PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY QUESTION ON NOTICE

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Inquiry into the administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

15 May 2026

PDR Number: IQ26-000063

Transaction issues

Spoken

Hansard page number: 2

Member: Chair

Question:

Mr Schafer: That’s been a build-up of activity over a number of years. We’ve worked with the agency to deliver the Crack Down on Fraud program, which was mostly a systems uplift for the agency so that their systems were better placed to respond to fraud. We also established the payment integrity workforce, which is the workforce that looks manually at individual transactions. In our evidence to the other committee, we said there are—I forget the exact number—a large number of transactions that the system picks up as potentially having integrity issues, and then there’s a team that looks at those. CHAIR: How does that happen? How does the system pick up those transactions? Mr Schafer: I’d have to take that on notice, sorry, because that’s an operational thing within the agency. I don’t actually know exactly how the IT works within the agency to do that.

Answer:

Please see NDIA IQ26-000037 previously tabled by NDIA.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY QUESTION ON NOTICE

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Inquiry into the administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

15 May 2026

PDR Number: IQ26-000064

Automated flagging system pick ups

Spoken

Hansard page number: 4

Member: Chair

Question:

CHAIR: I’ve got a couple of questions, and then I’m going to hand over to Ed Husic and Ali; I think you also have a few more. I’m conscious of time, so we’ll try and get through them quickly. Just going back to the transactions—there’s an automated flagging system that is manually checked. That’s led to some advice and some updated legislation. For the benefit of the committee and very, very quickly, what are the basic, transactional concerns that that automated system flags up? What is it looking for? Mr Schafer: I’ll have to take that on notice. It’s an operational system within the NDIA. Again, I don’t have specific visibility of how the system operates, but I’m very happy to take that on notice and get that from NDIA.

Answer:

Please see NDIA IQ26-00037, previously provided by and previously tabled by the NDIA.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY QUESTION ON NOTICE

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Inquiry into the administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

15 May 2026

PDR Number: IQ26-000065

Ministerial correspondence as a feedback mechanism

Spoken

Hansard page number: 7

Member: Ed Husic

Question:

Mr HUSIC: Terrific. As I said, I’ll put stuff on notice that we’re trying to follow up on. You’re appearing before parliamentarians and you referenced the use of ministerial correspondence as a feedback mechanism. I’ve noticed this in another program within the department, and I just want to make sure this doesn’t stretch over here when we’re trying to deal with these things as parliamentarians on behalf of our constituents. My Aged Care now is starting to resist MPs’ offices calling on behalf of constituents, using privacy grounds to prevent us from being able to resolve issues that our constituents rightly expect us to be able to assist with. I just want to know: is this happening in your neck of the woods? If it is, can you explain why? If it isn’t, can you please assure us it won’t, because we do take our jobs very seriously. People come to us because they have obviously attempted to improve their experience and have not been able to get anywhere, and they rightly see us as a mechanism to improve that outcome. The last thing we need is a hurdle preventing us from doing the jobs we were elected to do. Sorry, I didn’t mean to bring the soapbox into the hearing, but can you just tell us that that is not something you’re doing? Mr Schafer: If we get a letter from an MP, say, that goes to, ‘My constituent X needs this,’ we would actually refer that to the NDIA, or the minister’s office would refer it to the NDIA for assistance. As I indicated earlier, we don’t have visibility over individual participants’ needs. I think it’s better if we take that on notice and work with NDIA to clarify what their processes are.

Mr HUSIC: Thank you for offering to do that. I appreciate written correspondence or email is one thing. Sometimes we’re dealing with people we may have in our offices who would hope for a quicker resolution; people talking to other people to resolve something on behalf of others is much more preferable. In taking that on notice, could you also find out—once someone has approached an MPs office and we’ve identified ourselves, there might be some simple paperwork that might be provided, but it shouldn’t hold us up from doing our jobs. If you can take that on notice, it’s not just the written but also the verbal. Mr Schafer: Yes. Mr HUSIC: Terrific. Thank you for your help and thank you for your work too.

Answer:

The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (the department), the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS Commission) each have established processes to receive and respond to inquiries from parliamentarians on behalf of their constituents.

