Submission: Integrity of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Committee: Date referred:SubmissionsJointclose:Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance SchemeReporting date:25 March 2026 24 April 2026 02 July 2026 Terms of reference: The Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme will inquire into and report on:

1. the nature and extent of non-compliance, including fraud and sharp practices, in the National Disability Insurance Scheme;
2. the impacts of non-compliance on NDIS participants and their families;
3. the effectiveness and adequacy of successive government policies to improve scheme integrity, safeguard participants, and tackle non-compliance; and
4. any legislative or other reforms required to strengthen scheme integrity.

Dear Sir,

1.  The same old story

The sad thing about this inquiry is that we have been here before, so many times and in so many ways. I’ve been writing for the past decade about how poor the NDIS is,1 yet governments, consultants and parliamentary committees say ‘oh, let’s change this procedure or pass this rule or amend the legislation (again) and everything will be okay’. If that was going to happen, it would have occurred a long time ago. So now, this Committee has a challenge to confront: are you prepared to look at the NGO providers and administrators who are to the NDIS what white ants are to a house, or will you (like many before you) paint over the cracks and avert your eyes?

I am also sick of being told that churches, charities and other NGOs are full of wonderful people, doing good things and doing their best. They are not, and as for integrity, many could not spell the word, much less behave in such a way. Why would I say such things? The litany of inquiries dating from colonial times should be the first indicator. The webpage Find and Connect highlights a 2014 paper prepared by Sherlee Swain entitled ‘History of Australian inquiries reviewing institutions providing care for children’. The document was prepared for the Royal

1 See e.g. Search: “Adam Johnston” “NDIS“ hhttps://www.google.com/search?q=%22Adam+Johnston%22+%22NDIS%22&rlz=1C1CHWL en&oq=%2“Adam+Johnston%22+%22NDIS%22&gs lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhG AoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigATIJCAQQIRgKGKABMgcIBRAhGI8CMgcIBhAhGI8C0gEKNTQ2MTBqMGoxNagCC LACAfEF3peQ9EImeZ0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 as at 4/4/2026.

Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

It is listed alongside a long list of related reports and inquiries.

Add to this a growing list of contemporary reports from the Aged Care Royal Commission to the Disability Royal Commission and other inquiries, including this one. Amid this, I note especially the disappointing report into the NSW RSL.$ True gentleman and soldiers like the late Sir John Monash would obviously be appalled at the breach of faith with servicemen and the public. But the RSL Inquiry Report reminded me so much of my time on the Spastic Centre/Cerebral Palsy Alliance Board (CPA) that it was very sobering reading.

Things were done in very particular ways (at both organisations) because that was the way things were always done. Charges were put on the corporate credit or travel card with little apparent oversight. For example, one will never forget a conversation I had with the CPA’s then Company Secretary The organisation gave me a Cabcharge pass for taxi travel to Board meetings and related events. was surprised I provided receipts as he claimed to have no way to audit them and any irregularities would be a matter for the Finance and Audit Committee. Theoretically, I could have taken a taxi trip to Timbuctoo before anyone raised as much as an eyebrow. Equally, there were events at places like Rosehill Racecourse, mandatory Institute of Company Directors training and professional photography, all which CPA paid for. I was expected to attend, even as I queried the growing cost.

The treatment of and largesse provided to directors and senior staff contrasted with that provided to clients. When the organisation discovered a staff member had been defrauding clients in a group home for a year, I expected the Executive and/or Board to endorse reports to police, the Ombudsman and any other relevant regulator.

One was quickly told that the families concerned did not want to make complaints, the money was recouped and the staff member was quietly let go. For the organisation, its reputation remained untarnished, which I soon discovered, was the key consideration. You could just about change a few names and dates in the RSL Report and transpose CPA. The difference for the RSL is that it got found out.

