NDIA Accountability Project

Family struggles with NDIA administrative processes and tribunal escalations

‹ PrevPage 1 of 3 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 212

22/5/2026

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

I am writing as the parent and carer of a young woman with disability who relies on the NDIS to access supports, education opportunities and participation in everyday life. The NDIS has made an enormous difference to many Australians, including our family. I support the need to ensure the scheme remains sustainable for future generations and I understand the Government’s concerns about escalating costs. However, I am deeply concerned that the proposed reforms risk placing further pressure on participants and families without first addressing the significant inefficiencies and waste that already exist within the system itself. In our experience, one of the biggest problems within the NDIS is not participants receiving excessive support. It is the amount of time, money and emotional energy wasted through poor administration, inconsistent decision-making and unnecessary disputes. Families are repeatedly asked to provide professional reports from therapists, specialists and clinicians, often at considerable cost, only to have those reports ignored or heavily questioned. This creates a cycle where participants are forced into reviews, reassessments and ART proceedings simply to access supports that qualified professionals have already recommended. This process is exhausting, stressful and financially draining for families. It is also a poor use of taxpayer funding. I believe the Government should first examine the enormous administrative costs created by:

  • repeated reassessments
  • inconsistent planning decisions
  • avoidable review processes
  • unnecessary escalation to ART hearings
  • duplication of evidence gathering
  • poor communication and delays
  • failure to properly consider existing professional reports A particularly concerning area is the growing use of lengthy ART processes where NDIA-funded barristers and legal representatives fight participants and families who are often already overwhelmed and vulnerable. At the same time that participants are having supports removed or reduced, many families are forced to privately fund essential supports themselves while also attempting to navigate complex legal and review processes. This creates immense financial and emotional pressure.

Submission 212

There also appears to be little consideration of the broader public cost being shifted elsewhere through these disputes. Many participants require legal assistance simply to understand the process and protect themselves from what can feel like an intimidating and adversarial system involving multiple conferences, submissions and hearings. This places additional strain on legal aid services and community legal supports, which are themselves publicly funded and already under pressure.

The impact on families extends far beyond emotional stress. Carers are spending countless unpaid hours preparing evidence, coordinating reports, attending meetings, responding to submissions and navigating review processes. This often forces parents and carers to reduce work hours, step away from employment opportunities or leave the workforce entirely in order to manage the demands created by the system and provide the supports that have been removed.

This has a direct economic impact. Families who could otherwise be participating more fully in tax-paying employment are instead diverted into unpaid administrative and caring roles created by system inefficiencies.

There is also a broader economic impact through reductions in disability support funding itself. Support workers are taxpayers too. When participant supports are reduced, employment opportunities for support workers are also reduced. The flow-on impacts to workforce participation and local employment should not be ignored when assessing the true economic consequences of funding cuts.

Most importantly, the long-term outcomes for participants themselves must be considered. My daughter is working toward education, work experience and future employment. With the right supports, she has the potential to contribute meaningfully to society, participate in the workforce and become a taxpayer herself. However, when supports are removed or reduced, these milestones become harder to achieve and are pushed further into the future.

Early investment in supports is not just a cost. It is an investment in future independence, workforce participation and long-term economic contribution.

It is difficult to understand how this approach represents good financial management when government resources are being spent on barristers, prolonged proceedings and repeated hearings against families already caring for people with disability, while at the same time reducing the very supports that help participants move toward greater independence.

The current system often feels adversarial rather than supportive. Families already managing disability, health, education and caring responsibilities should not also have to become experts in legislation, evidence preparation and tribunal processes simply to secure reasonable and necessary supports.

I am also concerned about the increasing push toward plan management arrangements. While plan management can absolutely assist some participants, it should not become a default pathway where additional federal funding is spent on administration instead of direct supports.

If sustainability is genuinely the goal, all layers of spending should be reviewed, including NDIA operational inefficiencies and administrative overheads.

For our family, uncertainty and delays have real consequences. They impact education participation, family wellbeing, financial stability and mental health.

I ask the Committee to ensure that any reforms to the NDIS:

  • protect participants with genuine lifelong disability needs
  • improve consistency and quality of NDIA decision-making

Submission 212

  • give proper weight to qualified professional evidence
  • reduce unnecessary reviews and tribunal escalation
  • reduce administrative waste within the NDIA itself
  • recognise the economic contribution of carers, support workers and participants
  • place participant wellbeing and long-term independence at the centre of reform

I support a sustainable NDIS. But sustainability should not be achieved by making life harder for people with disability and their families while systemic inefficiencies remain unresolved.

The people most impacted by these changes deserve to be heard and genuinely considered before major reforms proceed.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.

Mother of age 18