Submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations)
Bill 2026
I am a Support Coordinator with several years of experience working with NDIS participants across metropolitan and regional South Australia. The views below are based on my day-to-day work supporting people with intellectual disability, autism, rare genetic syndromes, psychosocial disability, acquired brain injury, cerebral palsy and complex physical disabilities.
Support Coordination is essential
Reducing or removing Support Coordination will leave many participants without the help they need to use their plans safely.
Many of my clients cannot independently:
understand their NDIS plan
read or write the Englis language
compare providers
understand good practice or pick up on early signs of deteriorating services
understand service agreements and contracts
request reviews or appeals
manage changes in their circumstances.
People most at risk include participants with intellectual disability, low literacy, mental illness, no family support, new arrivals to Australia, Indigenous clients, clients with limited English language skills, SIL participants, people leaving school or hospital, people at risk of homelessness and ageing carers experiencing severe fatigue.
Without Support Coordination, many participants will over or underspend their funding, lose essential services or become vulnerable to exploitation.
The NDIS can be easier to understand.
The Tune Review recommended simpler language and clearer review processes, but this has not happened.
Decision letters are still filled with legal and technical language that even experienced Support Coordinators struggle to understand. If professionals cannot understand these letters, many participants have little chance.
Participants need:
plain English decisions
clear reasons for funding decisions
consistent information
realistic review timeframes.
Plan length and “robo planning.”
Participant plans are now be very long. This creates unnecessary printing costs and reading fatigue, making plans more difficult for participants, families and providers to understand and use effectively. There is significant repetition.
There is also growing concern that many plans appear highly standardised despite participants having very different needs and circumstances. Participants often compare plans with family members, friends and providers. Providers may review multiple plans subject to participant consent. This has contributed to a perception that planning decisions are becoming increasingly generic and may be influenced by automated processes rather than genuine consideration of each participant’s individual evidence. Whether or not this perception is accurate, it is affecting confidence in the planning process.
Less delays in planning changes
Simple plan changes regularly take many months.
I have experienced:
plan variation requests taking over nine months
review requests taking six months or longer
assistive technology approvals taking nearly a year.
Participants often go without essential supports while waiting.
Many people simply want existing funding moved between categories rather than asking for more funding. This should be a quick administrative process. During these delays participants may reach funding exhaustion leading to punitive measures for “overspending” without reference to review delays.
Planning decisions based on evidence reduce appeals
Many appeals occur because planners ignore professional evidence or make decisions before reviewing reports.
Examples include:
refusing continence supports despite lifelong incontinence and extensive medical evidence and allied health reports
cutting behaviour support to participants’ with evidence of self-harm and harm to others
reducing or removing existing funding without explanation
planner “disagreeing” with professional evidence from multiple providers.
refusing basic assistive technology despite specialist reports: example blind participant declined 2x on white cane replacement.
These decisions create unnecessary stress, complaints and expensive appeals.
Culture within the NDIA
Many planners are professional and helpful.
However, I have also experienced a minority of planners who have:
provided inconsistent advice
ignored the participant or failed to support the participant’s style of communication.
ignored evidence and reports by substituting their own judgement.
participants being pressured into planning meetings at inappropriate times.
Exhibited Ableist behaviour.
Have poor English language communication skills.
Lack of understanding of rare genetic syndromes leading to assumptions of participant’s capacities without reference to evidence, reports and other documentation.
Aggressive communication styles
constant accusations of “advocating” when discussing clinical evidence or relevant legislation, or sharing information about a rare disability.
Participants and providers should be able to clearly and openly discuss participant’s care needs in the participants’ communication style without intimidation.
Call centre concerns
The quality of advice varies enormously.
It is common to receive different answers from different staff members about the same issue.
Some staff provide excellent service, while others provide incorrect advice that could significantly affect participants.
Some staff do not have sufficient English language skills to communicate appropriately.
