Submission 3322 — Name Withheld (3322 | External submission

Senate Inquiry into the

National Disability Insurance

Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission by

Western Australia

Contents of Submission

Appendix A ………………………………………………………………….. 3

Appendix B ………………………………………………………………….. 6

Appendix C ………………………………………………………………….. 9

Executive Summary ……………………………………………………… 11

About the Author ………………………………………………………… 13

Why This Inquiry Matters ……………………………………………… 14

Sustainability Through Accountability ……………………………… 15

Why My Family’s Experience Is Relevant …………………………… 16

A Case Study in Safeguarding Failures ……………………………… 17

When Safeguards Fail ……………………………………………………. 18

The Long Road to Accountability ……………………………………. 19

The Human Cost of System Delays …………………………………… 20

The NDIS Can Work—and My Brother Proves It …………………. 21

Building a More Sustainable National Disability Insurance Scheme

……………………………………………………….. 22

Supporting Good Providers While Addressing Poor Practice …. 23

Recommendations ………………………………………………………. 24

A Personal Reflection ……………………………………………………. 25

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………. 26

APPENDIX A

Chronological Timeline of Events

Note: This timeline has been prepared to assist the Committee in understanding the sequence of events and the extended safeguarding and complaints process experienced by my family. Supporting documentation is available for many of the events listed below.

July 2025

Behaviour Support Plan by ORS Group completed

’s Behaviour Support Plan documented several significant concerns regarding his supported accommodation, including:

 Environmental restrictions which included occasions where the electricity to the home was reportedly turned off externally at the mains, restricting ’s access to power within the home.

 “Cost Response” practices involving the removal of valued personal belongings to encourage compliance.

  Repeated compulsory community access despite        's apparent distress.

 Risks associated with behavioural escalation during transport resulting in near car accidents.

  Concerns regarding the impact of these practices on        's wellbeing and dignity.

   Police doing a Wellness check at the residence after     was found by members of the public sitting

in the middle of the road.

These concerns were raised many months before the serious incident of December 2025.

August 2025

Our family contacted management regarding concerns raised within the Behaviour Support Plan.

While discussions occurred, my family remained concerned that significant safeguarding issues had not been adequately addressed.

14 December 2025

Serious Incident

sustained significant injuries while residing in NDIS-funded supported accommodation.

According to the information available to our family:

 suffered a bloodied nose following an alleged assault.

 He sustained severe scratches to his right shoulder blade.

 He sustained extensive bruising to his right arm.

 He was reportedly left without immediate medical assistance despite visible injuries and obvious distress by the Support Worker on duty that day.

Medical assistance was only obtained after our mother unexpectedly arrived at the accommodation and discovered ’s condition.

was transported to Joondalup Health Campus where he received emergency medical treatment for 3 days, including a blood transfusion and was admitted over Christmas and New Years for 4 weeks following the assault.

December 2025

Our family commenced reporting the incident to relevant agencies.

This included:

 A formal video Police interview and report number.

 Provider reporting.

 Medical documentation.

 Collection of photographs.

 Preservation of available evidence.

December 2025 onwards

Formal complaints lodged with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.

Supporting material supplied included:

 Medical records.

 Hospital discharge summaries.

 Behaviour Support Plans.

 Incident reports.

 Photographs.

 Videos.

 Witness information.

 Written statements.

Early 2026

Ongoing engagement with:

 WA Police

 NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission

 Disability advocates

 Behaviour support practitioners

 Medical professionals

March 2026

Police investigation reopened following a Channel 7 news exclusive done with senior reporter .

Further medical records were requested by detectives.

June 2026

Formal interview completed with investigators from the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.

Approximately one hour of detailed video interview was provided by me.

My mother also participated in a separate one hour interview.

Additional documentation and supporting evidence were provided.

Present

Our family continues to await final outcomes from ongoing investigations.

Despite the challenges experienced, has now transitioned into a far more supportive environment where his wellbeing has improved significantly.

