Submission Regarding the NDIS Amendment Bill 2026
My name is Louise Hartmann, and I am the owner of Case Managers Australia, a small disability support provider.
I am not opposed to the NDIS or to reasonable reform. I believe strongly in the scheme’s original purpose: giving people with disability greater choice, control, individualised support and improved quality of life.
My concern is that the NDIS is losing sight of these principles and risks repeating serious mistakes made during its original implementation. Reform must address fraud, poor practice and unnecessary expenditure without punishing participants, frontline workers and ethical providers who value the scheme and work hard to make it successful.
- Responsible Transitions and the Broader Service System Australia must not repeat a “transition first, services later” approach.
Participants should not lose NDIS support until suitable local alternatives are properly funded, operational and proven capable of meeting their needs. Alternatives must not rely solely on block-funded or one-size-fits-all programs. Flexible and individualised support models are essential if participant choice and control are to be preserved.
Public discussion also regularly overlooks the responsibilities that the NDIS absorbed from community mental health, disability and social support systems.
The true cost of reducing NDIS support cannot be measured only through scheme expenditure. It must also include:
● increased hospital presentations and admissions; ● housing instability and homelessness; ● pressure on families and unpaid carers; ● contact with police, justice and emergency services; ● loss of employment and community participation; and ● the long-term cost of withdrawing preventative supports.
The government should publish transparent whole-of-system cost modelling before removing people from the scheme or significantly reducing supports.
- The Reality for Small Providers I established Case Managers Australia to bridge the gap between people with disability and the complex systems surrounding them.
Building a safe and accountable service requires significant training, administration and compliance. Small providers must understand Fair Work obligations, award wages, superannuation, incident reporting, privacy, safeguarding, workplace safety, NDIS pricing and quality requirements.
Providers are frequently required to rely on conflicting or unofficial advice because clear, free and regularly updated compliance tools are not readily available.
Registration status alone does not guarantee quality. Some small and unregistered providers deliver highly responsive, consistent and personalised support, often with greater continuity than larger organisations.
Compliance requirements should be proportionate to:
● the size of the provider; ● the type of support delivered; ● the level of risk involved; and ● the provider’s actual performance and history.
Without affordable and proportionate registration pathways, the NDIS risks losing ethical small providers and leaving the market dominated by organisations with large administrative departments rather than those delivering the best participant outcomes.
One possible approach would be to introduce staged registration periods, such as allocating application or audit periods by business name or another rotating category. Randomised audit selection could also reduce the opportunity for providers to prepare only temporarily for inspection.
Small providers should be audited early and fairly. These audits may also reveal what ethical small organisations are doing particularly well, including continuity of care, relationship-based support, responsiveness and local knowledge.
- Fraud Must Be Addressed Without Blaming Everyone
Fraud, exploitation and deliberate misuse of NDIS funding must be identified and stopped.
However, the NDIS and government must acknowledge their own role in creating a system that has become overly complex, difficult to navigate and vulnerable to inconsistent interpretation.
People with disability did not create this problem, and neither did all providers.
Many providers and workers are proud and grateful to contribute to the NDIS. We understand that we are often an extension of the health, mental health and community service systems. Many small providers deliver excellent support and, in some cases, achieve stronger outcomes than much larger organisations.
Reform should target evidence of fraud and poor practice rather than creating a culture where every provider is treated with suspicion.
When NDIS prices increase, the NDIA should clearly explain the reasons. Price changes often reflect legitimate increases in award wages, superannuation, insurance, training, administration and operating costs.
Public messaging that links all price increases with fraud damages trust between participants, families, providers and frontline workers.
- Participant-Centred Outcomes Participants are people with individual lives, not budget lines.
Support needs can fluctuate because of:
● housing crises; ● medication changes; ● physical or mental health deterioration; ● family breakdown; ● grief or trauma; ● increased safeguarding risks; or ● changes in informal support.
A participant’s daily support needs cannot always be accurately understood from one phone call, one assessment or one report.
Decision-makers must recognise that participants may say they are doing well because trusted frontline workers are providing the support that allows them to remain stable. The apparent stability of a participant should not be used as proof that the support is no longer required.
Frontline workers and providers are often raising concerns about increasing needs, safety risks and deteriorating circumstances. Their observations should be given appropriate weight.
Participants who do not answer telephone calls, emails or letters should not automatically be considered disengaged.
Communication barriers may arise from disability, anxiety, trauma, cognitive impairment, homelessness, limited literacy, lack of technology or fear of government systems.
Before any adverse decision is made, the NDIA should be required to attempt contact through authorised family members, guardians, support coordinators, recovery coaches or other trusted members of the participant’s support network.
Participants should also have an opportunity to review and correct reports before decisions are made using those reports.
