Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Written questions on notice arising from public hearing of 15 May 2026
1. Pricing approach and financial sustainability: Your submission comments that the current Pricing approach has an impact on ensuring the provision of quality supports for NDIS participants and the future operation of the NDIS.
(a) Can you please elaborate further on how the pricing approach impacts the financial sustainability of the NDIS?
The sustainability of the NDIS relies on a sustainable provider market. The current pricing approach has put at risk those larger registered providers who are equipped to provide comprehensive, well-regulated services to people with complex support requirements ie: the people the NDIS was designed to serve. Often these are the “providers of last resort” where other providers have been unable or unwilling to fund the essential staff training, supervision and policy frameworks required. The current pricing approach has created a fragile operating environment within this market segment and pushed many of these providers toward insolvency, including large not for profits and those for-profit providers who have invested in the systems and resources required for this work.
The current pricing approach does not consider cost pressures, nor does it set prices to ensure quality outcomes for participants. The Agency needs to move ahead with differentiated pricing and planning much faster that currently set out in the 3-year plan
As outlined in our submission there are registered providers, unregistered companies or associations and sole traders. All are currently claiming the same price but do not have the same costs. A Sole Trader working 40 hours a week could be earning nearly $150,000 a year yet not have the same overheads as registered providers. Arguably, this does not produce value for money and rewards unregulated, often inadequate and even poor-quality services at the expense of comprehensive services that deliver quality outcomes for participants.
2. Savings from reduced high intensity funding: Your submission contends that the ‘NDIA has progressively reduced funding from high intensity to standard funding as a means of saving money. Members have reported a reduction in the proportion of clients funded at high intensity level from 60% in 2018 to 20% in 2025 despite no concomitant reduction in participant needs.’
(a) From your experience, what impact will reduction of high intensity funding have on the financial sustainability of the NDIS?
As stated above, the sustainability of the NDIS relies on a sustainable provider market. The savings from participants with High Intensity support needs not being funded at appropriate levels for their requirements is a false economy. Funding at a lower than required rate for these participants results in the Agency (govt) funding UNSAFE plans ie: funding providers to employ inexperienced, untrained workers to work with participants with very complex support needs. This impacts on safety of participants themselves, their co-residents and the staff that support them, and can ultimately put the persons service at risk. This practice impacts
1 | Page
significantly on provider viability as many registered providers continue to employ experienced, appropriately trained workers due to critical safety concerns, even though the agency is not funding them to do so. Such impacts on registered providers means that many are facing financial viability and significantly increased risks thus threatening the viability of a strong provider market.
3. Rewards: Your submission notes that the current pricing approach does not provide any incentive or reward for quality and safety, instead it incentivises low-quality services.
(a) What administrative solutions would you recommend that the Committee consider? From your experience, what impact would this have on claimant and provider compliance with NDIS claim requirements?
The Agency needs to move ahead with differentiated pricing and planning much faster that currently set out in the 3-year plan to ensure that planning accurately predicts the requirements of participants for safe, quality service delivery and that pricing considers the true costs of the service required. The current pricing approach does not consider cost pressures, nor does it set prices to ensure quality outcomes for participants.
As outlined in our submission there are registered providers, unregistered companies or associations and sole traders. All are currently claiming the same price but do not have the same costs. A Sole Trader working 40 hours a week could be earning nearly $150,000 a year yet not have the same overheads as larger registered providers. Arguably, this does not produce value for money and can serve to reward unregulated, often inadequate and even poor-quality services at the expense of comprehensive services that deliver quality outcomes for participants.
2 | Page