This positive outcome demonstrates the importance of quality providers within the NDIS and reinforces why safeguarding reforms should aim to promote high-quality services while strengthening accountability where standards are not met.

APPENDIX B

Supporting Evidence Available

The following documentation has either been provided to investigating bodies or is available to support the matters discussed throughout this submission.

Where appropriate, copies can be made available to the Committee upon request.

Medical Evidence

 Emergency Department records.

 Hospital admission records.

 Hospital discharge summaries.

 Medical imaging.

 Blood transfusion records.

 Clinical observations.

 Injury documentation.

Behaviour Support Documentation

 Behaviour Support Plan (July 2025)

 Functional Behaviour Assessment.

 Restrictive Practice documentation.

 Behaviour support reviews and reports.

 Positive Behaviour Support email discussions with ORS Group

Incident Documentation

 Provider incident reports.

 Internal provider correspondence.

 Timeline of events.

 Family impact statements.

 Written recollections.

Photographic and Video Evidence

 Photographs documenting injuries.

  Videos documenting        's recovery.

  Videos demonstrating        's wellbeing within his current accommodation.

 Photographs of environmental concerns where applicable.

Agency Correspondence

Correspondence with:

 NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.

 WA Police.

 Midlas.

 Public Advocate services.

 Disability advocacy organisations.

 Support providers.

 Behaviour support practitioners.

 Treating clinicians.

Witness Information

Evidence from:

 Family members.

 Support workers.

 Medical professionals.

 Behaviour support practitioners.

 Providers.

Positive Outcome Documentation

To provide balance, documentation is also available demonstrating the significant improvements in ’s wellbeing following his transition to his current supported NDIS accommodation.

This includes:

 Photographs.

 Videos.

 Support worker updates.

 Family observations.

These materials demonstrate the positive outcomes that can be achieved when participants receive high quality, person-centred supports from dedicated and appropriately managed providers.

APPENDIX C

Policy Recommendations Informed by Lived Experience

The recommendations contained within this submission are not intended to address one individual circumstance. Rather, they reflect broader systemic issues found through my family’s experience advocating for a highly vulnerable NDIS participant over an extended period.

The purpose of this appendix is to demonstrate how lived experience has informed each recommendation and why these reforms could improve participant safety across the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Policy Recommendation                 Lived Experience             Broader Policy Benefit

Our family experienced lengthy investigations following a serious Greater investigative capacity would enable

Increase funding for the NDIS Quality and     incident involving          , resulting more timely responses to serious complaints,

Safeguards Commission                        in prolonged uncertainty and     reduce delays and improve confidence in the

emotional distress while awaiting safeguarding system for families. outcomes.

Following the alleged assault on , our family experienced a Prioritising high-risk matters would better Introduce priority investigation pathways for lengthy investigative process protect vulnerable participants and enable allegations involving assault, abuse, neglect despite the seriousness of the earlier intervention where participant safety or participant safety

incident and        's inability to   may remain at risk.

advocate for himself.

Throughout the investigation process our family frequently Clear communication improves transparency, Improve communication throughout sought updates while attempting reduces stress on families and promotes investigations to understand the progress of confidence in regulatory processes. multiple agencies.

cannot independently Recognising families as important explain traumatic events or safeguarding partners would improve advocate for his own rights. Recognise family advocates as safeguarding participant protection, particularly for Throughout the investigation our partners individuals with significant communication family became the primary source barriers. This will also strengthen confidence of information, evidence and in the Scheme for families. ongoing advocacy.

Participants with significant Stronger oversight helps ensure participants disabilities place extraordinaryStrengthen workforce screening, supervision receive safe, ethical and appropriately trust in support workers andand accountability supervised supports while improving public provider management. When that confidence in the disability workforce. trust is breached, the

Policy Recommendation Lived Experience Broader Policy Benefit

consequences can be extreme.

