National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3178
To the Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs,
I am writing on behalf of NSP Plan Management Pty Ltd, a national NDIS plan management provider supporting participants to manage their NDIS funding, process invoices, monitor budgets, fraud prevention, identify claiming issues, and maintain choice and control over their supports.
While we support the intent to improve Scheme sustainability, strengthen safeguards, reduce fraud, and lift standards across the sector, we have serious concerns about the proposed move toward a restricted plan management panel and the impact this may have on participant choice, business viability, and market fairness.
We urge the Committee to address the following risks:
Participant choice and control must be protected Participants should not be forced into large corporate providers simply because the market has been narrowed too far. Many participants choose smaller and mid-sized plan managers because they value direct contact, local knowledge, faster support, and a more personalised service.
Size alone should not determine quality A restricted panel risks pushing out high-quality independent plan managers based mainly on client numbers or national size. Scale does not automatically mean better service, stronger safeguards, or better outcomes. Smaller providers with strong systems, clear invoice controls, good governance, and the ability to scale responsibly must be given a fair opportunity to remain in the market.
Risk of market concentration Reducing the number of plan managers too heavily may limit competition, reduce service standards, and leave participants with fewer genuine choices. It may also create greater reliance on large organisations, even where participants prefer smaller, conflict-free, independent providers.
Inadequate transition timelines Rolling out major changes, including commissioning, provider enrolment, registration requirements and new compliance obligations, will create a significant burden on providers. Without clear criteria, fair notice, review rights and a proper transition process, there is a real risk that capable providers will be forced out before they have had a fair chance to respond.
Commercial uncertainty for providers The current lack of detail around the proposed panel creates serious uncertainty for plan management businesses trying to make decisions about staffing, systems, mergers, investment and long-term viability. Providers need clear information about selection criteria, panel size, transition arrangements and future opportunities to apply.
Compliance costs must be recognised If the Government expects higher standards, stronger reporting, record keeping, audits, fraud controls and registration obligations, these costs must be properly considered. High-quality providers should not be financially penalised for doing the right thing.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3178
We recommend that the Committee ensure any future plan management model is based on quality, compliance, participant outcomes, fraud prevention, conflict-of-interest controls, service standards and the ability to scale safely — not just size or national footprint.
We also recommend that the Government consider a minimum standards model, tiered panel, regional allocation, or future panel refresh process to ensure high-quality small and mid-sized providers are not unfairly removed from the sector.
If reform is needed, it should lift standards without removing trusted providers that participants have chosen in good faith.
Nicole P u lfo rd
P ro vid e r Nu m b e r 4 0 50 0 86881 Mo b ile Em a il h e llo@n sp p lan .com .au W e b sit e w w w .n sp p lan .com .au