24 April 2026
Committee Secretary Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme PO Box 6100 Canberra ACT 2600
By email: ndis.joint@aph.gov.au
Dear Committee
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the inquiry into the integrity of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (the Inquiry). Aged and Disability Advocacy Australia (ADA) appreciates being consulted on these important issues.
About ADA Australia
ADA is a not for profit, independent, community-based advocacy and education service with more than 35 years’ experience in informing, supporting, representing and advocating in the interests of older people, and persons with disability in Queensland.
ADA also provides legal advocacy through ADA Law, a community legal centre and a division of ADA. ADA Law provides specialized legal advice to older people and people with disability, including those living with cognitive impairments or questioned capacity, on issues associated with human rights, elder abuse, and health and disability legal issues related to decision-making.
ADA advocates and legal practitioners work with identified First Peoples advocates through the Yarn2Action advocacy service for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, to provide individual advocacy services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability.
ADA has reviewed the terms of reference and associated materials and provides the following comments for the Committee’s consideration.
The nature and extent of non-compliance, including fraud and sharp practices
In our experience, non-compliance and exploitative practices within the NDIS occur across a continuum, rather than being limited to isolated incidents of overt criminal fraud.
There are widespread instances in which services or goods funded under participants’ plans fail to meet required standards, are delivered inconsistently, or are, in some cases, not delivered at all.
121 Copperfield Street Geebung Qld 4034 www.adaaustralia.com.au
FREECALL: 1800 818 338 p: (07) 3637 6000
f: (07) 3637 6001 e: info@adaaustralia.com.au
ADA Australia acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of this land and pays respect to Elders, past and present.
Aged and Disability Advocacy Australia trading as ADA Australia | ACN: 610 892 398 | ABN: 19 488 136 200
In more serious cases, our advocates have observed coercive or exploitative conduct, including high-pressure tactics and manipulation directed at participants whose disability may affect their capacity to fully understand arrangements or challenge provider conduct.
This conduct, as well as other methods of inappropriate actions, non-compliance and sharp practices can occur across both smaller and larger provider operations and are not confined to any particular segment of the provider market. We also note that sharp practices and non-compliance may be more difficult to detect, and to respond to promptly, in cases of service providers who operate outside of the NDIS registration framework and as such may be less visible to regulatory oversight and more difficult to monitor. This highlights the need for improved feedback and complaint pathways and proactive oversight mechanisms. Independent advocacy will continue to play a critical role in identifying these risks early, and in support of more timely regulatory intervention.
In our experience, the current regulatory framework lacks sufficient capacity for timely intervention. In the event of issues of non-compliance, repeated complaints to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (the Commission) are often required before any action is taken, even where concerns are serious or ongoing. This creates a significant burden for participants and allows harmful practices to continue unchecked for extended periods. Further, the complexity of the complaint process acts in and of itself as a barrier to effective redress, as many participants (or their families and informal supporters) may be unable to navigate complaint mechanisms without sustained external support.
Poor, negligent and abusive practices are enabled in the absence of clear and effective referral pathways between the Commission and police or investigative bodies, in matters that may involve criminal conduct. Where lines of responsibility are unclear, serious matters risk falling between systems, to the double effect of eroding public and participant confidence that exploitative behaviour will be addressed decisively, and critically – failing to provide recourse and protection for people with disability who are most seriously affected by the offending.
The impacts of non-compliance on NDIS participants and their families
Non-compliance and exploitative conduct have direct and compounding impacts on participants’ safety, wellbeing and trust in the NDIS. ADA advocates regularly support participants who have experienced loss of plan funds, disruption to essential supports, or deterioration in physical or mental health resulting from poor-quality or unsafe services.
Participants with cognitive impairment or psychosocial disability are particularly affected, especially where exploitative practices intersect with power imbalances and limited access to informal supports. In these circumstances participants often experience heightened stress, fear and are more likely to disengage from the NDIS. In many cases, participants report that they are reluctant to raise concerns or lodge complaints due to negative prior experiences or fear of losing supports.
The impacts extend beyond participants themselves, to families and informal supporters, who often assume responsibility for monitoring service delivery, checking invoices and pursuing complaints. As identified above, the process of effectively lodging and monitoring a complaint is relatively complex and time-consuming, and as such, often will not be pursued by people with disability who are already navigating multiple support, social and health systems in the course of daily life.
Effectiveness and adequacy of government policies to improve integrity and safeguard participants
While recent legislative and policy reforms have expanded formal enforcement powers, ADA advocates do not consistently see those powers translating into effective outcomes for participants
2
experiencing harm. The regulatory system remains heavily complaint-driven and reactive, rather than proactive and responsive to risk, particularly for participants with heightened vulnerability.
A significant barrier to effective safeguarding is the inaccessibility of integrity and complaints information. Advocates consistently hear that information developed by the Commission is difficult to locate, overly complex, and largely reliant on online access. This assumes a level of digital literacy, internet access and cognitive capacity that many participants do not have. As a result, participants are often unaware of their rights and the standards they should expect from providers, or the avenues available to address their concerns.
We also note the broader credibility risks facing the scheme. Where exploitative practices are not addressed promptly or visibly, confidence in the NDIS is undermined. At the same time, heightened public focus on ‘rorting’ and fraud risks creating a narrative that frames participants as the problem rather than as people who are entitled to protection. Integrity efforts that fail to appropriately and humanely grapple with this tension risk diminishing public support while simultaneously discouraging participants from accessing the supports they need.
Legislative and other reforms required to strengthen the NDIS
ADA considers that participant-centred, accessible reforms are required to ensure that complaints are heard and acted upon in a timely manner that serves to protect participants. There is a need for clearer escalation and referral pathways between the Commission, police and investigative bodies. Where conduct may involve criminality or serious exploitation, advocates and participants should not be required to navigate multiple disconnected systems to obtain a response.
We strongly suggest the establishment of a dedicated pathway for registered advocacy organisations to raise integrity and safeguarding concerns directly with the Commission. Specialist advocacy organisations operate independently of the NDIS and possess distinct expertise in identifying, supporting and escalating concerns about sharp practice and non-compliance. Establishing a dedicated communication pathway for registered advocates to engage directly with the Commission would strengthen regulatory oversight and support more timely and effective responses to emerging integrity risks.
Integrity and safeguarding information must be delivered in ways that are genuinely accessible. This requires the provision of information in plain language and alternative formats, and proactive dissemination through advocacy organisations, service providers and community networks, rather than reliance on online publication alone.
Finally, integrity reforms must be designed and implemented in a way that clearly distinguishes between provider misconduct and legitimate participant use of supports. Measures intended to address fraud and sharp practices should not result in additional administrative burden, reduced choice or heightened fear among participants who are simply attempting to live ordinary lives with appropriate support.
Overall observations
ADA supports decisive and effective action to address fraud, exploitation and sharp practices within the NDIS. However, integrity cannot be achieved through enforcement alone. An NDIS that is inaccessible, slow to respond or overly reliant on participant-driven complaints will continue to leave the most vulnerable exposed to harm.
3
Strengthening Integrity in the NDIS
Strengthening integrity must occur alongside strengthened access to information, advocacy, inter-agency coordination and participant-centred safeguards. Only by improving responsiveness while protecting participants’ rights and dignity can the NDIS maintain public confidence and deliver on its foundational promise to people with disability.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. ADA would be pleased to further assist the Committee with its inquiry. Should you wish to discuss this on eT do not hesitate to
countact Vanessa a _— Policy Advisor and Solicitor on or via
Yours faithfully
Geoff Rowe Chief Executive Officer