Submission from a Grandparent Supporting a Teen with Complex Support Needs
I am the grandparent of a teen with intense complex support needs. I have had to support the family through 3 AAT/ART appeals, I have a background in Psychology and am retired Allied Health of 29 years in a public hospital (Medical Radiations).
This submission will address the Terms of Reference with a view to including background influences on compliance for participants.
It is important to obtain accurate measures of actual fraud. Attention must be directed to the deliberate manufactured “loss of social licence” by the over exaggeration of NDIS fraud, The weighting against NDIS and disregard of other fraud must stop. Participants are being judged and abused online and in the media.
The difficulty of participant compliance with a controversial, possibly illegally underfunded plan by an invalid Supports Needs Assessment is addressed. To be blunt a participant may have to choose between lifesaving care, food on the table, or spending from the “wrong” section, or disregarding the s10 lists to ensure their disability is supported.
Recommendations
- That the government release the extent of the NDIS fraud as a comparison with other government entity fraud.
- That the government explain the actions being undertaken against NDIS fraud and in comparison, with the other government entities as above.
- That the government stop the overemphasis on fraud to influence the "social licence" against NDIS in order to bring in cuts
- That the government recognise that participants may be driven to going against the claim rules because of an unfair, inadequate plan.
- That assessments are fit for purpose and drive fair plans with full appeal rights
- That claims Rules eg "the lists" are sensible, allow flexibility, not add to harm, and do not cost the scheme more
- That claim refusals and debts have appeal rights
- That NDIA provide better easy read information on the website for participants to recognise fraud and sharp practise, or unethical / fraudulent approaches to their plan funds.
- That follow up and recognition of reporting is provided when fraud is reported.
This government and Agency must apply the Objects and Principles of the NDIS Act in their compliance dealings including:
(11) Reasonable and necessary supports for people with disability should: (a) support people with disability to pursue their goals and maximise their independence; and
(b) support people with disability to live independently and to be included in the community as fully participating citizens; and (c) develop and support the capacity of people with disability to undertake activities that enable them to participate in the community and in employment.
1. the nature and extent of non-compliance, including fraud and sharp practices, in
the National Disability Insurance Scheme;
The alarming loss of social licence for NDIS has been manufactured. It is the result of the government procured RedBridge report, prior to the 2024 legislation to enable cuts. This report stated that the public were generally supportive of disability support but could have “qualified acceptance” of cuts when messaged with fraud and rorts.
“After presenting respondents with the above proof points that provide vital, believable context of reforms designed to benefit participants, we were able to elicit a degree of qualified tolerance for reforms that would restrict either eligibility for the Scheme (raising the threshold for children with developmental delay) or the amount of support high-need participants would receive (moving to a 1:3
1care model for Supported Independent Living participants),” the research says.
The media messaging storm ensued and has now been resurrected in a wave unseen before as we approach the newest cuts.
“Yesterday I posted about AFR coverage of the NDIS. A lot of people responded. So I kept counting. Here’s what 11 months of data actually looks like.
Between May 2025 and March 2026, the Australian Financial Review published 68 articles specifically about the NDIS. 56 at least of them named the NDIS directly in the headline.
73% of those framed the scheme as wasteful, fraudulent, or economically unsustainable.
One article…centred the voice of someone who actually uses it.
The people I support typically don’t read the AFR, but the people who fund, design, and legislate the NDIS do. So the story those decision-makers are being told, repeatedly and consistently, is that the scheme is out of control, full of fraud, unsustainable, a budget emergency. That story has consequences.” Reuben Seah Occupational Therapist 205632.2.3
Fact Check by AAP on the viral video on Lakemba revealed not 1300 but 16 active Registered providers 3 Theses shock jocks even suggested most of the so called 1300 would be fraudsters. Government did little or nothing to rebut this claim, only an AAP Fact Check did.
1 https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/2024/06/01/exclusive-shorten-revives-the-coalitions-failed-ndis-reforms 2 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/reubenot_looking-deeper-who-is-telling-the-ndis-story-activity-7442822769328697344- Ud_h?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACOS4sABA_Oao9BiMYANh8KzLbiOasbclbo 3 https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/no-sydney-suburb-does-not-have-1300-ndis-providers 2
The rate of fraud must be factual
We need the estimated percentage of NDIS Fraud and a comparison with fraud from other government entities.