Our family has experienced uncertainty regarding Appropriate transparency promotes Improve transparency regarding provider investigation outcomes and accountability while reinforcing confidence accountability whether meaningful actions were that safeguarding systems operate effectively. taken following serious concerns.

Since moved to a new home Recognising and supporting high-performing under a dedicated House Manager individuals working in the NDIS encourages Reward providers demonstrating consistently and experienced support workers, quality improvement across the sector while high-quality participant outcomes his confidence, wellbeing and demonstrating what good participant-centred quality of life have improved care can achieve. significantly.

The consequences of poor Preventing harm is both ethically responsible safeguarding included hospital and economically efficient, reducing Invest in prevention rather than crisis treatment, ongoing investigations, downstream costs associated with crisis response changes in accommodation and intervention, healthcare and regulatory significant emotional impacts for responses. our family.

’s Behaviour Support Plan

documented concerns regarding Stronger oversight would help ensure restrictive practices, Behaviour Support Plans are implemented Improve oversight of restrictive practices and environmental restrictions and consistently and that restrictive practices

Behaviour Support Plan implementation

compulsory community access remain lawful, proportionate and subject to that negatively affected his ongoing review. wellbeing.

Our family engaged with multiple Better coordination between agencies could agencies, often repeating Improve information sharing between reduce duplication, improve efficiency and information and navigating oversight agencies support more timely decision-making in separate processes while trying to complex safeguarding matters. advocate for .

Our experience highlighted the National monitoring could identify emerging Develop national indicators to identify importance of recognising risks earlier and support targeted compliance providers demonstrating repeated patterns of concern rather than activities before further participants are safeguarding concerns viewing incidents in isolation. affected.

Executive Summary

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians by enabling people with disabilities to live with greater independence, dignity and choice. It is one of Australia’s most significant social reforms and its long-term sustainability is essential.

However, sustainability should not be measured solely by reducing funding or limiting participant supports. A sustainable Scheme must also ensure that public funding is directed towards high-quality services, effective regulation and strong safeguards that protect participants from abuse, neglect, exploitation and poor-quality care.

I am making this submission as the sister and long-term advocate of my younger brother, Wooller, a Western Australian NDIS participant with complex disabilities who cannot independently advocate for himself. My family’s experience navigating serious safeguarding failures has demonstrated that while many disability providers deliver exceptional care, there remain significant gaps in oversight and accountability by individuals in the Scheme.

Following a serious incident involving in December 2025, our family entered a lengthy complaints and investigation process involving multiple government agencies. Throughout this experience, we have supplied extensive documentation, medical records, photographs, videos and witness information while attempting to obtain answers regarding the circumstances surrounding his injuries and the care he received. The process highlighted significant delays, inconsistent communication and the immense burden placed upon families who often become the primary advocates for vulnerable participants.

This submission is not intended to revisit the facts of one individual case. Rather, it uses my family’s experience to demonstrate broader systemic issues that deserve careful consideration during deliberations on the proposed legislation.

I respectfully submit that the long-term sustainability of the NDIS depends not only on responsible financial management but also on ensuring that current participants are protected through effective safeguarding, timely investigations and stronger individual accountability.

Reducing funding without addressing systemic failures risks shifting costs elsewhere through preventable hospital admissions, crisis responses, participant trauma, provider failure and lengthy investigations. Investment in safeguarding should therefore be viewed as an investment in the sustainability of the Scheme itself.

The recommendations contained within this submission encourage the Committee to consider strengthening the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, improving provider oversight, recognising the important role of family advocates and rewarding providers who consistently demonstrate safe, participant-centred care.

The NDIS works extraordinarily well when participants receive appropriate supports from skilled, compassionate providers. My brother’s current accommodation demonstrates

exactly what good support can achieve. His confidence, wellbeing and quality of life have improved dramatically under dedicated staff who genuinely understand his needs.

My submission therefore seeks not only to highlight areas requiring reform but also to recognise the many providers who represent the values the NDIS was created to uphold.

