To whom it may concern,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission. We are a family of four from Sydney raising a teenage daughter with a significant, permanent physical disability. She is an intelligent, determined young woman who uses a powered wheelchair and relies on the NDIS to access the supports, equipment and therapies that allow her to attend school, participate in her community and work towards an independent future.
The NDIS has transformed our daughter’s life. It has given her opportunities that simply would not have existed before the scheme. It has allowed her to participate more fully in education, build friendships and enjoy outings, develop greater independence and dream about a future that includes university, employment and contributing to society. Put simply, the NDIS has been about giving her the opportunity to live a life that other teenagers often take for granted. The NDIS has allowed her abilities and not her disability to define her future, and for this, we are incredibly grateful.
Like many families, however, we have also experienced increasing complexity, inconsistency and administrative burden. We recognise the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, but we strongly believe this should not come at the expense of participants. Instead, we believe there are significant opportunities to reduce costs by improving efficiency, increasing transparency and improving checks for providers both for services and equipment.
Public discussion about the future of the NDIS often focuses on reducing participant spending. We believe this is the wrong approach. People living with permanent disabilities require lifelong supports. Reducing access to those supports does not remove the cost, it simply transfers it to families, hospitals, aged care, education and other government services. The NDIS can become more sustainable without reducing participant funding. Savings should come from eliminating waste, reducing unnecessary administration and improving accountability throughout the system.
Most NDIS providers work hard to deliver quality services and genuinely improve participants’ lives. However, as with any large publicly funded scheme, robust oversight is essential. Greater scrutiny should be given to provider billing practices, pricing and service delivery to ensure public funds are being used efficiently. Stronger auditing and greater transparency would help identify unreasonable charging practices while also giving participants confidence that they are receiving the best possible care.
Our daughter relies on specialised assistive technology to live as independently as possible. Equipment such as powered wheelchairs is not a luxury, it is essential. However, the cost of assistive technology often appears extraordinarily high. In many cases, a powered wheelchair costs as much as a new family vehicle. While we understand these are highly specialised
products requiring customised seating, programming, servicing and clinical expertise, there should be greater transparency regarding pricing across the supply chain. The Government should examine whether the NDIS is consistently receiving fair value for these purchases. Further to this there is a real opportunity to explore the professional refurbishment and reuse of expensive equipment which to my knowledge is not currently done in Australia. Instead equipment which is no longer needed is ending up in landfill while others await months and even years for their equipment to be approved and subscribed.
One of the greatest hidden costs within the NDIS is administration. Families spend countless hours obtaining reports, gathering quotes, preparing evidence and navigating complex processes. Therapists spend valuable clinical time writing reports instead of treating participants. The NDIA also dedicates considerable resources to reviewing documentation that frequently confirms information already well established. For participants with permanent disabilities, repeatedly proving the permanence of their disability provides little value while creating significant costs across the entire system. Reducing unnecessary administration would save money, reduce stress on families and allow clinicians to focus on delivering supports rather than paperwork.
The current funding management arrangements create unnecessary complexity and additional administrative costs. “Plan managed” arrangements involve different administrative processes which significantly increase the cost of a plan. Unless necessary, why not implement the necessary checks and push individuals to be self-managed avoiding unnecessary costs lost in administration roles from 3rd parties. Also investigate opportunities to place stricter guidelines on organisations that are plan managers.
The impact of reducing NDIS funding for our daughter would be devastating. Cuts to her funding would not simply mean fewer appointments or less therapy. They would mean less independence, fewer opportunities, increased isolation and a significant decline in quality of life. Without adequate support:
She would become increasingly reliant on family members for everyday activities. Essential therapy that maintains her physical function could be reduced, increasing the likelihood of preventable complications and future hospital admissions. Community participation with family and friends would decrease, leading to greater social isolation and poorer mental wellbeing. Our family would be forced to reduce work and other commitments to fill the gaps left by reduced supports. Her participation at school would become more difficult, placing her education and future aspirations to attend university at risk.
Ironically, reducing funding now is likely to increase government costs later. Investment in therapy, equipment and support workers prevents injuries, hospitalisations and carer burnout. Reducing participant funding is likely to result on the premature reliance on more expensive health services.
Finally, an issue that concerns our family deeply is the way public discussion surrounding the NDIS has evolved. In recent years, much of the conversation has focused on the rising cost of the scheme, often creating the impression that participants themselves are responsible for its financial challenges. This narrative has unfairly placed a spotlight on some of the most vulnerable members of our community, rather than on the systemic issues that need to be addressed. Our daughter did not choose to have a disability. Like thousands of other Australians, she relies on the NDIS to participate in her community, pursue her goals and live with dignity. She should never be made to feel that the supports she requires are a burden on society. The language used in public debate matters. When discussions about the sustainability of the NDIS fail to distinguish between participants and inefficiencies within the system, they risk reinforcing harmful stereotypes and increasing stigma towards people living with disability.
Our family remains deeply grateful for the opportunities the NDIS has provided our daughter. We believe the NDIS is one of Australia’s most significant social reforms and should be protected for future generations. Its long-term sustainability should be achieved through smarter spending, not by reducing supports for people living with disability. By strengthening oversight of providers, reviewing the pricing of assistive technology, simplifying plan management, and reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, the Government can achieve significant savings while preserving the purpose and integrity of the scheme. The conversation should focus on fixing those problems, not blaming those who need the scheme to live ordinary, independent and meaningful lives.
Kindest regards Parent of an NDIS participant