Submission 2073

Submission to the NDIS Parliamentary Committee – Proposed NDIS Reforms

Relationship to Participant:

Parent and primary carer of an NDIS participant

Introduction

I am the parent and full-time carer of my son, who has significant and lifelong disabilities. I am writing to provide feedback on the proposed changes to the NDIS. My perspective comes from more than a decade of navigating the scheme, advocating for essential supports, and dealing with the practical consequences when the system does not function as intended.

This submission relates to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025. While the Bill focuses on integrity and safeguarding, it is important that reforms also address the practical issues participants face, including inconsistent decision-making, delays, and administrative burden. My submission highlights these impacts from a lived-experience perspective.

I support reforms that strengthen sustainability and reduce waste, but I am deeply concerned that some of the proposed changes risk creating more barriers for people with complex needs. My submission focuses on the areas where I have direct experience and where I believe improvements can be made without compromising participant outcomes.

1. The Need for Clear, Consistent, and Evidence-Based Decision Making

One of the most significant issues families face is inconsistency. Decisions can vary widely between planners, reviewers, and external assessors, even when the evidence is strong and unchanged. In our case, essential equipment such as a power wheelchair has been declined multiple times for different reasons despite clinical recommendations, functional assessments, and clear evidence of need. When an item is declined, you go to the back of the queue and start over, so this process takes well over a year.

Key Issues:

• Decisions often appear to rely on interpretation rather than evidence.
• Families are required to re-submit the same reports repeatedly.
• Declines are sometimes based on assumptions rather than functional reality.
• The appeals process is slow and resource-intensive for both families and the Agency.

Recommendations:

• Introduce a nationally consistent decision framework that requires assessors to clearly reference the evidence they relied on and explain how it aligns with the legislation.
• Require decision makers to provide a plain-language justification that directly addresses each piece of submitted evidence.
• Implement a “no wrong door” rule, where evidence already held by the Agency does not need to be resubmitted unless a participant’s needs have changed.

Submission 2073

Equipment and Assistive Technology: Reduce Waste, Not Access

The proposed reforms aim to reduce unnecessary spending, which is reasonable. However, the current system already creates waste through delays, repeated assessments, and short-term rental arrangements. Most suppliers don’t offer rent-to-buy options to reduce the final cost once an item is approved.

In our situation, the refusal to fund a power wheelchair resulted in:

• months of rental fees that exceeded the cost of purchase

• the need to buy second-hand equipment privately

• reduced mobility and participation for my son

• additional strain on informal supports

Key issues:

• Delays and repeated declines increase costs rather than reduce them.

• Participants with complex needs often require customised equipment that cannot be replaced with “standard” items.

• Rental periods become excessively long due to slow decision making. We could have purchased the loan equipment with the funding wasted on rental.

Recommendations:

• Introduce a fast-track pathway for essential mobility equipment where clinical evidence is clear.

• Allow rental payments to be offset against purchase when delays are caused by the Agency.

• Create a national AT panel of clinicians and engineers who can provide rapid, independent advice on complex equipment.

• Establish a system for participants or informal supports to call when things are going wrong — similar to Ryan’s Rule in hospitals. There have been numerous times where a planner or decision maker has made a serious error of judgement, and the only option offered is to submit an S100 and wait another 4–6 months.

Reducing Administrative Burden on Families

Families already carry a heavy load. Many of us manage therapy schedules, equipment maintenance, medical appointments, and daily care, all while navigating a system that requires constant justification.

The proposed reforms risk increasing paperwork and reassessment frequency, which will disproportionately affect families with high-needs participants.

Key issues:

• Repeated reassessments for lifelong conditions create unnecessary stress.

Submission 2073

• Carers spend hours preparing documentation that the Agency already holds, loses, or does not read.

• The administrative burden contributes to burnout and reduces capacity to provide care.

Recommendations:

• Adopt a “once for life” approach for conditions that are permanent and degenerative.

• Limit reassessments to changes in functional need, not arbitrary timeframes.

• Provide a single point of contact for complex participants to reduce duplication and confusion.

4. Ensuring Reforms Do Not Reduce Choice and Control

Choice and control are core principles of the NDIS. Some proposed changes risk shifting decision making away from participants and towards rigid categories or pre-approved lists.

While standardisation can help reduce waste, it must not override individual needs — especially for people with rare or complex conditions.

Key issues:

• Standardised support lists may not accommodate unique or low-incidence disabilities.

• Participants may lose flexibility to tailor supports to their actual daily life.

• Over-prescription of “typical” supports risks leaving complex participants behind.

Recommendations:

• Maintain individualised planning for participants with complex or rare conditions.

• Ensure any standardised support lists include a clear exception pathway supported by clinical evidence.

• Protect participant choice in selecting providers, equipment, and support models.

5. A System That Learns From Its Mistakes

Families often feel that the system does not learn from repeated patterns of failure. When a participant is declined essential supports multiple times, only to have them eventually approved after lengthy appeals, the cost to the Agency is far greater than if the decision had been made correctly the first time.

Key issues:

• Appeals and reviews consume significant Agency resources.

• Participants experience unnecessary harm during delays.

• There is no transparent mechanism for identifying systemic issues.

Recommendations:

Submission 2073

• Establish a feedback loop where overturned decisions are analysed to identify patterns.

• Publish de-identified data on common reasons for successful appeals.

• Use this data to improve training and decision-making guidelines.

6. Social and Community Participation: Essential, Not Optional

The Bills Digest notes that reforms may narrow access to certain supports, including social and community participation. For many participants, these supports are not “nice to have”— they are essential for wellbeing, safety, and development.

My son has recently left school and requires 24/7 care. Social and community participation is one of the few structured ways he can engage with the world, build skills, and maintain emotional stability. Any reduction in this area would have a direct and negative impact on his wellbeing.

Key issues:

• Cuts to community participation disproportionately aƯect people with high support needs.

• Without structured community access, participants can become isolated, distressed, and lose functional skills.

• Families are left to fill the gap, increasing carer burnout and reducing the participant’s independence.

• The proposed reforms risk treating community participation as discretionary, when for many it is foundational.

Recommendations:

• Protect funding for social and community participation for participants with high and complex needs.

• Recognise community access as a core support for people who require 24/7 care.

• Ensure any changes to support categories do not reduce access for participants transitioning out of school or other structured environments.

• Require planners to consider the wellbeing and safety impacts of reducing community participation supports.

Conclusion

The NDIS is a vital system that has transformed the lives of many Australians, including my family. I support reforms that strengthen its sustainability, but these reforms must not come at the cost of fairness, access, or dignity.

My key message is simple: Consistency, clarity, and timely decision making will save money, reduce waste, and improve outcomes for participants.

Submission 2073

Families like mine want to work with the Agency, not against it. With thoughtful adjustments, the proposed reforms can achieve their goals while preserving the core principles that make the NDIS worth protecting.

Thank you for considering my submission.