“Standing next to him was Mike Phelan, his handpicked acting NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner, with a background in policing and criminal intelligence. Phelan doubled down on a claim he first made as the head of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, that fraud was running at as much as 20 per cent in the NDIS. 4 Rick Morton Saturday Paper
Then there is this analysis by Chris Coombes:
“According to the FOI, the ACIC believes $9bn in total is lost to fraud. So, if Phelan’s claims that up to S6bn or 20% is lost to NDIS fraud is also accurate, the remaining $3bn of fraud must be lost through all other “organised fraud”. Yes, that includes taxation, social security, and … every-freaking-other-type-of-organised-fraud combined.
In other words, we’ve been asked to believe that the cunning NDIS fraudsters are sneakier than all the fraudsters cheating all other programs — combined — by a factor of two. | get that this was the upper end of Phelan’s estimation, but it is still asking us to suspend disbelief.”°
Focusing on NDIS fraud alone is skewed to antagonise the public against disabled people. The effect of this on disabled people is heartbreaking. Socials are showing vile comments and disabled people are being terribly affected.
Just one comment of very many:
Could you remind them that people with disabilities are human. The media and government. Especially Hanson have done amazing job of demonising people on ndis. That now anytime ndis is mentioned the comments are terrible. Some sound a awful lot like eugenics.
It’s frustrating and heartbreaking. We need equipment for daughter when | bring it up with people they think | get everything else on ndis so should be able to afford it. We don’t get food, medicine clothes on ndis but someone read a story about someone getting it all covered so obviously my daughter does to. Even had someone tell me off for claiming glasses on Medicare as was telling it was fraud to claim both. Daughters glasses are not even claimable on ndis! Person didn’t believe me!
Seriously they have done a amazing job of turning people with ndis to the dole bludger!!
reply: i agree | know I’ve experienced some horrific and abusive interactions recently. | also want to point out that there has been some vile undertones to some of the rhetoric around these conversations- i don’t want to repeat them here but its really impacted me and its terrifying
This government induced harm is reprehensible. Therefore, we must have reliable comparisons to other sectors and real figures the “wall to wall” ‘left right and centre” fraud speculation is causing serious harm.
Medicare Fraud for example has been estimated in 2022 at $8 billion a year © yet no one demonises Medicare recipients or calls for scrapping of Medicare.
https://teamdsc.com.au/resources/have-we-been-misled-about-ndis-fraud
Other statistics should be investigated from
Tax Fraud Defence Fraud Aged Care Fraud Centrelink Fraud Education Hospitals
Fraud actions are spruiked as the part saviour of the Budget so called “blow out”. Participants are the first to request the take down of real fraudsters. No one is suggesting inaction on fraud. But actions on cuts are proposed to come from participant’s reasonable and necessary funding, and acceptance of these cuts have been driven by this governments spruiking on fraud and amplified in a media frenzy. The government knows many of the articles are misinformation but does nothing to rectify these claims.
A recently published report for this inquiry from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission states:
‘Today’s SOC networks operate as decentralised, digitally enabled enterprises, frequently spanning multiple jurisdictions… …The scale of harm associated with this threat has grown significantly. The Australian Institute of Criminology estimates the cost of SOC to Australia reached up to $82.3 billion in 2023-24,’ So as the loss to serious and organised crime (SOC) is an amount double the entire NDIS spend then it follows that NDIS is possibly not even the greatest affected but is “an attractive target “.
The report offers examples noting:
“These actors exploit the NDIS to generate income, launder illicit proceeds and conceal asset ownership, often using criminal business models observed across other Commonwealth payment and regulatory programs. This indicates that NDIS exploitation frequently forms part of broader, repeat offending rather than isolated misconduct ”
Why is the government and media so quiet on these other Commonwealth programs??