This includes various contact methods, including options for contact to be made in writing or via phone channels. When a complaint or enquiry comes through to one of the portfolio agencies, a triaging and assessment process takes place and will be directed to the most appropriate area and agency (the department, the NDIA or the NDIS Commission) for response. For example, the NDIA has a complaints protocol with the NDIS Commission and will sometimes transfer complaints or collaborate on investigations and resolution. This may happen when:

• complaints are made about a provider
• if the issue affects the supports available to a NDIS participant

The level of information that can be disclosed—either in writing or verbally—is governed by the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). This is of particular importance where the constituent seeks information relating to a third party, such as participant or provider information, as privacy obligations may restrict the information that can be disclosed without the relevant person’s consent.

The NDIA has a Member and Senators Contact Officer (MaSCO) service which provides a direct link between Members of Parliament (MPs), Senators and the NDIA. The service is available to assist MPs and Senators to resolve NDIS queries or concerns that their constituents raise with them.

If a MP or Senator’s office receives an enquiry regarding the NDIS from a constituent, they may make a direct representation to the NDIA’s MaSCO team. Full details of the MaSCO service offer are outlined in the attachment provided.

Under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (NDIS Act), a participant or their authorised or legal representative must provide consent before the NDIA can share their NDIS information with another person, including a MP or Senator.

To assist the MaSCO team in responding promptly and comprehensively, the NDIA encourages staff in MP and Senator offices to seek written consent from the participant or their representative, wherever possible, and attach this with their email representation.

If obtaining consent from a person other than the participant, it is important to ensure that person is authorised to consent to the participant’s information being shared with a third party. Usually, this only applies to a participant’s parent (where the participant is aged under 18) or legal representative. While a participant may authorise others (including support coordinators and other providers) to discuss their NDIS matters with the NDIA, those people cannot provide consent for the NDIA to discuss the participant’s NDIS matters with another person, such as a MP or Senator.

If the MaSCO team receives a representation without valid consent, they will endeavour to gain consent directly from the participant or their representative.

Where the MaSCO team cannot confirm consent, staff cannot provide the MP or Senator with specific information about the participant’s NDIS matters. If this is the case, the NDIA will still work with the participant and their supports to resolve the concerns the MP or Senator raised on their behalf.

While the NDIS Commission does not have a dedicated communication channel for parliamentarians, its 1800 number remains available, alongside standard written engagement channels.

The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing also directs all enquiries through its switchboard or freecall numbers, alongside written channels, available on the website. Any specific enquiries or requests from parliamentarians regarding participants will be directed to the NDIA or the NDIS Commission for response. Enquiries, complaints or feedback regarding broader policy, strategic or Scheme wide issues will be handled by the most appropriate response area within the department.

National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) Member and Senators Contact Officers

The Member and Senators Contact Officer (MaSCO) service provides a direct link between MPs/Senators and the NDIA. This service can assist MPs and Senators to resolve queries or concerns raised by constituents.

While there is an understanding Ministers, MP’s and Senators are unable to intervene or influence Agency decisions or timeframes, MaSCO can support your constituents in working to understand and resolve any matters or concerns they raise with an Electorate Office

Being a federal Agency, our key stakeholders are federal MPs and Senators. MaSCO also manage a smaller number of representations from state MPs however, these are normally referred to the appropriate federal MP or State Disability Minister.

If an MP or Senator’s office receives an enquiry regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) from a constituent, a direct representation can be made to the MaSCO team by emailing mp.national@ndis.gov.au. The form on the following page can be used to record the request/representation. MaSCO will investigate the matter and work with relevant business areas within the NDIA to address the concern.

What can MPs and Senators expect when they refer a complaint to the NDIA?

Once a representation is received, there is a set of service standards the MaSCO Team adheres to. These include:

• Electorate offices (EOs) will receive an email acknowledgement of their representation.
• The constituent is contacted to acknowledge the representation received from the EO.
• MaSCO will work with the constituent and business areas across the Agency to resolve the concern.
• The constituent will be contacted with an explanation and outcome.
• A final response and outcome will be provided to the EO once the representation is completed. This will include details of the final contact and closure with the constituent.

MaSCO endeavour to provide relevant updates on open representations. It is worth noting that consent is required from the participant to enable us to share specific information with the EO.

If an office needs to request an update on the progress of their representation, they can email mp.national@ndis.gov.au and the assigned MaSCO will provide a response.

Additionally, the MaSCO service has been updated to include phone numbers which will enable Electorate Officers to reach out to their MaSCO where more urgent contact is required to discuss existing enquiries.

