Submission 3058 — Name Withheld — NDIS Future Generations Bill

Submission to the Senate Community

Affairs Legislation Committee

Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Dear Committee

I make this submission as the parent and nominee of a young NDIS participant who is currently involved in Administrative Review Tribunal proceedings following an NDIA decision. My family’s experience demonstrates that before Parliament grants the NDIA broader decision-making powers and introduces further restrictions on participants, significant deficiencies in the Agency’s existing decision-making and review processes must first be addressed.

The stated objective of the Bill is to improve the sustainability of the NDIS for future generations. Sustainability, however, cannot be measured solely by reducing expenditure. It must also include administrative competence, lawful decision-making, transparency and efficient use of public resources.

My experience has raised serious concerns that the current system is failing in these respects.

Failure to properly consider evidence

Throughout the review process, the NDIA repeatedly demonstrated that evidence had either not been read or not been properly understood.

Examples include:

• repeatedly referring to a diagnosis of autism despite this never being claimed by the participant or forming part of the evidence before the NDIA;

• repeatedly referring to the participant as male when she is female;

• relying on generic statements regarding parental responsibility without properly comparing expected parental responsibilities for a teenager of the same age without disability, as required under the NDIS framework; and

• failing to adequately address functional evidence provided by qualified treating practitioners.

These are not insignificant administrative errors. They undermine confidence that individualised decisions are being made based on the participant’s actual circumstances.

If the Parliament intends to provide the NDIA with broader legislative discretion, stronger safeguards are required to ensure decisions are based on accurate facts and a genuine consideration of evidence.

Inefficient use of taxpayer resources

The Government has justified this Bill partly on the basis of ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of the Scheme.

However, my family’s experience suggests that significant opportunities already exist to improve sustainability through better administration rather than reducing participant supports.

Despite comprehensive evidence being provided by treating practitioners, and despite our willingness to participate in an independent medical examination to avoid duplication and assist objective decision-making, the NDIA instead continued to engage external legal representatives who repeatedly sought targeted information already addressed within existing reports.

This resulted in:

• unnecessary duplication of expert evidence;
• prolonged delays;
• increased legal costs funded by taxpayers;
• increased stress for participants and families; and
• further Tribunal proceedings that may have been avoided had the original evidence been properly considered.

It is difficult to reconcile these practices with the Government’s objective of improving efficiency and reducing unnecessary expenditure.

The Bill should therefore include stronger obligations requiring the NDIA to demonstrate why additional evidence is necessary before commissioning further expert reports or pursuing repetitive requests where equivalent evidence already exists.

Accountability for decision-making

The proposed amendments increase the powers available to the NDIA while simultaneously narrowing participant protections in several areas.

My experience suggests that additional powers should not be granted without corresponding accountability mechanisms.

Where factual errors, misunderstandings or failures to consider evidence occur, there should be mandatory internal quality assurance processes before matters escalate to litigation funded by public money.

Participants should not bear the burden of correcting obvious administrative mistakes through lengthy review processes.

Procedural fairness

The current review framework appears heavily weighted towards defending original decisions rather than genuinely reconsidering them.

Where internal review documents contain factual inaccuracies and fail to accurately reflect the participant’s evidence, confidence in the fairness and independence of the review process is significantly diminished.

The Bill should strengthen statutory obligations requiring review decision-makers to demonstrate that:

• all relevant evidence has been considered;
• incorrect factual assumptions have been corrected;
• competing evidence has been evaluated transparently; and
• reasons clearly explain why qualified expert evidence has been accepted or rejected. Sustainability requires good administration

Public confidence in the NDIS depends upon participants believing that decisions are lawful, evidence-based and made fairly.

Improving sustainability should include:

• reducing unnecessary legal expenditure;

• avoiding duplication of expert assessments;

• improving delegate training;

• strengthening quality assurance for review decisions;

• ensuring decision-makers accurately understand participant evidence before litigation commences; and

• measuring administrative efficiency, not simply reductions in participant expenditure. Investing in better first-instance decision-making would reduce appeals, improve participant outcomes and deliver substantial savings to taxpayers.

Recommendations

I respectfully recommend that the Committee consider amendments to require:

1. mandatory quality assurance processes for internal review decisions before litigation is commenced;

2. statutory obligations requiring delegates to certify that all relevant evidence has been considered and that factual information relied upon is accurate;

3. greater transparency where expert evidence is rejected, including written reasons explaining why;

4. restrictions on commissioning duplicate evidence where equivalent independent clinical evidence already exists unless specific deficiencies are identified;

5. reporting requirements on NDIA expenditure relating to legal proceedings, external legal services and duplicated assessments;

6. independent oversight of review quality, including publication of systemic errors identified through ART proceedings; and

7. performance measures that assess the quality, accuracy and efficiency of NDIA decision-making rather than focusing primarily on expenditure reduction.

Conclusion

The long-term sustainability of the NDIS will not be achieved solely through tighter eligibility criteria or reduced supports.

It will also depend upon restoring public confidence that the NDIA makes decisions accurately, fairly and efficiently.

My family’s experience demonstrates that there are significant opportunities to improve administrative performance, reduce unnecessary expenditure and strengthen public trust without compromising the rights of participants.

I urge the Committee to ensure that any expansion of NDIA powers is accompanied by equally strong obligations of accountability, transparency and procedural fairness.

Kind regards