Ways to Improve the NDIS Without Reducing Support for Disabled Australians

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is a vital investment in the lives of disabled Australians, their families, carers, and the broader community. If the Government is genuinely seeking to improve the sustainability and efficiency of the Scheme, there are many opportunities to reduce waste and improve outcomes without removing essential supports from participants.

Reduce Spending on Legal Disputes

The Government spends significant amounts of money engaging external law firms to oppose people seeking access to the NDIS or attempting to retain necessary supports.

In many cases, the legal costs incurred exceed the value of the supports being disputed. Even where the Government is ultimately unsuccessful, participants often endure months or years of stress, uncertainty, and delays before receiving the supports they need.

Reducing unnecessary litigation and focusing on resolving disputes earlier would save money, reduce administrative costs, and improve trust in the Scheme.

Improve Staff Training and Disability-Specific Expertise

Local Area Coordinators (LACs) and planners are required to make decisions about a wide range of disabilities, support needs, and personal circumstances. This is an extraordinarily complex task.

Insufficient training and limited disability-specific expertise can contribute to:

• inaccurate plans,
• inappropriate funding decisions,
• misinformation,
• unnecessary reassessments, and

Improve Decision-Making

The NDIA could improve decision-making by:

• establishing specialist teams for different disability types,
• providing longer and more comprehensive training,
• investing in ongoing professional development, and
• consulting people with lived experience of disability.

Better decisions at the outset would reduce costly reviews and appeals.

Reduce Reliance on Expensive Private Consultants

The NDIA increasingly relies on private consultants while simultaneously citing financial pressures within the Scheme.

Participants deserve greater transparency regarding:

• the purpose of consultant engagements,
• the costs involved,
• the outcomes being delivered, and
• whether those functions could be performed more efficiently by permanent public sector staff.

Building and retaining internal expertise is likely to provide better value for money and greater accountability than outsourcing substantial portions of the Scheme’s administration.

End Staffing Caps and Hiring Freezes

Artificial staffing caps contribute to delays, backlogs, and inefficiencies.

Page 3

When there are insufficient staff, existing employees are required to work excessive overtime, which is often more expensive than employing adequate permanent staff. Overworked staff are also more likely to make mistakes, leading to:

• incorrect plans,
• participant distress,
• increased complaints, and
• additional ART reviews.

When experienced employees leave due to burnout and cannot be replaced, the Scheme becomes less efficient and more costly. Adequate staffing should be viewed as an investment that improves service quality and reduces waste over time.

Reform Provider Registration

If the Government wishes to increase the number of registered providers, the registration process itself requires reform.

For many sole traders and small providers, registration and auditing costs can amount to many thousands of dollars. This creates significant barriers, particularly for providers who:

• work part-time,
• support only a small number of participants, or
• operate in rural and regional areas.

The result is reduced choice and availability of supports for participants.

The Government should consider:

• reducing registration costs,

Page 4

• Providing subsidised training and upskilling,

• Focusing on participant outcomes rather than excessive paperwork, and

• Strengthening oversight based on service quality and participant feedback.

Importantly, registration alone does not guarantee quality or safety. Participants should not be encouraged to assume that a registered provider is automatically a good provider. Quality support is demonstrated through outcomes, professionalism, and participant experience.

6. Stop Requiring People to Repeatedly Prove Permanent Disabilities

Many participants are repeatedly required to obtain new reports and assessments despite already providing evidence that their disabilities are permanent and lifelong.

This practice:

• Wastes participant funding,

• Creates unnecessary stress,

• Places additional pressure on health professionals,

• Delays access to supports, and

• Increases administrative costs.

Permanent disabilities do not disappear. Where permanence has already been established, the system should focus on providing appropriate supports rather than repeatedly requiring participants to prove their disability.

7. Meaningfully Consult Disabled People

If the Government genuinely wants to improve the NDIS and reduce waste, it must engage in meaningful consultation with participants, families, carers, advocates, and frontline workers.

People who use the Scheme every day often have valuable insights into how to:

Long-Term Economic and Social Consequences

Reducing access to essential supports may produce short-term budget savings, but these savings are likely to be outweighed by significant long-term costs.

Without adequate supports, many disabled people will be unable to participate in employment, education, volunteering, parenting, and community life. This will reduce workforce participation and tax revenue while increasing reliance on other forms of government assistance.

The impacts extend beyond participants themselves. Family members and carers may be forced to leave the workforce to provide unpaid care. Support workers, therapists, and businesses operating within the disability sector may also experience reduced employment opportunities, creating broader economic consequences.

There are also likely to be increased costs to Australia’s health system. When people cannot access the supports they need, preventable health complications become more common.

For example:

•  people with psychosocial disabilities may experience significant deterioration
  

in mental health, resulting in increased hospital admissions;

•  people with physical disabilities may face increased risks of falls, pressure
  

injuries, chest infections, choking incidents, and other preventable complications due to inadequate support.

These hospitalisations and health interventions are often far more expensive than providing appropriate supports in the first place.

Conclusion

disability can affect any Australian at any stage of life. A person may acquire a disability through illness, injury, accident, or the development of a degenerative condition. Any family may have a child born with disability or develop support needs in the future.

The NDIS exists because Australians recognised that disabled people deserve dignity, inclusion, safety, and the opportunity to participate fully in society.

Rather than reducing supports for those who rely on the Scheme, the Government should focus on addressing inefficiencies, reducing administrative waste, improving decision- making, and investing in measures that strengthen the NDIS for future generations.

The decisions made today will have lasting consequences for disabled Australians, their families, and the broader community. I urge Parliament to carefully consider these impacts and pursue reforms that improve the Scheme without undermining the support that participants depend upon.