About the Author

My name is , and I am a Western Australian born citizen from 1993, the sister of , and one of his long-term advocates. I’m passionate about native WA flora and work professionally in the Environmental Sector to protect and educate the public, how unique and precious our flora is. enjoys watching movies and old cartoons from the early 2000s, spending quality time with our mother and most recently, he’s became very fond of basketball.

is a NDIS participant living with . Due to significant communication barriers and cognitive impairment, he is unable to independently understand many aspects of the systems intended to protect him or advocate effectively when something goes wrong. Like many participants with high support needs, he relies heavily upon trusted family members to ensure his rights, wellbeing and safety are protected.

For over a decade, my mother and I have worked alongside disability support providers, behaviour support practitioners, allied health professionals, hospitals, guardianship services and government agencies to help ensure receives appropriate care.

Our advocacy has never been about seeking special treatment. It has been about ensuring receives the same fundamental rights every Australian deserves: safety, dignity, respect and the opportunity to live a meaningful life.

Prior to the events discussed later in this submission, I had confidence that where serious concerns arose within the NDIS, the safeguarding system would respond promptly and transparently. My family’s experience has fundamentally changed that opinion.

While I acknowledge the dedication of many individuals working throughout the disability sector—including support workers, clinicians, investigators and public servants who genuinely care about participants—I have also witnessed the consequences of a system that often appears under-resourced when responding to serious safeguarding concerns.

This submission has therefore been prepared not only as a sister, but as someone who has spent many years engaging directly with the complaints, safeguarding and regulatory systems responsible for protecting vulnerable Australians with disability.

Why This Inquiry Matters

Public discussion surrounding the National Disability Insurance Scheme frequently focuses on funding, sustainability and growth in participant numbers.

These discussions are important. The NDIS represents one of Australia’s largest public investments and taxpayers rightly expect that funding is spent responsibly.

However, financial sustainability should not be considered in isolation from participant safety.

Every dollar invested in the Scheme carries with it a responsibility to ensure that supports are delivered safely, ethically and in accordance with the principles upon which the NDIS was established.

When providers consistently deliver high-quality services, participants thrive.

When providers fail to meet their obligations, the consequences extend far beyond individual incidents. They can include preventable injuries, avoidable hospital admissions, psychological trauma, breakdowns in participant trust, costly investigations and significant costs associated with crisis responses.

The true cost of poor safeguarding is measured not in dollars, but in preventable harm, lost independence, and diminished public trust in the NDIS.

The question before Parliament should therefore not simply be how the NDIS can spend less.

It should also ask how the Scheme can spend better.

Sustainability Through Accountability

One of the strongest opportunities for improving the sustainability of the NDIS lies in strengthening accountability across the disability sector.

Government investment should be directed towards providers and individuals who consistently demonstrate safe, ethical and participant-centred practices.

Likewise, providers and individuals who repeatedly fail to meet required standards should be identified earlier through stronger auditing, compliance activities and safeguarding mechanisms.

Early intervention protects participants while also reducing the substantial financial costs associated with major safeguarding failures. Every serious incident that is prevented avoids significant downstream funding including emergency medical care, hospital admissions, additional behavioural supports, accommodation changes, investigations, criminal compensation claims and legal proceedings.

Viewed in this context, safeguarding should not be regarded merely as an administrative expense.

It is an investment that protects participants while improving the long-term financial sustainability of the Scheme.

Why My Family’s Experience Is Relevant

I recognise that my family’s experience represents only one participant within a Scheme supporting hundreds of thousands of Australians.

I also recognise that many disability providers and individuals within the NDIS deliver exceptional care every day under challenging circumstances.

My intention is not to suggest that the issues described in this submission are representative of every provider, individual or participant.

Rather, I respectfully submit that our experience provides an important case study illustrating what can occur when safeguarding systems are unable to respond as quickly or effectively as vulnerable participants require.

Throughout the following sections, I will outline the circumstances surrounding my brother’s experience, the challenges our family encountered while seeking accountability and the broader policy teachings that I believe Parliament should consider when determining the future direction of the NDIS.

