Submission 1470

Submission to the NDIS Inquiry

To the Members of the Inquiry,

I am writing as someone with both professional and personal experience in the disability sector. I currently work with people with disability and their families, and I also have lived experience supporting a family member through the NDIS.

While I understand the need to protect the long-term sustainability of the Scheme, I am deeply concerned that many of the current reform discussions risk targeting the wrong people and causing significant harm to participants, carers, families and smaller providers.

The NDIS has grown from approximately 610,500 participants in June 2023 to more than 750,000 participants by late 2025. At the same time, Australia’s population has also grown rapidly, awareness and diagnosis of disability have improved, and more families are now seeking support that previously did not exist or was inaccessible. Government projections themselves forecast participant growth to approximately 754,000 participants by 2025–26 years ago.

Because of this, I question how realistic or fair it is to attempt to scale participation levels backwards toward 2023 figures while the population continues to grow and demand for disability services continues to increase. Disability does not disappear because budgets tighten. The need still exists.

I also believe the public discussion surrounding “cost blowouts” has unfairly shifted focus toward participants, families and smaller providers, rather than properly addressing fraud, exploitation and waste where it more commonly occurs.

In my experience, many sole traders and small support providers are simply trying to make an honest living while providing genuine care and community access for vulnerable people. These small providers often build trusted relationships with families and deliver highly personalised supports that larger organisations cannot.

The government should place a far stronger focus on investigating large-scale fraud, overcharging, provider misuse and corporate exploitation within the system, rather than creating fear amongst vulnerable participants and families that they may lose essential supports. Stronger auditing, targeted investigations and increased accountability for large providers would achieve far more than blanket cuts affecting everyday participants and carers.

At the same time, I believe the government should consider bringing all providers under a properly structured tiered compliance and registration system within the NDIS.

A tiered model would allow higher-risk or larger providers handling significant funding and complex services to face stronger oversight, auditing and compliance requirements, while smaller low-risk providers and sole traders could operate under simpler and more practical requirements.

Submission 1470

Currently, many sole traders and small operators face excessive red tape, administrative burden and compliance costs that can be overwhelming for small businesses attempting to deliver frontline supports. These providers are often the very people delivering flexible, community-based support that participants and families value most.

Reducing unnecessary bureaucracy for smaller operators would allow them to spend more time supporting participants rather than completing paperwork and navigating complex systems.

A fair tiered system could improve accountability where it is genuinely needed while still supporting honest small providers delivering quality care. This approach would strengthen safeguards without driving smaller providers out of the sector or reducing participant choice.

One of my greatest concerns is the proposed reduction in funding relating to community participation, respite-style supports and family assistance.

Community participation is not a luxury. It is often the difference between isolation and inclusion. These supports provide social connection, independence, routine, confidence and mental wellbeing for participants.

Equally important, they provide exhausted parents and carers with a desperately needed break.

The families I work with are often under enormous pressure. Many parents care for children or adults with high support needs 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When participants are supported to access the community, many mothers and primary carers use that time simply to sleep, recover, attend appointments or spend time with other family members.

Without these supports, the pressure on families becomes unsustainable.

Reducing these supports may save money in the short term, but it risks increasing carer burnout, family breakdown, mental health issues, hospital admissions and crisis situations in the long term.

I am also extremely concerned about proposals that may allow the Commissioner or government to restrict or reduce access for disability groups considered “high cost” or rapidly growing. This creates significant fear and uncertainty for families living with permanent and lifelong disabilities such as:

• Down syndrome
• Autism Spectrum Disorder
• Cerebral Palsy
• Intellectual Disability
• Multiple Sclerosis
• Acquired Brain Injury

Families of people with permanent lifelong disabilities should not be forced to repeatedly prove conditions that will never improve. Many participants have already undergone years of assessments, specialist reports and evidence gathering. Requiring continual reassessment

Submission 1470

creates stress, delays and unnecessary administrative burden for families already under pressure.

I do understand there are cases where reassessment is appropriate, particularly where diagnoses are less clear-cut or where significant functional improvement may occur over time. However, this should not become a blanket approach for participants with permanent and well-established disabilities.

Another major concern is the proposed reassessment and review process.

Extending review timeframes from 21 days to 90 days while also limiting appeal pathways creates enormous uncertainty and distress for participants and families.

Leaving people waiting for up to three months — potentially without communication or certainty — is simply unacceptable when supports directly affect daily care, therapy, transport, safety and community access. Families cannot put their lives on hold indefinitely while waiting for decisions that affect basic functioning and support.

Natural justice and procedural fairness must remain central to the Scheme.

Participants deserve:

• timely reassessments,
• clear communication,
• transparent decision-making, and
• meaningful appeal rights.

No participant or family should be left “hanging in the wind” without answers or support.

The NDIS was created to support Australians living with significant disability to live dignified, safe and meaningful lives. Sustainability matters, but sustainability cannot come at the expense of fairness, compassion and common sense.

I urge the Inquiry to:

• focus fraud investigations on large-scale misuse and corporate exploitation,
• implement a fair tiered provider compliance system,
• reduce unnecessary red tape for sole traders and small providers,
• protect community participation and respite supports,
• reduce unnecessary reassessments for permanent disabilities,
• preserve fair review and appeal processes, and
• ensure reforms are developed in genuine consultation with participants, carers, frontline workers and families.

The people most affected by these decisions are not statistics on a spreadsheet. They are Australians trying to live with dignity while families do their absolute best to care for them every single day.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Submission 1470