C3 ooo MDAA

INQUIRY INTO THE INTEGRITY

OF THE NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME

APRIL 2026

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

We respectfully acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we live. work. and meet. We pay our respects to Elders past. present. and emerging.

We recognise their enduring connection to their land. waters. and skies and honour their rich cultural heritage and knowledge systems.

We commit to listening. learning. and standing in solidarity with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. walking alongside them in the ongoing journey towards justice and reconciliation.

Contact for this submission:

William Robin

redacted

Alicia Rodriguez

redacted

MULTICULTURAL DISABILITY ADVOCACY AUSTRALIA 2 www.mdaa.org.au

Multicultural Disability Advocacy Australia (MDAA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this Inquiry into the integrity of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

MDAA is a peak advocacy organisation representing people with disability from multicultural backgrounds, their families and carers. Our work is grounded in human rights, cultural safety, and the lived experience of the communities we represent. Through our advocacy we observe firsthand the ways in which policy settings and system design impact participants’ ability to exercise choice, control, and dignity.

MDAA’s position is that integrity in the NDIS must be understood not only as the prevention of fraud and misuse, but as the creation of a system that is transparent, accessible, culturally safe, and capable of safeguarding participants from harm. A narrow focus on compliance risks obscuring the structural conditions that enable misuse and disproportionately impact those already facing systemic barriers.

(a) The nature and extent of non-compliance, including fraud and sharp

practices in the NDIS

Public discourse on NDIS integrity has increasingly focused on fraud and misuse. MDAA is concerned that this narrative frequently positions participants as risks to the Scheme, rather than recognising the extent to which participants themselves are at risk within it. This framing is not only inaccurate, but risks obscuring the structural conditions that enable harm.

MDAA’s experience consistently demonstrates that non-compliance, while present, does not occur in a vacuum. It arises within a system characterised by complexity, limited transparency, and significant power imbalances between participants and providers. Participants are expected to navigate a highly technical environment, often without access to clear, accessible information or culturally safe support. In this context, reliance on providers is not simply a matter of choice, but a structural necessity.

It is within these conditions that exploitative practices can emerge and persist. MDAA has observed ongoing patterns of overclaiming, billing for services not delivered, and the expansion of supports beyond their original scope without informed consent. These practices are not always readily identifiable to participants, particularly where trust has been established or where participants have limited visibility over how their funds are being used. 3

For people from multicultural backgrounds, these risks are intensified. Language barriers, cultural norms that prioritise respect for professional authority, and limited access to independent and culturally responsive advice all contribute to an environment in which questioning providers can be difficult. The cumulative effect is a deepening power imbalance that undermines cultural safety and limits participants’ ability to exercise genuine choice and control. In such contexts, non-compliance often remains hidden until significant harm has already occurred.

MDAA is also concerned by the increasing policy emphasis on tightening provider regulation through measures such as registration. While registration may provide a baseline level of assurance, it must not be overstated as a safeguard. In practice, registration is frequently interpreted by participants, particularly those from multicultural communities, as a form of government endorsement. This can reinforce trust in providers without necessarily strengthening oversight of their conduct.

Without complementary measures that enhance transparency, accountability, and participant visibility, there is a risk that registration will create a false sense of security. For multicultural participants in particular, this dynamic may further reduce the likelihood of questioning or challenging provider behaviour, ultimately increasing exposure to harm rather than mitigating it.

Case Study:

MDAA’s advocacy work includes supporting a family who experienced significant financial and emotional harm due to provider misconduct within the NDIS.

One family in particular engaged a registered provider to provide behaviour therapy for multiple siblings on the NDIS. The provider became a consistent presence in the family home and established a sense of trust and familiarity becoming a source of central support within the household. Reflecting on this experience, the participant described feeling that the provider had “groomed” the family.

This dynamic was reinforced through collaboration with other practitioners, none of whom raised concerns about the provider’s conduct. The absence of oversight or accountability within these professional relationships further entrenched the family’s reliance on the provider.

