal and environmental circumstances, and, if necessary, we will also use targeted assessment tools. Those are to assess more complex disability support needs such as disability accommodation. In terms of the testing of those tools, we are in a comprehensive program of testing at the moment. For phase 1 of the testing, which is underway at the moment, we will be completing 5,600 live assessments—so those are assessments with participants—and that covers 4,000 actual participants. Some of the testing involves a participant going through an assessment with two different assessors. The purpose of the testing for phase 1 one is to provide some assurance around the reliability of the support needs assessment tools and the validity of that tool. The University of Melbourne is assisting us to analyse those results at the moment. In addition, in the first phase of testing, we are also testing the validity of the budget model. This is the model that takes the outputs from the support needs assessment and translates those into a participant budget based on the rules that are set and will be set by the government. We are also looking at the way the support needs assessment and the budget model are working to make sure that they're producing consistent and reliable results. The other aspect is the training of support needs assessors. These are skilled assessors with allied health backgrounds. As part of the testing, we're also looking at the way in which assessors are undertaking that. We're drawing insights and feeding that back into the training and development of assessors before we go live in April. Mr PIKE: Are they on track to go live in April? Ms Durham : Yes, at this stage we are on track. We do need to complete up to 10,000 assessments over nine months, so it is a huge undertaking. We're receiving really strong interest from participants. We thank all the participants, supporters and providers who are assisting us to recruit participants for the testing, noting that we still need to complete more assessments, particularly for participants with high-value plans, to make sure that both the support needs assessment and the budget model are working reliably for those participants with large plans. Mr PIKE: Okay. That sounds like a very comprehensive testing program. My concern, and the concern we're hearing from a lot of participants and advocacy groups, is that, when you're dealing with the sort of numbers that you're going to have to deal with through that tool, automation is important, and ensuring we're using the digital platforms, but a key concern is making sure there's the human override at the end to ensure that, when we get results that aren't reflective of what they should be or what the agency would want, there's some sort of override. Could you briefly outline what safeguards are in place to ensure that we've got a human making the ultimate decisions? Ms Durham : Yes, that is the case. We have humans—people—involved throughout the process. So the support needs assessment, as I said, is conducted by a skilled allied health professional, and they are the ones who are having a semi-structured conversation with the participant to really explore what their support needs are. That is then reflected in a support needs assessment report, and, from that, the budget is derived. At the end of that, the budget recommendations go to, again, a human delegate, who is responsible for making those decisions on the budget. Just to be transparent, we are exploring opportunities to use not automation but artificial intelligence to help assessors, but that's really in the back office administrative process, so we will be ensuring that the decisions are based on human judgement. Mr PIKE: I want to ask some questions on the annual scheme expenditure growth. Obviously, the government now has a target of trying to achieve two per cent growth over the forwards, and the aim is to have a natural growth rate of around five per cent. The last quarterly update had 10.5 per cent as the growth rate. I'm just keen to get the agency's view on whether that stated goal is realistic. Is there actually any official figure within the agency as to what we expect the expenditure growth is going to be over the coming quarters? Does the agency undertake that sort of work? CHAIR: Can I just step in? Mr Pike, we are over time. What may be best is if, certainly, the witness could respond to this question, and, if you could put further questions on notice, we will get responses for you. I'm just aware that we are already over time. Mr PIKE: I'm happy to do that, Chair. Mr Swainson : I'll be quite quick. We don't actually have the scheme actuary, who has the primary responsibility at the agency for that modelling, available as a witness today. I do know that the scheme actuary and his team are well underway in preparing the annual financial sustainability report. That's the main document whereby the scheme actuary puts out, I think, a response to the question you're putting. I think that still needs to go through processes with our board, and then, as a matter of practice, we normally publish that around December—although there will be a summary published in our annual report, once that's tabled. So that's probably something we could answer in a more fulsome way at a Senate estimates hearing, once that report's published. CHAIR: Was there anyone who wanted to add anything more to that? Mr Swainson : We did have a question earlier around some of the contact the agency had had around the reforms. I think there was a question we offered to take on notice. I do have some information, if it would assist the committee. We're getting about 45 contacts per week through our national contact centre that relate to the reforms; about half of those are specifically related to plan changes. I think we offered to take that on notice, but, if that would assist the committee, we've got that information now. CHAIR: Thank you very much for your time today. I think it's been a very constructive discussion. There have been a number of requests for additional information relating to Thriving Kids, around data and around plans on a national level. I know that there is much occurring in terms of the proposed reforms. I'd like to thank you for the work you're doing in actually implementing those reforms. It's a busy time for you and there's a lot of work to do, and we do appreciate that the work you do will hopefully mean that participants, at the end, will be cared for and supported in the best way possible. It would be very useful if the three agencies could provide the committee with written overviews of the reforms that each agency is undertaking and the timeframes for the implementation, particularly around, as you have mentioned, fraud; and you've talked about the IT uplift improvements relating to administration, greater visibility and transparency, and about plan management, access and eligibility to the scheme and commissioning. I know that is a big list, and there is a lot of work being done. I think, due to the complexity and the amount of change, it would be good if each agency could give us an overview of each of those reforms that you are dealing with. That would be really helpful. The only other things I was wondering about were the actions and outcomes of the first phase of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce—those changes, I think, began in about 2024—and then, in relation to the second phase, the actions that are being undertaken currently. So that is a fair list. You've got some homework to do! But thank you very much. I would like to thank the secretariat for their work in bringing us together and supporting us. If you can provide the information to the secretariat in a timely manner, it would be very helpful. If you could provide that information by 25 September, if that's possible, that would be very helpful. Please liaise with the secretariat if you do need additional time. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Hansard and Broadcasting, which are so important when we have people with disability across the nation who listen in and really do take great interest in your perspective and your reporting back to us on what is occurring. I'd also like to thank the NDIS officers who are here at the back of the room who have been available to support witnesses today. I'd particularly like to thank Senator Liddle for her questions today and all other committee members who've taken part. We will be holding another hearing in October in Perth, and then another in Adelaide, so there is more work to do. Committee adjourned at 11:20