Ultimately, my hope is that this submission contributes constructively to the Committee’s work by demonstrating that participant safety and financial sustainability are not competing priorities. They are fundamentally interconnected. A Scheme that protects its most vulnerable participants is also a Scheme that represents better value for taxpayers and greater confidence for the Australian community.

A Case Study in Safeguarding Failures

While the previous sections have discussed safeguarding from a policy perspective, I believe it is important to explain why these issues are so significant to my family.

My brother, , is a NDIS participant with . Due to his cognitive impairment and significant communication barriers, cannot independently explain events, report concerns or advocate for himself in the way many other participants can.

This places an even greater responsibility on disability providers and individuals, regulators and government agencies to ensure his safety.

For participants like , safeguarding is not an abstract policy objective. It is the mechanism that protects him when he cannot protect himself.

Throughout July 2025, my family became increasingly concerned about ’s care while he was living in NDIS-funded supported accommodation. Some concerns related to the quality of day-to-day support, while others raised broader questions regarding house management oversight and participant wellbeing.

These concerns were not isolated complaints made after a single incident. They developed over time and reflected a pattern that caused our family increasing concern.

Among the issues documented were concerns relating to Environmental restrictions by turning off the electricity to the house externally, the application of “Cost Response” practices and ’s apparent distress associated with compulsory community access despite repeated indications that these activities were negatively affecting his wellbeing and causing risks of car accidents during transport.

Many of these concerns are well documented within ’s Behaviour Support Plan prepared during the July 2024- July 2025 period.

In hindsight, these issues demonstrated the importance of recognising early warning signs before more serious incidents occur.

Effective safeguarding should not begin only after significant harm has occurred.

It should identify risk early, respond proportionately and ensure participants remain safe before concerns escalate.

When Safeguards Fail

On the 14th of December 2025, my family’s concerns became far more serious.

On that day, was allegedly assaulted by another NDIS participant while receiving NDIS-funded supports in his accommodation. The house was staffed by only one support worker for two residents at the time. I say publicly that inadequate supervision and failures in duty of care contributed to the incident and its aftermath. Following the assault, was left seriously injured without prompt medical assistance, forming the root of my concerns regarding neglect and safeguarding failures.

According to the information available to our family, sustained a bloodied nose after being punched in the face, extensive bruising to his right arm and severe scratches across his right shoulder.

What is particularly difficult for my family to comprehend is not only the injuries themselves, but the response that followed.

was reportedly left without appropriate medical attention for more than thirty minutes despite visible injuries and obvious distress by the Support Worker on duty that day. The House Manager overseeing the participant safety of the NDIS accommodation was not present.

Medical assistance was only obtained after our mother unexpectedly arrived at the residence and personally discovered the condition he had been left in.

was subsequently transported to for 4 weeks where he required emergency medical treatment, including a blood transfusion later that evening after the assault.

For any family, these events would be devastating.

For a family whose loved one cannot adequately explain what happened, the emotional impact is almost impossible to describe.

Our greatest concern was not simply that had been injured.

It was that the systems specifically designed to recognise vulnerability, respond immediately and protect participants appeared to have failed when he needed them most.

The purpose of disability support is not merely to provide assistance with daily living.

It is to provide safety.

When that safety cannot be guaranteed, confidence in the entire Scheme is shattered.

The Long Road to Accountability

Following the incident, my family entered what has now become a lengthy 8-month process involving multiple agencies responsible for participant safeguarding.

Throughout this period, we have submitted extensive documentation, photographs, medical records, hospital discharge information, Behaviour Support Plans, witness information and detailed timelines to assist investigators.

We have participated in formal video interviews, responded to numerous requests for information and maintained ongoing communication with multiple organisations including Channel 7 news and the WA police responsible for investigating different aspects of the matter.

While all staff members have treated us with professionalism and compassion, the overall process has highlighted significant challenges.

