7 July 2026
Committee Secretary Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
Re: Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee – NDIS Amendment Bill 2026
Dear Committee Secretary,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission regarding the proposed NDIS Amendment Bill 2026.
I write as both a parent of a person with disability and a Registered Music Therapist who has worked alongside NDIS participants and their families for many years. My perspective is informed by both lived experience and professional practice.
As I have reviewed the Bill alongside the submissions made to this inquiry, a clear pattern has emerged.
Much of the Bill focuses on:
-
who qualifies for the NDIS;
-
what supports participants receive;
-
new planning and assessment processes;
-
expanding Ministerial and administrative powers through delegated Rules; and
-
strengthening compliance, auditing and fraud measures.
These reforms place increasing scrutiny on participants, families and providers.
However, there appears to be comparatively little attention given to improving the accountability, efficiency and performance of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) itself.
This raises an important question.
If the objective of this Bill is to secure the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, should reform focus primarily on participants and providers?
Or should Parliament also examine whether the agency responsible for administering the Scheme is operating as efficiently, transparently and effectively as possible?
A sustainable Scheme requires both.
Throughout recent reforms, providers have been subjected to increasing regulation, audits, reporting obligations and compliance requirements. Participants are required to repeatedly demonstrate eligibility, justify supports and navigate increasingly complex administrative processes.
Yet there appears to be no equivalent framework that holds the NDIA accountable for its own performance.
Participants can report providers.
Providers can be audited, investigated, sanctioned and deregistered.
But where is the equivalent mechanism for participants or providers to report systemic failures within the NDIA itself?
There is no clear, independent process for raising concerns about poor administration, unreasonable delays, inconsistent decision-making, excessive bureaucracy or failures that directly impact participants’ lives. Complaints are generally managed within government systems themselves, rather than through an independent accountability framework capable of identifying systemic problems and driving meaningful improvement.
This creates an imbalance.
Those delivering services are scrutinised.
Those relying on services are scrutinised.
Yet the agency administering the Scheme is not subject to the same level of transparent, independent accountability.
Good governance requires accountability at every level.
Many of the challenges experienced by participants stem not only from legislation itself but from the way the Scheme is administered. Families regularly describe lengthy delays, inconsistent decisions, repeated requests for the same information, unnecessary reviews and administrative complexity that increase stress while delaying essential supports.
The consequences of administrative failures are not merely procedural.
When participants lose supports because of delays or administrative errors, or when critical deisions are not made in a timely manner, the consequences can include deterioration in health, increased carer stress, preventable crises and avoidable presentations to hospitals and
emergency departments. These human costs should be recognised alongside the financial costs.
Ironically, administrative inefficiency may increase expenditure across health, disability and social service systems while simultaneously reducing the quality of life of participants and families.
If Parliament is genuinely committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, then improving the efficiency of the NDIA itself should be considered just as important as increasing compliance requirements for participants and providers.
Whenever Parliament considers legislation that expands executive powers, leaves important decisions to delegated Rules or increases the authority of government agencies, those changes should be accompanied by robust mechanisms for transparency and accountability.
Public confidence depends not only on detecting fraud and misuse but also on ensuring that government agencies exercise their powers fairly, efficiently and consistently.
I respectfully recommend that Parliament consider amendments to:
-
establish an independent mechanism through which participants and providers can report concerns regarding NDIA administration and decision-making;
-
introduce regular independent audits of NDIA administrative efficiency and performance;
-
publicly report on key performance indicators, including planning timeframes, review timeframes, internal review outcomes, participant satisfaction and administrative costs;
-
require transparent reporting on how administrative efficiencies are being achieved within the NDIA itself;
-
ensure that accountability measures apply proportionately across participants, providers and the Agency responsible for administering the Scheme.
Protecting taxpayers and supporting Australians with disability are not competing objectives.
Both depend upon good governance.
A sustainable NDIS cannot be achieved solely by increasing scrutiny of participants and providers. It also requires transparent accountability for the administration of the Scheme itself.
The NDIS was established to improve the lives of Australians with disability. That objective is best achieved when every part of the system—including government—is accountable for its decisions, its performance and the outcomes it produces.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours sincerely,
3
4