Another example is this: “A central enabling methodology is the use of cash incentives, or “kickbacks”, to participants, nominees or family members. These arrangements operate along a spectrum ranging from knowing collusion to coercion, and the ACIC assesses that some participants are likely unaware they are involved in fraudulent activity. In coercive cases, intimidation and threats of physical violence have been used to compel compliance, particularly against participants with physical or cognitive impairments.”
Now coercion and threats are deeply concerning, but it also concerns me that there is no evidence or amounts given on the collusion aspect. Frankly funding for plans is very difficult to get and claims difficult to put through. For a participant to syphon off funds, hand half to an enabling fraudster, leaves them without support deemed to be reasonable and necessary. I am sure there may be some rorting, but the public believes it is happening with almost all participants and that is not true.
6 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-17/medicare-leakage-fraud-waste/101537016 4
Similarly, professionals are demonised, and yes an OT was jailed for 6 years. But what is the real incidence. NDIA rarely accept one report alone. How many of these professionals are risking their reputation; AHPRA registration; fines and/or prison?
“…challenges arise in relation to unregistered providers. Unregistered providers can lawfully deliver services to self-managed and plan-managed participants while operating outside many of the suitability, registration and ongoing compliance requirements that apply to registered providers. Given the scale of participant access to this cohort, unregistered providers may pose a real but not yet fully understood fraud risk.”
The unregistered provider comment is speculation and requires evidence. Agency Managed Participants find it MUCH more difficult to scrutinise claims. The registered provider simply accesses funds direct and no one would know whether the claim is reasonable. The Self Manager will scrutinise invoices before paying and know exactly if the hours worked were true.
I am aware the remit of the Criminal Intelligence Commission is fraud focused and likely not as aware of the impact of widespread speculation or lack of rate of the fraud examples. Sadly some of the Criminal Intelligence Commission quotes will be an AFR shock jock headline.
The attacks are out of control and noting Albo has a reported 11 Media Advisors. On the eve of the Press Club budget Chalmers sends the States an ultimatum agree with his demands or they will be up for billions if NDIS collapses. 7 Is Chalmers proposing passive euthanasia rather than looking at other unsustainable government supports (wealth welfare)? NDIS collapse is within government control of ethical, sensitive reform and prioritisation of Commonwealth spend that is skewed toward wealth.
- the impacts of non-compliance on NDIS participants and their families;
Harmful messaging
As mentioned above, the extraordinary focus on fraud has been largely driven by this government and amplified by the media. It has decimated the social licence of NDIS to suit cost cutting. This has over emphasis has been the greatest impact on participants and families. The hate and judgement on socials and by media has been extreme. Frankly disabled people and their families are traumatised by a deluge of blaming comments.
The rejection of procedural fairness
The Support Needs Assessment will have no full appeal rights.
UPDATE:
An announcement from Minister Butler at Press Club, that the courts appeals are harming the government to get on with it, when courts, of course apply the law. NDIA are therefore currently operating outside the law when so many cases are under appeal and successful. Noah died when at ART. It seems they will now change the right of procedural fairness with a bad law.
The NDIS Act has no appeal rights to revoke a debt that is proven wrong. A waiver does not mean the debt was wrong even if it was. The NDIS website notes that 25% of debts served on participants were incorrect. The Agency chose to revoke those debts when they knew they were wrong. They are not legally required to accept an appeal, even Robo Debt had appeal rights.
A debt by proxy happens when a legitimate claim is refused or even significantly delayed. This time the NDIA is in debt to the participant. Furthermore, if the Agency rejects the claim, the self-managed participant is exposed to the NDIS provider raising a debt against them for the unpaid invoice, unless the self-managed participant pays that invoice out-of-pocket to avoid a debt. Remember, as with Robodebt, this could be a legitimate claim. There are no appeal rights to wrongful rejection of claims. NDIA have often been found to be incompetent with internal decisions.
These wrongful debts and claims refusals happen to providers too and are inexcusable. But for a participant on a very low income, they can be severely compromised by these wrongful actions.
