Submission to the Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
∞
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment
(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by: Josephine Causer
NDIS Participant and Person with Lived Experience of Disability
⚶
Introduction
I welcome the opportunity to provide a submission regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I am an NDIS participant living with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and other significant health conditions. Prior to becoming disabled, I completed a Bachelor of Arts with a Psychology major at the University of Western Australia, worked extensively in the property industry, paid taxes, raised a child as a single parent, and actively contributed to my community.
My submission is not intended as a complaint regarding individual providers, the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), or the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Rather, I offer my experiences as evidence of broader systemic issues that should be carefully considered when assessing reforms intended to secure the future sustainability of the NDIS.
My central concern is that public discussion surrounding NDIS sustainability increasingly focuses on reducing participant expenditure while failing to adequately address the significant costs generated by poor provider quality, inadequate accountability mechanisms, participant trauma, service failures, and the absence of effective safeguards.
Key Position
The long-term sustainability of the NDIS will not be achieved by restricting participant access to supports if the underlying structural causes of inefficiency remain unaddressed.
In my experience, some of the greatest costs within the system arise not from participant needs, but from:
● Inadequate provider competence and accountability; ● High turnover of support coordination and service providers; ● Participants repeatedly having to replace failed services; ● Lack of effective mechanisms to resolve concerns before relationships break down; ● Insufficient participant advocacy; ● Delays in obtaining appropriate supports; and ● The worsening of participant health and wellbeing when supports fail.
Any legislative reform aimed at securing the NDIS for future generations should ensure that cost containment measures do not disproportionately impact participants while these structural issues remain unresolved.
Lived Experience of Systemic Failure
Following my MS diagnosis in 2017, I entered a system that was intended to provide support, choice, control, and independence.
Over approximately seven years, I experienced repeated cycles of provider failure, inadequate support coordination, poor communication, and a lack of accountability when concerns were raised.
A recurring pattern emerged:
1. A provider would be engaged. 2. The provider would fail to adequately deliver required supports. 3. Concerns would be raised. 4. Rather than addressing those concerns, the provider-participant relationship would end. 5. The process would begin again with another provider.
The result was not only the loss of funding through ineffective service delivery, but also significant emotional harm, loss of trust, increased isolation, and deterioration of health.
This experience raises an important policy question:
If participants are repeatedly forced to change providers due to poor service quality, is the resulting expenditure being properly understood as a provider accountability issue rather than a participant cost issue?
The Impact of Poor Supports on Participant Outcomes
The NDIS was established to improve independence and participation.
However, inadequate supports can have the opposite effect.
In my own circumstances, difficulties obtaining appropriate assistance contributed to increasing isolation, reduced community participation, worsening mental health, and challenges navigating other systems including housing and health services.
The financial cost of failed supports cannot be viewed separately from the human cost.
When participants receive inadequate assistance:
● Health outcomes worsen; ● Reliance on other government services increases; ● Informal support networks become strained; ● Housing stability may be affected; and ● Participants become less able to engage socially, economically, and civically.
Any assessment of NDIS sustainability should consider the costs created by under-supporting participants, not solely the costs associated with providing support.
Provider Quality and Accountability
One of the most significant weaknesses I have observed is the disparity between the level of scrutiny applied to participants and the level of scrutiny applied to some providers.
Participants are often required to repeatedly justify their disability, their needs, and their use of funding.
By contrast, provider competence, outcomes, and service quality can be difficult to assess and challenge.
I respectfully submit that any future reforms should consider:
● Stronger provider competency requirements; ● Greater transparency regarding provider qualifications and performance; ● More effective participant feedback mechanisms; ● Earlier intervention when patterns of poor service emerge; ● Stronger protections for participants who raise concerns; and ● Improved monitoring of outcomes rather than simple service delivery metrics.
Improving provider quality is not only a safeguarding issue; it is also a sustainability measure.
The Importance of Participant Voice
One of the most concerning aspects of current public discussion is the perception among many participants that they are being discussed rather than consulted.
People with disability possess lived expertise regarding what works, what fails, and where funding is being wasted.
Effective reform requires the inclusion of participant voices throughout policy development, implementation, and review processes.
The people most affected by changes to the NDIS should not merely be subjects of policy decisions. They should be active contributors to those decisions.
Recommendations
I respectfully recommend that the committee consider the following:
1. Ensure that sustainability measures do not disproportionately target participant supports while systemic provider accountability issues remain unresolved. 2. Strengthen provider quality assurance, competency requirements, and performance monitoring mechanisms. 3. Improve safeguards for participants who raise concerns regarding service quality. 4. Increase investment in participant advocacy and independent support services. 5. Require ongoing consultation with NDIS participants regarding implementation of legislative reforms. 6. Measure the cost of provider failure and participant harm as part of future sustainability assessments. 7. Ensure that reforms are evaluated against participant outcomes, independence, wellbeing, and community participation, rather than expenditure reduction alone.
Conclusion
I support efforts to ensure the NDIS remains sustainable for future generations.
However, sustainability should not be understood solely as reducing expenditure. A sustainable scheme is one that delivers effective supports, protects participants from exploitation, promotes independence, and ensures public funds achieve their intended purpose.
My experience suggests that significant opportunities exist to improve sustainability through better provider accountability, stronger safeguards, and greater inclusion of participant voices.
I respectfully urge the committee to ensure that reforms address these underlying structural issues so that future generations of Australians with disability receive the dignity, support, and opportunities that the NDIS was originally intended to provide.
Thank you for considering this submission.