Investigations into serious safeguarding matters can take many months.

Communication between agencies and families can be inconsistent.

Families frequently find themselves uncertain about the status of investigations, expected timeframes or whether participants remain protected while enquiries continue.

For vulnerable participants who cannot independently seek answers, these delays create additional distress.

Family members become responsible for following up agencies, coordinating information and ensuring concerns continue receiving attention.

In effect, families become case managers within systems that should already be coordinating participant protection.

This places considerable emotional and practical burden upon people who are already coping with trauma.

The Human Cost of System Delays

Discussions regarding NDIS sustainability often focuses upon the financial aspect.

Less frequently discussed is the cost of delayed safeguarding, which include:

Hospital admissions. Emergency medical treatment. Psychological services. Behaviour support. Emotional distress for families. Changes in accommodation. Replacement support teams. Lengthy investigations. Additional government resources. Compensation claims

Each of these outcomes represents funding that may have been reduced through earlier intervention and stronger oversight.

However, the greatest cost cannot be measured financially.

It is measured in the confidence participants lose when they no longer feel safe.

It is measured in the anxiety experienced by families who constantly question whether their loved one is being treated with dignity and respect.

It is measured in the emotional exhaustion of advocates who spend months seeking answers while trying to support vulnerable family members through recovery.

No economic analysis of the NDIS is complete unless it also considers these human costs.

The NDIS Can Work — And My Brother Proves It

One of the most important messages I wish to convey is that my submission is not an argument against the NDIS.

Quite the opposite.

My brother’s current circumstances demonstrate exactly what the Scheme can achieve when participants receive high-quality and person-centred support.

Since moving to a different supported accommodation with a dedicated House Manager and experienced support workers, the change in ’s wellbeing has been remarkable.

Our family regularly receives photographs and videos showing smiling, participating in activities, spending time in the community at his own pace and genuinely enjoying life.

The contrast has been profound.

His confidence has grown.

His emotional wellbeing has improved.

He appears happier, more relaxed and more secure than he has for a long time.

These improvements have not occurred because ’s disability changed.

They occurred because the quality of his support changed.

This distinction is critically important.

The NDIS does not fail because disability is complex.

It fails when systems let poor practice continue unchecked, when safeguarding responses are delayed and when accountability mechanisms lack sufficient resources.

Equally, when compassionate support workers, capable managers and well-governed providers work together, participants flourish.

For this reason, I believe the Committee should view stronger safeguarding not as criticism of the disability sector but as an investment in the many outstanding providers who consistently deliver the standard of care participants deserve.

Building a More Sustainable National Disability

Insurance Scheme

The public conversation surrounding the future of the NDIS often centres on funding, participant numbers and projected financial growth. These are important considerations, and I acknowledge the responsibility of Government to ensure public funds are managed responsibly.

However, sustainability should not be measured solely by how much money is spent.

It should also be measured by how effectively public money protects participants, promotes independence and prevents avoidable harm.

Every serious safeguarding failure represents a cost.

There is the immediate human cost experienced by the participant and their family.

There is also the financial cost associated with emergency medical treatment, hospital admissions, behavioural deterioration, crisis accommodation, additional supports, investigations and regulatory responses.

Many of these costs arise only after harm has already occurred.

A stronger safeguarding system has the potential to reduce both human suffering and long term government funding.

Investment in participant protection should therefore be viewed as a preventative investment rather than an administrative overhead.

The Committee has an opportunity to consider sustainability not simply as reducing funding, but as improving the quality and effectiveness of every dollar already invested in the Scheme.

Supporting Good Providers While Addressing Poor

Practice

One of the most important lessons my family has learned is that excellent providers exist throughout the disability sector.

Our experience today is vastly different from our experience during the period discussed earlier in this submission.

Since moving to a new supported accommodation with an experienced House Manager and dedicated long-term support workers, has flourished.

His confidence has increased.

His emotional wellbeing has improved.

He participates in activities he enjoys.

