Annual Report No. 2 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 9 - Supplementary Submission
14 May 2026 Ms Libby Coker MP Chair The Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme PO Box 6022 House of Representatives Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 To the Honourable Member I write to you as the Chair of The Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I have raised this issue in many forums and the issue is still completely ignored. With reference to the NDIS Compensation Regulations (2013) there is a significant gaping deficiency in these regulations. The assumption every person, covered by an accident insurer, has a common law settlement. Further the assumption is that these insurers are actually providing coverage for these claimants. Even when a claimant can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is only a “ghost” claim but they are getting no actual support from the insurer, NDIS has no ability or willingness to support these claimants. Even if the insurer claims they are liable but not contributing, the claimant is left out in the cold; with no means to force the insurer to pay and NDIS left telling them that the insurer is liable, which they are but they aren’t providing actual benefits. They are effectively left to rot with no support. If this person has no informal support, they are left to rot. It may be obvious, to quote, NDIS is not a substitute for personal injury compensation. If a participant receives a compensation payout for a personal injury, the NDIA may reduce NDIS funding or recover past payments (Compensation Reduction Amount) to avoid duplication of funds. But claimants not in this position are left out in the cold. The capacity to recover past payments should be extended to claim costs from an insurer who is not providing the support a claimant should be getting. Being from Victoria you would know the TAC well. They also assume every claimant has a common law settlement. They also run their scheme on an “approved rate”. This rate is well below NDIS rates; often by as much as 50%. If the claimant does not have the capacity to meet out of pocket expenses the burden is shifted to the service provider to apply for above rate payments. If you are outside of Victoria there is even a significant disparity between “Victorian based approved service providers” and those interstate. The current rates many providers charge means TAC will not approve those requests for above rate payment or the demands TAC place on the providers ends up being too much work and many providers simply will not provide support.
Annual Report No. 2 of the 48th Parliament
Submission 9 - Supplementary Submission
Further these requests can take months to even be considered. In the meantime, the claimant’s condition can deteriorate or if the request is denied, the claimant gets nothing. This often leaves people in pain and become further disabled and losing capacity. Meanwhile, if they had access to an NDIS plan on a cost recovery basis, they could be getting the support and services they need straight away if it was approved in their plan. NDIS states they can only provide a plan if the claim has been closed and ironically this only happens when a common law settlement is achieved.
I bring this matter to your attention Ms Coker because significant change is about to be made to the NDIS and something needs to be done to address this black hole some people fall into; left to rot with no support coming from anywhere. Does the NDIS, like the insurer just hope the person will die so they have them off their books and they can close the files once and for all?
I have been fortunate to get a small plan due to an unrelated disability but as my transport accident causes my greatest functional impairment, l will now lose that plan with the proposed changes to functional impairment not diagnosis. This will leave me with nothing; no support, not a thing. Being full time in a chair, that will be a disaster in more ways than one; including not being able to do basic maintenance (e.g.: cleaning and mowing) on my rental property and face eviction for not meeting the terms of my lease agreement. I have been homeless before, living out of my car, l do not look forward to going back to that scenario in my 60’s with multiple and complex disabling health issues.
Thank you for your time.