Ultimately, after 19 months, my tenure with CPA concluded by mutual agreement. They would likely claim I interfered in operations and that I was discourteous to the organisation’s long-term President and Board Chair. My side is that staff approached me for assistance and advice which I was happy to provide. Equally, if courtesy meant ignoring accumulating governance, financial and other policy issues, then as one of only two Board members with disability, this was something I would not do.

The experience made me question my beliefs about charity, whether it was indeed benevolent or a public good and if the tax advantages many charities receive should continue. Increasingly,

• my answer is ‘no’ to all these questions.

With the roll out of the NDIS, you now have a bunyip aristocracy5 of NGO’s receiving tax expenditures, donations from corporations, high wealth individuals, the public and NDIS funds. This is arguably the act of organisations who are double, triple and quadruple dipping into pre-tax funds. To me, this is unethical and should be regarded as a form of fraud itself. The actions are slick, highly organised and professional. They come from increasingly corporatised coalitions of charitable entities, as demonstrated by the 2019 article: Four Australian top charities form joint NFP fundraising entity6. There may be nothing wrong in this, but again, who was asked, who inquired and as it all too often happens, how long will it be before somebody has to ask: where did all the money go?

Forgive my lack of faith but there are clear examples of what can go terribly wrong when governments outsource the care and support of the old, young, disadvantaged, disabled or otherwise vulnerable to third parties. ABC journalist Adele Ferguson has completed several in-depth investigations into childcare7, and Registered Training Organisations/Private Colleges8.

There is credible evidence that many people in receipt of charity feel shame because of it9. There are all the previous inquiries into charities, to which it is all too easy to add new entries10 as well as my own contributions11. All policy makers over the last decade seem wantonly miss the warnings of many who are well placed to advise12. Meanwhile, there were people

The greatest breach of faith

In declining to fund anything aimed at the functional improvement of a participant, the Scheme reduces its costs. However, to my mind, this is also the cruellest of rules ever made. It should be regarded as a deprivation of liberty through the perpetuation of disability. It is also a clear loss of future opportunity to be free of disability in the near term. In the longer term, future generations are also denied freedom from disability, should they happen to be born with one or more chronic conditions. All these points should be causes of civil action against the NDIS.

No doubt, the Agency’s counter argument would likely be that they are focused on saving money and reducing risk. An enlightening article about political risk and money highlighted that these are two clear factors explaining why Man has not returned to the Moon since the 1970s, nor

vetfeedisaster-20170314-guxs7g.html as at 10 January 2019. In a submission to an inquiry into Digital Online marketplaces, I told Mr Simms (then ACCC Chairman) that:

        I would argue that government itself (State, Federal and local) has morphed into a large online retailer. Citizens have become customers and public agencies as much as private business are called upon to provide a ‘return’ to investors, be they shareholder Ministers or private companies. Where it is an ASX company, SME or            business trying to turn a profit, I have no objection. Where governments try to make profits, or they engage third parties (like charities) and       then let them make largely untaxed profits,micro-smallthis is where I complain. These profits are generally made off the back of the neediest and most vulnerable in our society, often financed by government subsidies. As a disabled man I find this especially reprehensible and far more objectionable than anything Amazon may have done. At least with Amazon, it is my choice whether to buy a book       With the National Disabilityon-line.Insurance Scheme, you have no choice but to engage with their                 much of which is now mediated       through portals, emails, and webpages,

    as is much of government more generally. If you also have a certain level of incapacity, you have       no“market-place”choice but to deal with the NDIS because it ison-linea nationally legislated monopoly.