Our family regularly receives photographs and videos that demonstrate genuine engagement, happiness and quality support.

This positive experience reinforces an important policy point.

The purpose of stronger regulation is not to create unnecessary burden for providers who consistently deliver high-quality care.

Rather, it is to ensure those providers are recognised, supported and able to compete fairly within the sector.

Strong regulation benefits good providers by increasing public confidence, improving participant safety and ensuring organisations committed to quality are not disadvantaged by those that fail to meet appropriate standards.

Government investment should reward providers who consistently demonstrate safe, ethical and participant-centred practice while ensuring that repeated failures are identified and addressed promptly.

Recommendations

Based upon my family’s lived experience and the broader policy issues discussed throughout this submission, I respectfully recommend that the Committee consider the following reforms.

Strengthen the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission Provide additional funding, staffing and investigative resources to reduce delays in responding to serious safeguarding concerns.
Introduce faster investigation pathways for serious incidents Complaints involving allegations of assault, neglect, abuse or participant safety should receive priority investigation with clearly communicated timeframes.
Increase provider auditing and compliance activities Earlier identification of systemic issues can reduce participant harm before significant incidents occur.
Improve communication with participants and families Families should receive regular updates during investigations, clear explanations of processes and realistic expectations regarding timeframes.
Improve transparency Where appropriate and consistent with privacy obligations, participants and their advocates should better understand how complaints have been assessed and what actions have been taken.
Recognise family advocates as safeguarding partners Families often possess the greatest understanding of a participant’s communication, behaviour and support needs. Their contributions should be recognised as an important component of safeguarding.
Continue recognising and supporting high-performing providers Government policy should encourage excellence by recognising providers who consistently demonstrate outstanding participant outcomes.
Consider the economic value of prevention Future policy development should recognise that investment in safeguarding and early intervention can reduce downstream expenditure associated with crisis responses and long term harm.

A Personal Reflection

Throughout this process I have often reflected upon how different our experience may have been if had been able to speak for himself.

Many participants cannot clearly explain what has happened to them.

Some cannot describe pain.

Some cannot report abuse.

Some cannot identify neglect.

Many rely entirely upon those around them to notice when something is wrong.

That reality places an extraordinary responsibility upon providers, regulators and governments.

Families should not spend months wondering whether serious concerns are being adequately investigated.

They should not feel that they must constantly follow up agencies simply to ensure vulnerable participants remain visible within complex systems.

At the same time, my family has also seen what excellent support looks like.

We have seen compassionate support workers build trust.

We have seen capable leadership create stable environments.

We have seen become happier, more confident and more engaged simply because the quality of his support improved.

Those positive experiences remind me why the NDIS is worth protecting.

The Scheme has enormous potential.

It changes lives every day.

My hope is that future reforms strengthen that potential by ensuring participant safety remains at the centre of every policy decision.

Conclusion

When Parliament considers the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I respectfully ask that it consider sustainability in its broadest sense.

A sustainable Scheme is not simply one that controls funding.

It is one that delivers quality supports, protects vulnerable participants, maintains public confidence and ensures government funding achieves its intended purpose.

My brother’s experience has profoundly shaped my understanding of the importance of safeguarding.

While our family continues to hope for appropriate outcomes through the relevant processes, this submission is not about seeking sympathy or revisiting one individual matter.

It is about ensuring that the lessons learned from our experience contribute to a stronger system for everyone.

Every participant deserves to feel safe.

Every family deserves confidence that concerns will be taken seriously.

Every provider committed to quality deserves to work within a system that values accountability as highly as compassion.

The NDIS has transformed the lives of countless Australians.

I believe it can continue to do so for generations to come.

However, this will require investment not only in participant supports, but also in the safeguards that protect those supports from failing the people who depend upon them most.

If this inquiry leads to stronger oversight, earlier intervention, better communication and greater accountability, then it will help ensure that future participants—and their families—can have greater confidence in a Scheme built on dignity, respect and safety.

Thank you for considering my submission.