Greater investment in training and consistency would improve outcomes and decrease the number of repeat calls.
Local Area Coordination
The quality of Local Area Coordinators varies greatly depending on the organisation and region.
Some providers respond quickly and produce excellent outcomes.
Others fail to return calls for months, provide poor plans and create unnecessary delays.
Participants should receive the same quality of service regardless of where they live.
Plan management
Many participants are choosing smaller plan managers because they provide:
faster responses
consistent advice
Some have personal relationships with small local companies leading to better understanding of family circumstances and participant capacities.
The proposal of the minister to compel participants towards three large companies is not consistent with the principals of choice and control in the 2013 Act. In my experience, participants are currently moving away from larger companies due to poor communication, reporting errors, failure to understand complex disabilities and inconsistent advice.
Provider Registration
Provider registration alone does not guarantee quality. In my experience, I have reported serious misconduct by a minority of registered providers. Many unregistered sole traders consistently deliver safe, high-quality services.
Many independent providers would like to become registered, but the current system creates significant barriers. The cost of registration, the complexity of the process, and the spiralling cost of auditing services discourage many small businesses from applying. Much of the required documentation appears designed for large organisations delivering multiple services and is not proportionate for sole traders or small providers offering a single service.
Gardening services are a good example. Many reliable and experienced gardeners have limited administrative capacity but provide an excellent practical service to participants. The current registration process is too costly and burdensome. In my own region, it is already difficult to find registered gardening providers for agency managed participants. If compulsory registration is introduced without a simpler pathway, many participants may lose access to essential services.
A streamlined, low-cost registration pathway for low-risk sole traders and small providers would improve participant safety while maintaining access to essential supports. Registration requirements should be proportionate to the level of risk and should not rely on expensive third-party consultants or unnecessary administrative requirements.
Quality and Safeguards Commission
The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has been one of the strongest parts of the system.
In my experience it investigates complaints fairly, provides useful advice and has acted to protect participants from unsafe providers.
I was personally involved in a case there the Quality and Safeguards commission penalised and closed a local STA property when my client and I provided them with evidence of abuse and neglect. This was a registered provider.
This area deserves greater investment.
Fear Distrust and Media engagement.
Public Messaging and Confidence in the NDIS
The Government’s public messaging about the NDIS has unintentionally created fear and distrust among many participants, families and providers.
In my experience, many participants and plan nominees now expect their plans will be reduced regardless of their individual circumstances. Some feel they are being portrayed as a burden on society rather than people entitled to reasonable and necessary supports. This has increased anxiety and reduced confidence in the Scheme.
The messaging has also affected providers. While it is essential to identify and address fraud and poor practice, the repeated public focus on provider misconduct has left many ethical providers feeling they are viewed with suspicion despite consistently delivering high-quality services. This does not reflect the experience of many participants, who value and trust the providers supporting them every day.
The communication strategy has become unbalanced by emphasising fraud and cost containment without giving equal attention to the thousands of participants, families and providers who use the Scheme appropriately. As a result, there is a growing gap between the NDIA’s public messaging and the way many participants perceive the future of the Scheme.
I encourage the Government and the NDIA to review their communication strategy. Public messaging should restore confidence in the NDIS by clearly distinguishing the small minority who engage in fraud from the overwhelming majority who act honestly and professionally. It should also reassure participants that funding decisions will continue to be based on their individual needs, supporting evidence and the principles of the NDIS Act.
Conclusion
The NDIS should be simpler, faster and easier to navigate.
Participants need:
ongoing access to Support Coordination
Easy English communication
faster reviews and plan variations
decisions based on evidence
improved training for NDIA staff
consistent service across Australia.
A simple, affordable registration pathway for risk sole traders
Sensitive, appropriate and balanced Media engagement.
The purpose of the NDIS is to support people with disability to live safely and independently. These reforms should strengthen that goal, not make the system harder for the people who rely on it most.