A recent peer group discussion demonstrated the importance of community connection. One participant stated:
“Before this group, I never got to talk about my mental health with people who also shared their stories.”
No machine-readable text was extracted from this page.
This demonstrates how much progress has been made through individualised and community-based support, and how much may be lost if those supports are removed.
- Quality, Behaviour Support and Accountability Quality should be measured through meaningful outcomes, not merely through completed documents, reports or plans.
Behaviour Support Practitioners should be required to demonstrate:
● direct implementation support; ● practical guidance for frontline staff; ● regular review of strategies; ● measurable reductions in restrictive practices or harmful behaviours; ● improved participant safety and wellbeing; and ● improved quality of life.
Frontline support workers are often left to implement behaviour support plans without sufficient instruction, follow-up or clinical guidance.
A professional title or completed plan should not be treated as evidence that positive outcomes have occurred.
- Safety and Workforce Integrity Support work is complex and often underestimated.
Workers may be required to:
● identify abuse, neglect or exploitation; ● manage mental health crises; ● respond to substance use; ● enter unsafe homes;
● manage aggressive or unpredictable behaviour; ● escalate medical concerns; ● support medication routines; and ● make safeguarding decisions in real time.
Many workers are placed in these situations without sufficient psychosocial training, supervision or access to clinical advice.
Small providers are frequently expected to manage serious risks without timely assistance from health services, behaviour practitioners, support coordinators or government agencies.
Privacy must not become secrecy when worker safety is at risk.
A participant’s right to receive support and a worker’s right to return home safely should not be treated as competing rights. A safe and properly funded system must protect both.
Where a risk assessment identifies a genuine need for two workers, the necessary funding should be available. Providers should not be financially penalised for meeting workplace safety and duty-of-care obligations.
- The Gap Between Policy and Procedure The NDIS often has appropriate policies in place, but those policies are not always supported by clear, consistent or workable procedures.
Participants, families and providers can receive different answers depending on who they speak to. This creates confusion, delays and unnecessary conflict.
Reform should focus not only on introducing new rules, but also on ensuring that existing rules can be understood and implemented consistently.
Clear procedures, practical guidance and accountable decision-making are essential.
Consolidated Recommendations
I ask the Committee to recommend:
Responsible Transitions
Participants should not be exited from the NDIS or have essential supports removed until suitable local alternatives are fully funded, operational and accessible.
Individual choice and flexible support models must be preserved rather than replaced entirely by block-funded programs, and potential new registration pathways made available for small business who possess those skills.
Support for Ethical Small Providers
The government should provide free or low cost , standardised and regularly updated compliance tools. EG Service, Agreements, Budgeting Tools that are not readily available and extremely confusing for a worker let alone a person with a disability
Registration and auditing should be affordable, staged, proportionate to risk and accessible to small providers.
Audits should identify good practice as well as non-compliance.
Targeted Fraud Prevention
Fraud and exploitation should be addressed through evidence-based investigation, data matching, random auditing and enforcement against those responsible.
Participants, workers and ethical providers should not be collectively blamed for systemic failures.
Person-Centred Decision-Making
Participants must be given an opportunity to correct reports before decisions are made.
The NDIA should be required to undertake meaningful outreach through a participant’s authorised support network before treating them as disengaged.
Support decisions must reflect fluctuating daily needs and consider the role that existing supports play in maintaining stability.
Recognition of Frontline Evidence
The observations of frontline workers, recovery coaches, support coordinators and trusted providers should be considered when they identify deterioration, increased risk or unmet need.
A participant appearing stable should not automatically be taken as evidence that their supports are unnecessary.
Safety and Workforce Integrity
The NDIS should strengthen psychosocial and safeguarding training, establish safe reporting pathways and improve access to clinical advice.
Two-worker supports should be funded where risk assessments demonstrate that they are necessary.
Meaningful Outcome Measurement
Provider and practitioner quality should be assessed through measurable participant outcomes, implementation support, continuity, safety and quality of life—not only through registration status or completed paperwork.
Systemic Transparency
The government should publish whole-of-system cost modelling showing the impact of NDIS reductions on hospitals, housing, justice services, families and community systems.
The NDIA should also clearly communicate the legitimate reasons for pricing changes, including award wages, superannuation and regulatory requirements.
Conclusion
The NDIS has changed lives and created opportunities that did not previously exist.
Reform is necessary, and fraud must be stopped. However, reform should not create fear among participants who rely on the scheme or among workers and providers who have followed the rules and worked within the NDIS framework.
Participants should not be punished for receiving support that has helped them build a safer and more stable life.
Ethical providers should not be treated as though they are responsible for the actions of fraudulent operators.
The government must listen to participants, families, frontline workers and small providers who understand what happens in people’s homes and communities every day.
A fair and sustainable NDIS must protect public funding while preserving dignity, safety, choice and individualised support.