MaSCO Representation Form

Participant/Enquirer Details

Consent checklist - Please select all that apply

Please select all that apply:

• Does the enquirer have consent to act on behalf of participant?
  • Participant ☐
  • Plan Nominee ☐
  • Authorised Representative ☐
  • Child Representative ☐
  • Electorate Office (EO) sought consent from the participant directly and details have been provided. ☐
  • No does not have consent, the EO should attempt to seek consent from the participant before referring the matter to MaSCO. ☐

Reason for escalating complaint via Electorate Office

Has participant/enquirer attempted to resolve the issue by contacting the relevant NDIS contacts?

Please select all that apply:

• 1800 800 110 ☐
• Local Area Coordinator / ECS Coordinator ☐
• NDIS Contact ☐
• If no, the EO should encourage the participant to contact the NDIA directly to attempt resolution before escalating to MaSCO. ☐

Contact NDIA: 1800 800 110 or enquiries@ndis.gov.au

Please describe the issue and the resolution you are seeking

Please select all that apply:

What is your complaint about? Provide some details to help us understand your concerns.

• Access request ☐
• Payment concerns ☐
• Dissatisfied with plan ☐
• Assistive Technology request ☐
• Timeliness of request ☐
• Other ☐

Click here to enter text.

What outcomes are you seeking?

Click here to enter text.

*In cases where the representation has been made on behalf of a representative who does not have consent, the MaSCO team will attempt to seek the consent of the participant/plan nominee. To ensure the team are being as efficient as possible, it is appreciated, if electorate offices can encourage constituents to provide evidence of consent where possible. For example, Support Coordinators are not by default authorised representatives. If the Support Coordinators can provide evidence of consent whether that is via an email from the participant or a signed consent form, this will be appreciated. Note: The MaSCO team will commence action while waiting on the outcome of any request for consent.

** We kindly ask that prior to making a representation you check if your constituent has attempted to resolve the matter with the NDIS prior to escalating it to your office. The MaSCO team receives a high volume of representations where the constituent has gone directly to the electorate office prior to making any attempts to resolve the matter with their NDIS contact or by calling our contact centre.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY QUESTION ON NOTICE

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Inquiry into the administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

15 May 2026

PDR Number: IQ26-000066

Mandatory reporting process

Spoken

Hansard page number: 7

Member: Ali France

Question:

Ms FRANCE: Thank you for appearing today. We really appreciate it. I have just a couple of questions that can be taken on notice, following on from what the chair was talking about in terms of the communication between the commission, the NDIA and you guys. I’ve had lots of different people come to me about how they’ve made a complaint to their plan manager or a complaint about the type of care they’re receiving, but quite often that doesn’t get to the commission or the department; somehow, it’s lost in the system. Have you given any advice about or are there any plans for mandatory reporting, particularly to the commission, particularly for cases where a participant or a family member has raised concerns about them being taken advantage of, abuse, underservicing or things like that? When we’re looking at people with very, very significant disabilities, there’s a high risk, just like in child safety, where there’s mandatory reporting. If you can get back to me on that. I did ask the commission about mandatory reporting. That’s from the NDIA space, from plan managers and people who are in discussion with participants all the time. That’s the first one.

Answer:

Registered NDIS providers are subject to mandatory reporting obligations under the NDIS (Incident Management and Reportable Incidents) Rules 2018. Providers must notify the NDIS Commission of all ‘reportable incidents’ arising in connection with the delivery of supports and services to people with disability. These include:

• the death or serious injury of a person with disability
• abuse or neglect
• unlawful sexual or physical contact, or assault
• sexual misconduct, including grooming
• the unauthorised use of restrictive practices.

Providers are required to report all such incidents, including allegations, regardless of whether they consider they have responded appropriately.

In addition, the NDIS Commission may receive complaints and information from a range of sources, including participants, families, providers, and other stakeholders, with all non-mandatory reports managed through its complaints function.

When a complaint or enquiry comes through to one of the portfolio agencies, a triaging and assessment process takes place and will be directed to the most appropriate area and agency (the department, the NDIA or the NDIS Commission) for response. For example, the NDIA has a complaints protocol with the NDIS Commission and will sometimes transfer complaints or collaborate on investigations and resolution. This may happen when:

• complaints are made about a provider
• if the issue affects the supports available to a NDIS participant.

