Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Harry Rothenfluh PhD 24 April 2026
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the consultation on the Integrity of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).
By way of background, my brother has been an NDIS participant since 2018, and since February 2025 he is on a Supported Independent Living Plan. I am his NDIS and Centrelink nominee. This submissions addresses points 1, 2 and 4 of the Committee’s Terms of Reference.
The nature and extent of non-compliance, including fraud and sharp practices, in the
National Disability Insurance Scheme
I have terminated services with four supports providers before finding my brother’s current providers, who are providing excellent services. In relation to one of these previous providers, I gave information to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. I provide examples of the compliance issues I have experienced as my brother’s NDIS plan nominee. Providing services to family members
- Two of the providers also provided services to family members. In one case, the provider had a SIL house, where the disabled brother of one of the company directors lived under a SIL plan. One of the on-site supports providers was the father of the SIL plan participant (also the father of the company director). The SIL home was also the former family home and the non-disabled brother of the company director continued to live in the house. I understand the NDIS Quality and Safegards Commission has dealt with this provider. The other case involved a provider of social and community engagement services. One of the company directors is related to two of the NDIS participants on the company’s client list. Impact on NDIS participants and their families In both situations, the primary objective of the supports provider was to look after their family. As a result, neither provider paid enough attention to my brother’s NDIS plan goals, nor did they undertake effective activities to support him achieving these goals. I cannot understate the negative impact of such negligence. The impact on my brother was that his ability to communicate regressed and he made no progress at all toward living more independently. He became more introverted and engaged less with family and friends.
Overcharging for travel and supports
I check and approve every invoice via the app provided by the plan manager. I found many instances where travel was overestimated. Each time I rejected the invoice, the provider laughed it off as an error. But it kept happening too regularly for me to believe this was not standard practice.
I also found, albeit less often, that hours charged for social and community engagement were more than actual hours. My brother is funded for 6 hours of 1:1 supports daily. One service provider charged 1:1 rates for 6 hours every day, when in fact several times a week my brother participated in social lunches and activities organised by the provider for all their clients. These were activities where staff ratios were 1:2, 1:3 or more, but they charged 1:1 rates.
Impact on NDIS participants and their families
Overcharging for services means NDIS Plan funding is exhausted before the end of the plan period. This happened in my brother’s first NDIS plan (2018-19). Luckily for him, at the time NDIS Plans were simply rolled over, a practice no longer allowed. Prematurely exhausting NDIS Plans leaves plan participants without supports, which severely impacts on their ability to access the community, health and other services, and interrupt work on achieving their plan goals. I make sure this doesn’t happen to my brother, but many NDIS plan participants would not have family or friends providing such oversight.
Providing irrelevant or inappropriate services To meet one of his NDIS Goals (to communicate with others more confidently and more clearly) my brother attends speech therapy sessions every fortnight. After 6 months or so I noticed no improvement at all in his communication skills, in fact his communication skills regressed (this period coincided with his time in the first SIL home above). I dropped into one of these sessions and found the speech pathologist playing card games with him. These were educational card games, for example games where my brother had to identify the right item etc. He did this by pointing at the item. Although these are educational, they do not involve improving his speech.
I had already bought my brother an iPad with apps he can use to order specific food/drink items, or buy items of clothing etc, so the speech therapy sessions did nothing to assist my brother to achieve his plan goals. In fact, the speech pathologist did nothing to address the regression in his communication skills resulting from his time in the first SIL home. As an aside, his current speech pathologist has achieved significant improvements in a shorter time.
Impact on NDIS participants and their families
People like my brother are often left out conversations because people find it difficult to understand what they are saying. I have personally experienced my brother’s frustration with not being understood, and despondency when he gives up trying to talk to people. Specialist providers who just see the NDIS as a meal ticket can harm a client’s self-confidence and willingness to engage with others. This can lead to, or exacerbate mental health issues, which is incompatible with Objects c, d, g and ga of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013.
Any legislative or other reforms required to strengthen scheme integrity
Supports providers must be registered
I support the Hon. Mark Butler MP’s plans to introduce registration of NDIS providers. I understand the first tranche will include a subset of service providers, but I would like to see a requirement for all NDIS providers to be registered.
Supports providers must report on progress toward achieving NDIS Plan Goals
Many of the NDIS supports providers who worked with my brother either did not know his plan goals, or did nothing to achieve these goals. In fact, as I described above, some contributed to his regression. Most service agreements I have signed on behalf of my brother include actions to achieve the plan goals, but the majority of providers who worked with my brother did not provide progress reports. Nor were they obliged to report to NDIA on whether the supports they provided helped my brother to achieve his goals. The absence of such requirements enables behaviours where clients are just babysat, or where healthcare workers just go through the motions to get their fee.
Using data to improve disability supports
With the advent of AI, it should be possible to build a system that can track the work providers are doing to assist their clients to achieve their goals. The benefits of such a system would go beyond monitoring compliance. It could be used to identify both successful as well as ineffective approaches/techniques/methods, which would lead to more systemic improved outcomes for people with disabilities.
Closing conflict of interest loophole
Paragraph 5.13 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Nominees) Rules 2013 allows a person to be a nominee even though they are in a professional or administrative capacity, directly or indirectly responsible for, or involved in, the provision of any services for fee or reward to the NDIS participant, provided the conflicts of interest are managed. This is a loophole that could be exploited by a service provider looking to take advantage of an NDIS participant. I understand that paragraph 5.12 of the Rules specifies that such conflicts of interest must be managed and reported to the CEO of NDIA. However, ensuring compliance with this requirement will be difficult where a person or organisation intends to abuse this loophole to quickly drain the NDIS funds. It is therefore unlikely that the Rules will be effective in preventing deliberate exploitation of this loophole. This loophole must be closed more effectively than simply requiring conflicts of interest to be managed and reported.
No payments to be made without a service agreement
Most of the service providers that I found to be unsatisfactory did not provide service agreements until I requested them. In some cases, services commenced, and payments were made by NDIS before the service agreement was finalised. There should be a hard rule against this – no service agreement, no payment.
Controls on corporatisation of NDIS service providers
The first SIL provider my brother used also offered supports coordination services. The current SIL provider (a not-for-profit organisation) does offer supports coordination but prefers their SIL clients to use an independent supports coordinator, due to potential conflicts of interest.
I am concerned about the corporatisation of NDIS service providers. Currently, there appear to be no restrictions on a company providing a full range of support services (eg. SIL and community engagement, healthcare supports) as well as supports coordination and plan management. Profit-driven conglomerates are prominent in healthcare and other areas. Concerns about the impact of corporatisation on the patient experience and quality of treatment were published in The Lancet earlier this year.1 The authors noted “Governments currently appear ill-equipped to effectively govern corporatisation in primary care, as many governments continue to promote the marketisation of, and competition in, health care, assuming that this competition drives efficiency and quality. Yet, growing evidence shows that these assumptions fail in health care, wherein information asymmetry, limited patient choice, and a market with so-called passive payers undermine true competition.”
Given the potential for corporatisation of NDIS service provision, I would like to see the Australian Government include constraints in the legislation to ensure we don’t allow this sector to become corporatised before we understand the unintended consequences.