The family’s funding arrangements included both NDIA-managed and plan-managed supports. This created limited transparency, particularly in relation to claims made through the NDIA portal, where invoices are not routinely visible to participants. A long established relationship with the plan manager also contributed to the family adopting what they described as a

This experience underscores a critical gap between regulatory expectations and lived reality. It raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of current safeguarding and complaints mechanisms, and the extent to which participants, particularly children, those in regional communities, or who have past experiences of trauma, are adequately protected from harm, even where providers are formally registered.

With the above in mind, MDAA emphasises that these risks are not experienced uniformly. An intersectional lens is essential to understanding how harm is produced and compounded within the NDIS. Participants who navigate multiple and overlapping forms of disadvantage, such as disability, cultural and linguistic diversity, age, and geographic isolation, face heightened barriers to safety, reporting, and redress. These intersecting factors can limit access to information, reduce confidence in engaging with complaints processes, and increase reliance on a small number of providers.

Without an explicit commitment to intersectionality in the design and implementation of integrity and safeguarding measures, there is a risk that the NDIS will continue to inadequately respond to those most at risk of harm. For MDAA, embedding intersectionality is not an abstract principle, but a necessary condition for achieving equity, cultural safety, and genuine participant protection within the Scheme.

(b) The impacts of non-compliance on NDIS participants and their

families

The impacts of non-compliance extend beyond financial loss and must be understood in the context of participants’ broader lives. When funds are misused or exhausted prematurely, participants can lose access to essential supports that are critical to their health, development, and independence. For families, this can mean extended periods without therapy or assistance, often during key developmental stages.

Equally significant is the emotional and psychological impact. Experiences of exploitation, particularly where they involve trusted providers, can result in profound loss of confidence in the NDIS and in service systems more broadly. Participants and families may become reluctant to engage with new providers, even where supports are urgently needed.

For multicultural communities, these impacts are intensified by existing barriers and experiences. Cultural stigma, past experiences of trauma, and unfamiliarity with complaint mechanisms can make it more difficult to report concerns or seek redress. Fear of authority or previous negative experiences with institutions may further discourage engagement.

In this context, non-compliance contributes not only to individual harm but to systemic inequity, as those who are least equipped to navigate the system are those most likely to be adversely affected.

(c) The effectiveness and adequacy of successive government policies

MDAA acknowledges that governments have taken steps to strengthen the integrity of the NDIS. However, current approaches remain insufficiently balanced and do not adequately reflect the lived experience of participants.

A predominant focus on compliance and cost containment risks shifting the burden of integrity onto participants, without addressing the structural conditions that enable misuse. Measures that increase surveillance or restrict flexibility may inadvertently limit participants’ ability to exercise choice and control, particularly where safeguards and supports are not equally strengthened.

At the same time, provider accountability mechanisms have not kept pace with the scale and complexity of the Scheme. As demonstrated in the case study above, there remain significant gaps in early detection, real-time monitoring, and effective enforcement.

Critically, current policy settings do not adequately embed cultural safety. Without meaningful co-design with multicultural communities, integrity measures risk being inaccessible or ineffective for those who face the greatest barriers.

MDAA is also concerned that public narratives emphasising fraud may undermine wider public confidence in the NDIS. The Scheme represents a transformative investment in the rights and inclusion of people with disability, a reality which must be promoted.

(d) Legislative or other reforms required to strengthen Scheme integrity

MDAA’s individual advocacy program supporting people during external appeals at the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) has shed light on the need for a robust and accessible appeals framework as a fundamental safeguard within the NDIS which must be understood as central to Scheme integrity. MDAA’s experience demonstrates that many participants from multicultural backgrounds do not receive plans that accurately reflect their needs in the first instance. This can arise where interpreters are not used, where communication is not accessible, or where planning conversations occur in environments that are not culturally safe, limiting participants’ ability to fully articulate their circumstances. In this context, access to independent review and appeal mechanisms is not a secondary feature of the Scheme, but a critical pathway to achieving fair and lawful outcomes.