The level of information that can be disclosed—either in writing or verbally—is governed by the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). This is of particular importance where the constituent seeks information relating to a third party, such as participant or provider information, as privacy obligations may restrict the information that can be disclosed without the relevant person’s consent.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY QUESTION ON NOTICE

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Inquiry into the administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

15 May 2026

PDR Number: IQ26-000067

Mechanisms for flagging fraud and noncompliance since 2023

Spoken

Hansard page number: 8

Member: Ali France

Question:

Secondly, if possible, are we able to get a breakdown of the mechanisms for flagging fraud and noncompliance since 2023? I understand that this new bill that we’re putting to the parliament will have increased mechanisms. I know that, when the ANAO did their report, the assurance testing didn’t capture services not delivered, false ABNs, fraudulent invoices, collusion between providers and participants, manufacturing, overservicing or underservicing. There are so many bits in there. I completely understand that within the last two years there’s been an uplift, but where are we at? Because we don’t have all the providers registered as yet, I assume that there’s going to be, once all of the providers are registered, a massive increase in compliance. Are we going to be ready for all of those providers? Where are we at? What’s the breakdown? We’ve introduced a heap of measures. What’s the difference? If you can give a timeline of those specifics—I’m sorry to bombard you.

Answer:

On 12 May 2026, the Australian Government (the government) announced, as part of the 2026–27 Budget, continued investment to improve and uplift National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) integrity and participant safeguarding. This includes:

• $280.1 million over 5 years from 2025–26 (and $53.0 million per year ongoing) to continue the Fraud Fusion Taskforce (FFT) and invest in the National Disability

Insurance Agency (NDIA) to continue to detect and respond to fraud and non-compliant payments.

• $358.5 million over 5 years from 2025–26 to develop and implement a new enrolment and digital payment system to improve payment integrity and reduce fraud and non-compliant payments.

These investments build on previous Government funding from 2022 of over $550 million which resulted in the establishment of the FFT, Tranche 1 of the Crack Down on Fraud (CDoF) program and uplifts to the Payment Integrity program.

The FFT, CDoF, and Payment Integrity programs have dramatically improved the NDIA’s ability to detect provider risk. Integrity interventions already implemented are estimated to deliver over $3.4 billion in benefits between 1 November 2022 to 30 June 2029 (i.e. during the FFT lifetime to the end of forward estimates). These benefits include over $960 million in savings to the NDIS due to prevented non-compliant payments and a further $2.5 billion in payments diverted from problematic providers into higher quality spending on genuine disability supports and services.

The FFT has disrupted over 2,500 providers who have submitted incorrect or non-compliant claims to the NDIS. In the 12 months prior to the disruption, these providers had collectively claimed $1 billion from the NDIS. Since the start of the NDIS, these providers had collectively claimed over $4.8 billion. Whilst it is not possible to determine the exact proportion of problematic claims, all these funds should have been directed to genuine supports or providers.

Partnering with other FFT agencies continues to result in increased multi-agency interventions against organised crime syndicates targeting the NDIS. Results as at 31 March 2026 include:

• over 660 taskforce investigations across the 25 member agencies
• significant growth in NDIA warrant executions on suspected criminals, from a total of 30 in the 4 years from 2018–2021 to 77 in the 2025 calendar year.

As at 31 March 2026, 34 individuals involved in 21 investigations related to the NDIS were either in the courts or being assessed for criminal prosecution. Fifteen individuals were before the courts and briefs of evidence were being assessed by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) in relation to the other 19 individuals.

The NDIA received approximately 7,200 tip-offs in the March 2025–26 quarter, compared to approximately 6,600 in the December quarter. The NDIA received over 29,000 tip-offs over the 2024–25 year. This compares to a total of approximately 23,000 received during 2023–24.

As part of the work of CDoF, specific actions have been implemented to improve payment integrity in the NDIA. This includes:

• Identity uplifts
  • Identity uplifts for participants, nominees and providers have been delivered, strengthening identity assurance controls and improving confidence in identity verification processes across key interactions.
• Universal Claim Risk Assessment
  • The NDIA now risk assesses every NDIS claim prior to payment, using data and analytics to identify high-risk claims for further scrutiny, a major shift from historically reactive, post payment review models.