The Transitional Rules s 10 and impact on compliance errors
The transitional Rules, the IN and OUT lists were spruiked as providing certainty and ease of claims compliance and funding. Of course, the intent was cost cutting via an underhanded “means test” but the “means” was always assumed, never validated. Yet many with disability live in poverty and must choose between their support or rent and food.
At its worst, Noah died because the Rules were an argument of interpretation of those Rules. The Hospital in the Home is Health. Health has different interpretations of HiH you can look it up, usually it is for follow-up care after surgery for example. The Rules almost reiterated the “Principles to determine the responsibilities of the NDIS and other services systems” APTOS 8 document but left out a crucial line of fine print:
Note: In applying these principles, consideration will be given to alignment with services funded under the National Health Reform Agreement, with a view to avoiding overlap or gaps.
The announcements at Press Club seem to hold little hope for the Federal Government to avoid gaps, as they exit people to no care..
These Rules are causing confusion and harm. At ART some NO listed items are allowed as a matter of interpretation. There are many grey areas.
Page 7
Many cannot afford to self-purchase from their pension and going without can harm.
It is an overreach and an insult to those who can barely afford basics. The shocking attitude of those with privilege, was exposed on a DSS webinar on s10 Rules when the government representative stated that noise cancelling headphones for an autistic person to function at school or work, were a day-to-day expense because she uses them on a plane! As a non-disabled person this executive can chose to purchase them or go without and would have the means to purchase. For many with autism, this item would be the only way they can leave the house.
One participant was rationing his water. He needs a carbonator due to dysphagia. Recommendation from a Speech Pathologist and Video fluoroscopy evidence that carbonated water did not aspirate. There are published papers confirming this use. He is allergic to thickener. The carbonator is on the No list and bottled water is expensive.
Others are forced to buy from disability shops at much greater expense
Two examples of greater costs (and there are many):
- A Speech Pathologist reported that she requested an iPad for communication. It was refused. But was told she could order a $5000 device.
- A severely disabled person with epilepsy and intellectual disability needed a simple $500 Apple watch for falls. The person has no capacity to use any other function of the watch. It was refused but offered a falls detection device for $1800
The unintended consequences of s10 Rules
1. Added costs both in the immediate and the future
2. Killed innovation – “disability shop only”
3. Added confusion to participants and staff
4. Flouted the Objects and Principles of the Act
5. Flouted the UNCRPD
6. Caused harm
7. Caused greater poverty
8. Caused exclusion and isolation
9. Has been a failed pilot with no risk analysis
The implications for compliance are in the difficulties of interpretation, lack of knowledge of LACs, planners and compliance staff in applying the Rules. How many are aware of the Explanatory Statement:
“Column 2 of the table contains a description of the supports that fall within each category. Many of the descriptions include a list of included supports. These lists are not exhaustive so do not exclude an item that is not listed in the description. The purpose of the listed supports is to clarify the kinds of supports that fall within the overarching description.” Explanatory Statement
Many compliance investigators/ planners/ Plan Managers erroneously require a support to be named in
- the plan to be claimable.
This is inaccurate, unless a “stated support” but has caused compliance accusations. Spend according to the plan is used as an inaccurate. sweeping statement, as well as onerous bureaucratic chasing of “what does this mean”?
It is a travesty that participants were put through an ordeal of a compliance interrogation of dubious clarity and issued a debt notice or had a claim refused that was incorrect. That 25% of participant debts raised were incorrect and revoked by NDIA must be investigated. That information is on the website, an insider stated the real figure is much higher. There is no legislated right to revocation only a waiver, which means the debt stays on the file. Those 25% were revoked by the NDIA good grace not legal right.
These Transitional Rules have been in place since Oct 2024. They were needed (they said) immediately, to support s10 of the NDIS Act. It is deeply concerning that despite significant harms as well as compliance difficulties the updated Rules have been too slow. Harms have been found to hit the most disabled who lives have been threatened by “grey” health responsibility Rules.