– Taken from page 1 of my submission to the ACCC’s Digital Monitoring inquiry, 27 July 2021, https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Adam%20Johnston%20submission%20%2827%20July%2002021%29.pdf as at 5/04/2026

The submission to Mr Simms also highlights numerous ongoing problems with the NDIS. For example, practically since inception, the NDIS has been subject to growing fraud. I noted media reports concerning this operation and multi-agency press release: AUSTRAC et. al., Western Sydney fraud syndicate dismantled, six charged, 22 April 2021, https://www.austrac.gov.au/news-and-media/media-release/western-sydney-fraud-syndicate-dismantled as at 5/04/2026

In my own experience all providers apply establishment fees to contracts every year, even when there is no change to arrangements, allegedly because ‘the rules’ allow such charges. Equally, I am now routinely charged for 2-hour services, where most of my daily care services can be completed in one hour. Life Without Barriers says this is permitted and it is necessary for ‘the business to make a profit’. Disinclined to change providers and, having not inquired as to what my other providers do, the one thing that seems clear is the Commonwealth’s lack of interest in proper stewardship of taxpayers’ funds.

made it to Mars.15 Something similar likely explains the NDIS, where charity was deemed cheaper than investing time, money and planning into the medical research that would actually improve the human condition. As I recently told the University of New England Pulse Alumni Newsletter:

     “I am dependent on the NDIS but the $50 billion it costs annually could have funded so
 many researchers who could have advanced so much science to treat many conditions,
  as we’ve seen with breast cancer and HIV and brain cancer. That’s something that gets
 me wound up. Diversity and inclusion doesn’t come anywhere near a cure.”16

3.  The lies we tell ourselves.

Many submitters will undoubtedly want to diminish the extent of non-compliance, fraud and sharp practices. There will be multiple references to a few bad apples, actors, or rotten eggs. But that was also the refrain that opened police corruption royal commissions and other inquiries. Such inquiries almost always revealed wide-spread, systemic patterns of abuse, neglect and fraud. The most recent example is the inquiry into the Queensland child protection system. The extent that malfeasance must get to before anyone seems to have noticed it is amazing, for in the words of the allegedly responsible Minister:

   "The creation of that [residential care] market has led to CEOs being paid over $600,000,
   children and their vulnerabilities being traded for cryptocurrency and gold," Ms
  [Amanda] Camm said.17

Much the same could be said of the NDIS market. After ten years of the NDIS, I feel much more like a traded commodity than a human being. Government pays NGO rent-seekers to give me sometimes marginal and minimal goods and services. These allegedly exist to support me and my family in managing my disabilities. The mystique that I as the participant am making choices and decisions is just that; a sham of carefully constructed media, marketing and a sprinkling of words like ‘rights’ ‘choice’ and ‘control’ through the legislation. Any close examination however, found many of these soothing words in the Covering Clauses. The operational clauses concentrated on the NDIS Agency CEO (or delegate) as the ultimate decision-maker when it came to participant plans. I made these observations when the draft NDIS bill was before the Senate. The idea that participants or families had choice or control in any legally binding or meaningful way is a myth.18

Nothing has changed but now we have individualised plans. Whether these do more than shuffle a lot of paper around is unclear. The University of Wollongong released a study showing far from consistent or positive results from the NDIS rollout. Indeed, some disadvantaged

Conclusion

I could go on but I think my point has been made. The NDIS is a bad governed scheme, populated by many bad actors. All governments are losing billions, and financial records are so poorly designed, I don’t know what is being spent where or by whom. The old scheme of bloc funded programs run by State-based agencies was far more reliable and predictable. For example, in the early 2000s, I could rely on NSW Homecare staff to consistently turn up early in the morning, and have me bathed, dressed in full suit and tie for the city bus. I worked in town, time, for almost a decade. While my health would be unlikely to hold up to that now, neither would the NDIS. They are not committed to anything except making a profit. As an example, I

recently had a service trainee attend my home.

He lasted two sessions observing another staff member; apparently, he didn’t like early starts.

Too many providers in the NDIS seem to want what Dire Straits called Money For Nothing.

All governments have let this happen. All providers need to have their books and other records examined publicly. All staff need to be put through background checks, NDIS functions handed back to States and Territories. I want the pressure taken off me and my mother.

Finally, I want a commitment to cure, if not for me then everyone who follows me should be able to pick up thy bed and walk, see, and hear. No-one should have to give up the chance for cure, in exchange for lifelong dependence on charity. The latter is neither reasonable nor necessary.