• Manual Payment Reviews (MPRs)
  • High-risk entities (providers or participants) are subject to MPRs, requiring claims to be substantiated before payment.
  • MPRs involve third party verification (participants, service records, bank accounts) and are used alongside criminal investigations where required.
• Rejection and Prevention of non-compliant claims
  • The NDIA has rejected tens of thousands of high-risk claims, halting payments worth tens of millions of dollars before release.
  • The NDIA now reviews more claims per day prepayment than were reviewed annually prior to 2023, indicating a step change in scale and capability.
• Dedicated Payment Integrity program
  • The NDIA has stood up, and expanded a specialist payment integrity workforce, complementing system uplifts delivered CDoF.
  • Changes to operational responses where vulnerabilities affect participants, including safeguarding actions, plan changes and payment suspensions where required.

All NDIS providers must comply with the NDIS Code of Conduct. Registered providers are subject to additional regulatory requirements, including suitability assessments, worker screening, independent quality audits, and obligations relating to complaints, incidents, reporting, and behaviour support. These requirements provide stronger assurance of provider quality and enable greater regulatory oversight by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS Commission).

Registration is currently mandatory for providers delivering higher-risk supports, including specialist disability accommodation, behaviour support, plan management, services to NDIA-managed participants, and the use of regulated restrictive practices.

Reforms to expand mandatory registration to Supported Independent Living and platform providers are well advanced and expected to commence from 1 July 2026. These reforms will strengthen safeguards, increase accountability, and expand regulatory visibility of higher-risk markets.

In parallel, the NDIS Commission is progressing a coordinated program of work to strengthen regulatory effectiveness, including improved processes, enhanced digital capability, workforce development, and targeted communication.

The 2026–27 Budget also announced broader NDIS reforms, including expansion of mandatory registration. These changes will further strengthen provider oversight, address fraud and non-compliance, and improve system integrity.

Further information on mandatory registration, including transitional arrangements, is available on the NDIS Commission website at: www.ndiscommission.gov.au/about-us/ndis-commission-reform-hub/mandatory-registration

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY QUESTION ON NOTICE

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Inquiry into the administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

15 May 2026

PDR Number: IQ26-000068

Combating fraud around plan management changes

Spoken

Hansard page number: 8

Member: Ali France

Question:

Thirdly, I am interested in more detail on combating the fraud around plan management changes. I’d love some specific examples around where that’s gone off the rails, and how that’s gone off the rails, and a bit more background into why this change is so important to bring the plan managers basically under the department. It is correct, isn’t it, that that’s what we’re doing in the next bill? Sorry, that’s three. I don’t know whether we have time to answer any of those—maybe not.

Answer:

Plan management has been identified as a key risk area for fraud. Significant issues have been detected in the plan management market, including fraudulent behaviour, sharp practices, conflicts of interest, payment integrity and governance issues. The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) has estimated that around 90 per cent of plan management providers who service less than 100 participants show significant indicators of fraud.

Concerning payment integrity themes that continue from some plan managers include:

• Processing claims in breach of section 10 of the NDIS Act. For example, claims for iPads, iPhones, Apple watches, and takeaway food.
• Splitting invoices into smaller claims to avoid scrutiny.
• Accepting invoices that don’t meet NDIS invoicing requirements.
• Allowing participants to claim for items not funded in their plan.
• Submitting duplicate claims.
• Having exclusive dealing arrangements across the sector, which increase participant and Scheme risk.

Legislative amendments made within National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the bill) will enable the NDIA to commission a panel of plan management providers to strengthen service quality, improve integrity standards, minimise conflicts of interest and reduce fraud.

This will improve the quality of plan management services and provide the NDIA and NDIS Commission with greater oversight.

More information on the changes to the plan management can be found in the explanatory memorandum of the bill, which is available at: www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7487.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY QUESTION ON NOTICE

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Inquiry into the administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

15 May 2026

PDR Number: IQ26-000073

Written

Chair: Josh Burns

Question:

1. Did the Department have any input into drafting the NDIS Amendment (securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026?

Answer:

• Yes. The Department instructed the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC), who led drafting of the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the Bill).
• In developing the Bill, the Department worked closely with the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS Commission), and the Attorney-General’s Department.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY QUESTION ON NOTICE

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Inquiry into the administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

15 May 2026

PDR Number: IQ26-000074

Written

Chair: Josh Burns

Question:

2. Did the Department provide any advice to the Minister during the drafting of the Bill?

Answer:

• The Department provided updates to the Minister and the Minister’s Office on the status of drafting throughout the drafting process.
• Once a final draft of the Bill had been prepared, the Department briefed the Minister seeking text approval of the Bill and associated supporting material in accordance with the requirements of the Legislation Approval Process.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY QUESTION ON NOTICE

Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Inquiry into the administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

15 May 2026

PDR Number: IQ26-000075

Written

Chair: Josh Burns

Question:

3. How much consultation did the Department engage in with the disability community, prior to the introduction of the Bill on 14 May 2026?