That the s10 Transitional Rules were done in a hurry is stated in this video interview transcript on the s10 Rules by George Taleporos with Sarah Hawke DHDA Policy and Legislation on June 6 2025
George Taleporos: It was very rough wasn’t it ? Sarah Hawke: “Yes, absolutely. and you, thanks for pre-empting that. We have to acknowledge, I have to acknowledge that it was, that it, once the bill passed, we had very limited time to make the rule and we didn’t do a very good job of consulting with people, very much the intent of the rule was meant to reflect existing practice, but we know, and we’ve heard that some of the changes were changes and needed to be needed to be a better consultation process. So I think what you’ve said is absolutely fair, George, and that’s why we want to start listening and consulting now so that we can genuinely advise the new ministers about what people’s experience and the impact of the changes through the NDIS supports less have had and what needs to bout is part of the spending flexibility rules,” 6/6/25
So, there we have it a rush job set in legislation that is harming and can be costing more.
In summary the minutia of investigations on the Agency and participants is likely hardly worth the effort for the return. It is often inaccurate and unfair. The promise of the Review was for flexible funds because the disabled persons know their supports needs best has been long lost. These s10 Rules need to be binned for a sensible flexible approach that is principles based of disability need, and with attention to harm. .
The budget threats that disregard harm:
Short term boosts to the government budget that cause harm are going to cost more long term.
“Crossbench MPs will push back against Labor’s attempts to rein in spending on the NDIS in next month’s budget, warning that premature efforts to curb the $50 billion scheme’s growth will just move costs onto other areas such as health and aged care.”
As NDIS participants cautioned against focusing on costs at the expense of the scheme’s many benefits, several independents, led by Monique Ryan, were on Tuesday writing to the scheme’s ministers, Mark Butler and Jenny McAllister, with their fears that the government was prioritising budget savings over vulnerable people.”
“The crossbench MPs, who also included Kate Chaney, Zali Steggall and Nicolette Boele, were making similar arguments as they drafted their letter to Labor’s ministers on Tuesday, criticising poor transparency over how the government planned to achieve any of its growth targets. They were also concerned that reducing NDIS funding to achieve short-term budget repair would not make needs disappear, but shift costs to health, aged care, housing and income support. Ryan said Labour had not yet laid out its plan for structural reform by formally responding to the 2023 NDIS review, commissioned by former minister Bill Shorten.”9
Greens Senator Jordon Steel-John has commented on the government’s official” Razor Gang” saying the NDIS provides basic essentials needed for disabled people and our families. He states overwhelmingly women end up doing unpaid work.
The proposed Supports Needs Assessment (SNA) is not fit for purpose and threatens compliance.
Without a fair plan it will be very difficult for a participant (or provider for that matter) to be exact in complying with the plan or other policy. The risk is serious harm when supports fail, and yet the participant is deemed in trouble.
The government has announced a 3 month pause on implementation, however that seems only in line with the changing policy chaos causing “critical risk”
“Late and changing policy/design inputs (plan approval/change/variation, support needs assessment [SNA], personal and environmental circumstances questionnaire, targeted [assessments], budget model engine schemes) have significantly increased build effort, exhausted contingency and placed the June minimum viable product (MVP) at critical risk,” a project update dated February 16 says. 10
This Committee has already wisely recommended further testing of the base tool I-CAN
7.37 The committee recommends that the National Disability Insurance Agency conduct testing of the I- CAN tool across a broad range of disability types and people with different intersectional characteristics,
Including First Nations people and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, to
confirm the accuracy and reliability of results.
That testing must be robust, that is not the limited testing carried out inhouse, on small samples without controls. It will be very important to ensure that the research and testing has academic peer acceptance.