In light of the latest announcement regarding changes to the scheme, MDAA acknowledges the Minister’s commitment to reducing unscheduled reassessments, and his comments that decisions of the Federal Court and the ART have constrained the Agency’s ability to implement reforms. However, we maintain that it is essential to recognise that these review processes exist to uphold participant rights and ensure accountability. Where decisions are overturned, this reflects that the original decision was not correct or consistent with the law. Efforts to limit access to unscheduled reviews, or presenting a person exercising their right through an external appeal as problematic, risks entrenching flawed decision-making and disproportionately impacting those participants who already face barriers to being heard within the system.

Similarly, MDAA considers that strengthening integrity requires a shift towards a more holistic, rights-based approach. This includes addressing the underlying drivers of non-compliance, while ensuring that participants are protected from harm.

Cultural safety must be embedded as a core component of integrity. This requires investment in culturally safe advocacy, community education, and accessible information, as well as accountability for culturally safe practice across the sector.

Finally, integrity reforms must be accompanied by a commitment to maintaining and strengthening public confidence in the NDIS. This includes promoting a balanced narrative that recognises both the importance of accountability and the fundamental purpose of the Scheme in advancing inclusion, equity, and human rights. 8

Conclusion

Integrity in the NDIS cannot be reduced to compliance alone. It must be understood as the capacity of the Scheme to operate in a way that is fair, transparent, and responsive to the needs of all participants, including those from multicultural backgrounds.

MDAA’s experience demonstrates that current risks to integrity are often rooted in system design, power imbalances, and insufficient safeguards, rather than participant behaviour. Addressing these issues requires reforms that centre the rights, safety, and lived experience of participants.

Our Recommendations:

MDAA recommends that reforms to strengthen the integrity of the NDIS adopt a holistic, rights-based approach that addresses the structural drivers of harm, rather than relying solely on increased regulation or compliance measures.

Recommendation 1: Reframe integrity to centre participant safety and

rights.

Integrity policy should explicitly recognise participants as people at risk within the Scheme. This requires embedding safeguards that prioritise participant protection, informed choice, and procedural fairness across all integrity measures.

Recommendation 2: Establish early intervention and rapid response

mechanisms where fraud is suspected.

The Scheme should include clear pathways for urgent intervention where misuse or irregular spending is identified. Participants must not be left without supports while issues are investigated. This is particularly so if unscheduled reassessments will be reduced in line with what the Health Minister announced this month. Interim funding protections and continuity-of-support provisions are critical to preventing further harm.

Recommendation 3: Enhance provider oversight beyond registration.

While provider registration may form part of the regulatory framework, it must be complemented by active monitoring, stronger enforcement, and meaningful consequences for misconduct. This includes improved detection of billing anomalies, greater scrutiny of provider networks, and transparent reporting of regulatory outcomes. 9

Recommendation 4: Embed cultural safety as a core integrity safeguard.

Cultural safety must be recognised as central to Scheme integrity. This requires mandated standards for culturally safe practice, recognising that integrity measures that are not culturally safe will fail to protect those most at risk.

Recommendation 5: Apply an intersectional approach to safeguarding

and reform.

Policy and legislative reform must explicitly account for the compounding impact of disability, cultural and linguistic diversity, age, gender, and geographic location. Targeted strategies are required to ensure that participants facing multiple forms of marginalisation are not further excluded or exposed to harm.

Recommendation 6: Safeguard access to smaller, culturally specific

providers.

Reforms, including any move toward greater registration requirements, must not reduce the availability of small, community-based, or culturally specific providers. Targeted support should be provided to enable these providers to meet regulatory requirements without compromising their sustainability.

Recommendation 7: Promote a balanced public narrative to maintain

confidence in the NDIS.

Government and public communications should avoid stigmatising participants and instead reinforce the purpose of the NDIS as a rights- based system. Maintaining public trust requires recognising both the importance of accountability and the fundamental role of the Scheme in advancing equity and inclusion.

Recommendation 8: Reforms aimed at improving efficiency, such as

reducing unscheduled reassessments, must not limit or deter access to merits review.

The role of the Administrative Review Tribunal and the courts in overturning decisions should be recognised as essential to ensuring lawful and fair outcomes, and as a key accountability mechanism that identifies and corrects flawed decision-making within the Scheme.