Answer:

• The changes in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill build on work to implement critical recommendations of the Independent Review into the NDIS and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability.
• Both the NDIS Review and the Disability Royal Commission were informed by extensive consultation with people with disability, families, carers, and the sector.
• A range of stakeholders across the disability sector and the states and territories were briefed prior to introduction of the legislation, including:
  • NDIA Board
  • Council on Federal Financial Relations
  • Disability Reform Ministerial Council
  • Disability Representative Organisations
  • NDIS Independent Advisory Committee
  • NDIS Reform Advisory Committee co-chairs
  • Australia’s Disability Strategy Advisory Council chair
  • Provider representatives.

• The Government has released a timeline for the consultation it plans to undertake on the measures later in 2026. This includes: o changes to the eligibility assessment o the design of the Inclusive Communities Fund o new framework planning rules o home and living supports for Supported Independent Living participants o differentiated pricing for unregistered providers o market reforms for social and community participation and capacity building activities.
• Through these processes, the Department will engage with the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee, Disability Representative Organisations, and providers and other key stakeholders in the community through roundtables.
• Public consultation will be announced through the Department’s communication channels and on its website.

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

15 May 2026

PDR Number: IQ26-000076

Written

Chair: Josh Burns

Question:

4. Was the Department responsible for the modelling undertaken to cost these measures, including the changes to support packages for participants?

a. Can you please provide all modelling done by the Department on the measures contained within the Bill?

Answer:

• Yes. The Department worked in partnership with the Scheme Actuary to model and understand the fiscal impact of the NDIS reforms as part of the policy development process.
  • The reforms were modelled as a package as the measures interact.
  • The final policy details for some measures are subject to consultation, and the modelling makes high-level assumptions to best reflect the policy intent.
• Modelling results have been released through the Department’s responses to Senate Orders for the Production of Documents (OPD-504, OPD-506, and OPD-508).
• Not all measures in the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 have a fiscal impact.

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

15 May 2026

PDR Number: IQ26-000077

Written

Chair: Josh Burns

Question:

5. Has the cost of the program been by your design?
   

Answer:

• The NDIS was established to support people with permanent and significant disability, but its scope has expanded to cover many Australians with less significant support needs.
• A lack of clarity about what supports are considered reasonable and necessary has also led to confusion, inconsistency, and a broadening in supports funded by the Scheme over time.
• The reforms address the current drivers of excessive growth in the Scheme, including plan inflation and participant growth, with policy advice focused on options to meet National Cabinet’s target for the NDIS of 5-6 per cent growth, or lower, annually, as agreed on 30 January 2026.
• Reforms also address fraud and integrity and the delivery of quality services and support to participants.

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

15 May 2026

PDR Number: IQ26-000078

Written

Chair: Josh Burns

Question:

6.  In the Department’s view, is there a clear threshold at which the scheme becomes
   

fiscally unsustainable?

Answer:

• Current Scheme growth is tracking at around 11 per cent for 2025-26.
• The NDIS Financial Sustainability Target of no more than 8 per cent growth, agreed by National Cabinet in April 2023, was an interim target. Subsequently, National Cabinet agreed to work towards a more sustainable growth rate of 5-6 per cent, which is more consistent with growth in the economy.
  • Even at 8 per cent annual growth, the NDIS is still forecast to cost over $100 billion and will increase its share of GDP by 0.5 per cent.
  • The NDIS has been the third largest, and the fastest-growing, Commonwealth program.
• Annual Scheme growth of 5 to 6 per cent would reflect unit price inflation, plus growth in Australia’s population, with an adjustment for participant ageing. This would bring NDIS growth more in line with Medicare and Aged Care.

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

15 May 2026

PDR Number: IQ26-000079

Written

Chair: Josh Burns

Question:

7. How confident are you that the growth figures in the Budget will be achieved?

Answer:

• The modelling includes assumptions about the impacts of the measures.
• Further work is underway to finalise policy settings for some measures.
  • This includes the work of the Technical Advisory Group and public consultation on several measures.
• The modelling may need to be updated once this work is finalised and final policy settings are known.