The president of the Australian Psychological Society, Dr Kelly Gough, which represents more than 25,000 psychologists across Australia, said there were strengths to the I-CAN tool, but was concerned about the way the tool had been “validated” – tested and shown to produce consistent results. Gough warned that if the I-CAN were to be implemented broadly without further research and validation, there could be consequences. The president of the Institute of Clinical Psychologists, Dr Marjorie Collins, shared Gough’s concern that the I-CAN has not be validated for use with a wide range of disability groups. “The I-CAN has not been tested on very many populations at all,” she said, adding to roll it out to all adult NDIS participants without further testing would be “reprehensible.“12
From Gerry Humphris Emeritus Professor of Health Psychology at the Medical School, University of St Andrews. “I have constructed new measures myself in clinical social assessments (e.g. FCR4/7 and MDAS) and am aware these instruments take many years of research. I note that the I-CAN was first published as a scale in 2014. The key level of internal consistency (or reliability) is the first port of call to eamine the properties of new measures. The lower bound estimate (of Cronbach’s alpha) was found to be 0.73. Not unrespectable, but accounts for only 53% approximately of the total measurement variance. That is, to predict the assessment of disability on a further occasion using this measure would return the same value just over half of the time.” 13
Testing of the I-CAN tool needs to be on the changed tool for budget purposes as offered by the Centre for Disability Studies in their 2024 submission number 20 to the Senate Inquiry on the 2024 NDIS Act amendment. “CDS recognises that the Commonwealth may want appropriate control of the assessment tool used for determining reasonable and necessary budgets for NDIS participants and would be happy to discuss suitable arrangements. We would welcome exploring these opportunities further with the relevant parties.” This group cannot be considered impartial as they have been well funded for their involvement of supplying a tool that experts state has limited validity. They were actively proffering their services in 2024. The procurement of this tool, with a 5-year contract, would be worthwhile for the committee to investigate.
It will be important that the JSC follow up with their recommendations to NDIA to release more information.
That the Supports Needs Assessment proposal, as we understand it now, rejects the NDIS Review recommendations at every step is cause for deep concern.
Action 3.4 called for “…whole-of-person level… structured, reliable and valid assessment processes to enable Needs Assessors to accurately identify support needs and intensity. This should also include an assessment of what risks might be present in the participant’s life and what safeguards could be put in place in response.” NDIS Review Final Report p 93 Emphasis added
Action 3.8 ‘a skilled and qualified Needs Assessor who is a trained allied health practitioner or social worker or similar…
… include reviewing any existing information provided by the participant and trusted professionals’ NDIS Review Final Report p 88 Emphasis added
Assessments in 2021 — were not done in consultation with the disability community and, as a result, provoked considerable anxiety and anger. These were a short-cut algorithm driven approach to planning that was never validated or transparent. Our proposed approach to the participant pathway (see Recommendation 3) is fundamentally different to Independent Assessments. People with disability, as well as experts, must be involved in implementing our new approach to ensure budget setting is fair and can be trusted.“ NDIS Review Final Report p. 36
LATE NEWS:
From Minister Butler’s Press Club address, the SNA is paused, which is a good thing, but unlikely to give enough time for robust research and testing suggested by experts. It is deeply concerning that a one tool fits all seems to be being proposed for access.
Appeal Rights
All these inconsistences with assessment best practice demonstrate that the Support Needs Assessment and resulting reasonable and necessary budget should have the right of appeal. It is a measure of protection against harm for a poor process of assessment and demands procedural fairness and the application of the Objects and Principles of the Act. . Currently only the replacement assessment, by the same process, will be permitted. The consultation has not even advised how the Rules will make a replacement decision available and that information has been requested by this Committee
3. the effectiveness and adequacy of successive government policies to improve scheme integrity, safeguard participants, and tackle non-compliance;
The history of fraud detection had a woeful start. I can’t give you a date but the NDIS Grassroots discussion Facebook had a post from a provider that they had put in a wrong Ndis number and up popped another plan for claiming. No other id was required just their own provider number. It was reported and shut down next day but the backlog of almost no oversight for many years is still be felt.
11
Page 12
Section Heading (if applicable)
The NDIS Commission was not set up until 2018 and initially not nationally
The Fraud Fusion Task was set up in 2022 and has links to 23 other agencies for fraud detection. 14 It should be expected that there will be much better fraud control in future especially with resources to tackle organised crime.
Any legislative or other reforms required to strengthen scheme integrity.
-
Obviously, the organised crime investigations need expertise. That is where the capacity should be invested in, rather than micromanaging participant claims.
-
That participants that report fraud are given good feedback on how their report will be handled. Currently many feel that nothing happens and that it’s not worthwhile.
-
Are there systems that can keep records of one maybe minor report against a name and/or ABN to build a file noting repeat behaviour? In other words, is a small error worth reporting, people need to know as currently there is no confidence that exists.
