Submission 1410

Submission Regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

I am deeply concerned that many of the proposed NDIS reforms risk shifting the burden of systemic failures onto people with disability and their families, rather than addressing the underlying causes of cost blowouts and poor governance within the Scheme.

While I acknowledge the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS and preventing fraud, I believe the current reform direction risks harming legitimate participants who rely on supports to maintain safety, stability, independence and community participation.

The Government has stated that the reforms are intended to “clarify eligibility”, “slow rapid cost increases”, and “fight fraud and stop rorts”. However, many participants and families are concerned that the practical effect will be reduced supports, tighter access, and the removal of vulnerable people from the Scheme without adequate alternative systems being established first.

A significant concern is that the reforms appear to focus heavily on restricting participant access and reducing plan budgets, while insufficient attention is being given to strengthening safeguards against fraudulent or exploitative providers. Public discussion around the NDIS has increasingly focused on “rorting” by participants, despite widespread evidence that fraud and exploitation are also occurring within provider systems and poorly regulated service markets.

Many NDIIS participants do not have the capacity to continuously audit invoices, monitor complex billing arrangements, or challenge providers who charge incorrectly or dishonestly. Participants with intellectual disability, autism, psychosocial disability, cognitive impairment, acquired brain injury, or severe mental illness are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Families and carers are already overwhelmed navigating a highly complex system.

There is evidence and growing public concern regarding:

• providers billing for services not delivered,
• inflated pricing,
• unregistered operators exploiting participants,
• poor oversight and inconsistent safeguards.

At the same time, I also wish to acknowledge that many small and independent NDIS providers deliver ethical, high-quality and compassionate supports to participants. It is important that public discussion around fraud within the NDIS does not unfairly stigmatise all small providers, many of whom are genuinely committed to improving the lives of people with disability.

Smaller providers often offer flexibility, continuity of care, cultural understanding, and personalised support that larger organisations may not always be able to provide. Diversity within the provider market is important because it gives participants greater choice and control, which are foundational principles of the NDIS.

Submission 1410

Participant safety and protection from fraud must remain a priority. However, the challenge is to strengthen safeguards without creating barriers that unintentionally disadvantage ethical providers or reduce participant choice.

Consideration should also be given to whether the current process for becoming an NDIS registered provider is overly complex, financially burdensome, and difficult for legitimate small businesses to navigate. If registration requirements are inaccessible or prohibitively expensive, this may discourage ethical providers from becoming registered while failing to effectively deter those deliberately engaging in dishonest conduct.

A balanced approach is needed — one that:

• supports strong compliance and anti-fraud measures,
• improves monitoring and accountability,
• protects participants from exploitation,
• while also ensuring ethical small providers are not pushed out of the sector by excessive administrative or financial barriers.

Effective reform should target harmful practices and fraudulent behaviour directly, rather than reducing the diversity of providers available to participants who rely on choice, trust and continuity of care.

Rather than reducing supports for disabled people, stronger regulatory systems should be prioritised, including:

• increased auditing and compliance activity,
• mandatory transparency in provider billing,
• stronger penalties for fraud,
• improved participant protections,
• easier reporting pathways,
• proactive monitoring of high-risk providers.

The people causing harm to the Scheme should be the primary target of reform — not participants who rely on supports for daily functioning and quality of life.

I am also deeply concerned about the impact of proposed reforms on people with psychosocial disability.

Mental health organisations have already raised concerns that people with psychosocial disability may be left “in limbo” under the reforms. Reports indicate that significant numbers of participants with psychosocial disability may be transitioned out of the NDIS despite the absence of adequately funded alternative systems.

This is occurring in the context of a mental health system that is already under extreme strain. Across Australia, public mental health services are experiencing chronic shortages of psychiatric beds, workforce shortages, long wait times, and crisis-level demand. Psychiatrists, hospitals, and mental health organisations have repeatedly warned that the broader mental health system does not currently have the capacity to absorb additional demand safely.

Submission 1410

Removing or reducing supports for people with psychosocial disability before community mental health systems are properly expanded risks:

• increased hospital presentations,
• homelessness,
• family breakdown,
• crisis admissions,
• higher long-term healthcare costs,
• and poorer health and social outcomes.

It is not enough to assume that “mainstream systems” will absorb people exiting the NDIS when those systems are already struggling to meet existing demand.

The reforms should not proceed in ways that reduce support for people with psychosocial disability until:

• accessible and properly funded community mental health services exist,
• continuity of care is guaranteed,
• and participants are not placed at risk of deterioration, isolation, or crisis.

I am also concerned about proposed reductions to social and community participation supports. Government analysis has reportedly found that cuts in this area would proportionately affect people with psychosocial disability, Down syndrome, and visual impairments.

Community participation is not a luxury. For many participants it is essential to:

• reduce isolation,
• maintain mental health,
• build independence,
• prevent crisis,
• and participate meaningfully in society.

Reducing these supports may create larger long-term costs elsewhere in health, housing and crisis systems.

It is also important to recognise that the NDIS is not solely an expenditure item within the Federal Budget. The Scheme also contributes significantly to the Australian economy through employment, workforce participation, taxation revenue, and local economic activity.

NDIS funding supports a large workforce including disability support workers, allied health professionals, administrative staff, transport providers, respite workers, and many small businesses operating within local communities. These workers pay taxes, contribute to the economy, and provide essential services that enable people with disability to participate more fully in society.

In many cases, NDIS supports also assist family members and carers to remain in employment, reducing carer burnout and supporting broader workforce participation.

Submission 1410

While sustainability and accountability are important objectives, discussions about the cost of the NDIS should also acknowledge the economic and social value the Scheme generates, alongside the improved quality of life and independence it provides for participants.

The NDIS absolutely requires reform and stronger safeguards. However, reform should focus on improving accountability, transparency and provider regulation, while protecting the dignity, safety and wellbeing of disabled Australians.

The sustainability of the Scheme should not be achieved by increasing hardship for people who are already vulnerable.

A truly sustainable NDIS is one that:

• protects participants from exploitation,
• maintains necessary supports,
• strengths oversight,
• and works alongside properly funded health and community systems.

I urge the Committee to carefully consider the real-world impacts these reforms may have on participants, families and carers, particularly those living with psychosocial disability and those who are unable to advocate for themselves within an increasingly complex system.