Submission to the NDIS Inquiry 2026
Author: Meiko Georgouras
Submission Type: Lived Experience / Participant Impact Statement Date: July 2026
- Introduction I am a person living with profound and permanent disabilities. My family provides 24/7 care to keep me safe, supported, and able to live at home. I rely on the NDIS for essential daily living supports — not discretionary services, but the basic assistance required to survive.
This submission outlines how the NDIS has drifted away from its founding purpose as a national insurance scheme, and how that drift has left people like me in a significantly worse position than before the scheme existed.
- The Original Purpose of the NDIS When the NDIS was established, it was explicitly designed as a national insurance scheme, not a welfare program. Its founding principles included:
-
Actuarial funding based on lifetime needs, not short-term budget cycles.
-
Minimal administrative overhead, with resources directed to participant supports.
-
Choice and control for participants, enabling them to select supports that best meet their needs.
-
Consistency and fairness, replacing the fragmented, inequitable state-based systems.
-
Long-term sustainability through predictable modelling, not reactive cost- cutting.
The early years of the scheme demonstrated that this model worked. In 2019, public reporting showed that the NDIS operated under budget, largely because many participants did not use the full value of their annual plans. This underspend contributed to the federal government’s ability to present a balanced budget that year.
At that time, approximately 450,000 participants had transitioned from state systems into the NDIS. The scheme was functioning as intended: stable, predictable, and grounded in insurance principles.
- What the NDIS Has Become Since those early years, the scheme has undergone significant and rapid expansion. Public commentary and official reporting indicate that:
-
The number of participants has roughly doubled, despite no evidence that the population of people with severe and permanent disabilities has doubled.
-
The NDIA workforce has also doubled, increasing administrative complexity rather than reducing it.
-
The scheme has increasingly been shaped by political cycles, election narratives, and short-term cost pressures rather than actuarial modelling.
-
Participants with the highest and most permanent needs are experiencing funding reductions, despite stable or increasing support requirements.
This represents a profound departure from the original insurance-based design.
The NDIS is now characterised by:
- Administrative expansion instead of participant support expansion
- Inconsistent decision-making
- Opaque reassessment processes
- A drift toward rationing rather than needs-based allocation
- A growing gap between public perception and lived reality The scheme is not failing because of participants. It is failing because of system drift, governance issues, and mismanagement.
- My Lived Experience: Funding Has Decreased, Not Increased My own experience directly contradicts the dominant narrative that NDIS costs are “out of control.”
I now receive less funding than I was granted 12 years ago under the old state-based disability system.
My disability has not improved. My needs have not decreased. My care requirements remain profound and permanent.
The only change has been a reduction in the supports I am eligible for.
This is not an isolated case. Many people with high and permanent disabilities report similar reductions, particularly since the introduction of new assessment frameworks and cost-containment measures.
This demonstrates that the issue is not participant overspending, but systemic tightening that disproportionately harms those with the highest support needs.
- The Impact on Carers
When my supports are reduced, my needs do not disappear. They fall onto my family, who already provide round-the-clock unpaid care.
This has severe consequences:
- Carer burnout
- Loss of income and employment opportunities
- Declining physical and mental health
- Increased risk of crisis situations requiring hospitalisation
- Erosion of family stability and wellbeing The NDIS was created to prevent exactly this scenario. Instead, current reforms are recreating the conditions of the old state systems, where families were left to absorb the cost of disability through unpaid labour.
- The Consequences of System Drift The shift away from the original insurance model has created several systemic problems:
6.1 Loss of Actuarial Integrity
Funding decisions increasingly reflect short-term budget pressures rather than lifetime needs.
6.2 Administrative Overgrowth
The NDIA’s staffing expansion has not translated into better outcomes for participants; instead, it has increased bureaucracy and reduced clarity.
6.3 Erosion of Choice and Control
Participants are increasingly constrained by prescriptive interpretations of “reasonable and necessary,” limiting their ability to tailor supports.
6.4 Inconsistent and Unpredictable Planning
Plan cuts occur without clear justification, leaving participants unable to plan for their future needs.
6.5 Misalignment with Founding Purpose
The NDIS is drifting toward a rationed welfare model rather than a stable insurance scheme.
- Recommendations To restore the NDIS to its original purpose, I urge the Inquiry to consider the following:
7.1 Reaffirm the Insurance Model
Return to actuarial, lifetime-based funding principles rather than short-term cost containment.
7.2 Protect High-Needs Participants
Ensure that people with profound and permanent disabilities are not subjected to funding reductions that undermine basic safety and care.
7.3 Reduce Administrative Burden
Refocus resources on participant supports rather than expanding bureaucracy.
7.4 Strengthen Transparency and Accountability
Provide clear, evidence-based explanations for funding decisions and plan changes.
7.5 Recognise and Support Carers
Acknowledge the essential role of unpaid carers and ensure that cuts do not shift costs onto families.
7.6 Restore Choice and Control
Ensure participants retain genuine autonomy over their supports, as originally intended.
- Conclusion The NDIS was created to give people like me a fair chance at living safely, with dignity, and with adequate support. Instead, I am now receiving less than what I had before the scheme existed, despite unchanged and profound needs.
The NDIS must return to its founding purpose: a national insurance scheme that provides reasonable and necessary supports, protects those with the highest needs, and operates with transparency, stability, and integrity.
I ask the Inquiry to centre lived experience — not assumptions, not stereotypes, and not political narratives — in its recommendations. The future of the NDIS depends on restoring the principles that made it work.