-
Much better information on what scamming and sharp practice looks like, including easy read versions. How to protect and to report. The website version is incredibly dull.
-
The red tape on claims for participants needs to be implemented with real codesign and attention to accessibility. Participants want action on crime but want fairness too. The appeal rights rejected claims and debt revocation must be in the Act as s99 items. The claims compliance team do not seem have the skills to get it right. For example, erroneously stating a claim must be mentioned in the plan to be claimed, even when the plan wording is flexible.
-
Agency Management has the worst oversight of invoices. The participant may not ever know how many hours for a service were claimed because the provider access funds direct. If the participant receives a duplicate claim, it is often on request only and bulk listed not properly itemised. The provider may not even know that Mavis just didn’t turn up or left early. Then again criminals could submit hours with no intention of doing work. A solution could be for an accurately itemised duplicate invoice be sent to the participant, but not all participants have capacity or supports to check.
-
For Self-Managed and in many cases Plan-Managed the participant scrutinises every invoice. They know when the cleaner how long the cleaner is in their home, and whether it matches the claim.
LATE NEWS: Joint Committee of the Public Accounts and Audit 23/4/26 hearing
John Dardo DCEO Fraud Fusion Taskforce stated that they have MORE oversight of self- managed claims than Agency Managed claims.
- The Registration Taskforce report was an exemplary body of work co-chaired by highly respected Natalie Wade now associate commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safequards Commission This report has been gathering dust with government. They don’t need to do the spade work again.
- Scope of self-directed supports Recommendation 6 There should be mechanisms put in place to support arrangements for self-directed supports. A process should be developed whereby the participant will register themselves for self-directed supports, and thereby all their support providers would then also automatically become registered and visible. a. The process of registration of self-directed supports should be co-designed with people with a disability. b. Self-directed supports would sit in a new category within the registration categories but would also be subject to review and auditing consistent with arrangements for other service providers, except for the evaluation of Practice Standards which do not apply to self-directed supports. These approaches need to be co-designed with people with disability.
Self-Direction registration with an audit process, must be available to even (and especially) the most complex care because for many the family supervision keeps them alive.
Kylie Johnson, Noah’s Mother on Linked in:
Noah DID NOT HAVE FUNDING FOR SUPPORT WORKERS OR ANYONE OVERNIGHT. Noah was recognised by the Medical professor who did the Independent Medical Examination asked for by the NDIS, as having being the most medically complex person with disabilities living at home. He recommended registered nursing care with Critical care experience and training. The NDIS IGNORED THEIR OWN EXPERT AFTER IGNORING THE EVIDENCE COMPILED BY OVER 20 DOCTORS AT THE NDIS INTERNAL REVIEW. The NDIS took away self-management during the review, even though it was not a reviewable item for 2024. They made Noah’s plan Agency managed, which means nobody manages the plan. It also means all supports must be from NDIS Registered providers and each provider must be approved to be put on the list from which supports can be funded.
To make matters worse, during the ART process I was asked to provide list of all of Noah’s required AT and consumables. Anything that was on this list was then denied by NDIS as they said it was before the Tribunal. The ART did not help. Ministers Shorten and Jenny McAlister refused to help because the matter was before the tribunal. Even now, the CEO of the NDIS, has used the excuse that the matter is before the tribunal!
13
Noah died while at the tribunal because no registered provider could be found that would accept the risk.
Conclusion
This government is causing much harm by manufacturing reduced “social licence” with skewed emphasis on NDIS fraud. This government is very quiet on the extent of, and actions taken on fraud in other government entities.
Overall, this means that the government will want to announce their successful crackdown on fraud to paint the picture of massive savings on the scheme for the election.
The savings from reduced fraud will be less significant than the massive savings that will come from cuts to participants’ plans or numbers of participants.
The proposed cuts have no evidentiary basis of reduced need and no other realistic supports are available for loss of support.
The cost shifting and harm caused does not even save the taxpayer.
It is very poor policy for Labour to target disabled people and flies in the face of the promises they made.