NDIA Accountability Project

This project is in DRAFT

Concerns over NDIS reform implementation risks and participant rights (Individual advocacy)

‹ PrevPage 1 of 12 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 343

Community and Public Sector Union (PSU Group)

May 2026

Submission 343

CPSU SUBMISSION

Executive Summary

Staff at the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (Commission) support the objective of securing the long-term sustainability of the NDIS. However, there are mixed views about the reform package overall and significant concern that the proposed NDIS reforms carry high implementation risks and may come at the expense of participant rights.

While many staff support the sustainability objectives underpinning the reforms, there is substantial disagreement about whether the reforms will achieve these aims in practice. Some respondents describe the reforms as a “one size fits all approach” that removes individualised decision-making and risks non-compliance with human rights obligations. Others consider the changes necessary to secure the future of the scheme, citing concerns that too many people are currently on the NDIS and that stronger controls are required to ensure sustainability.

A consistent theme from staff is that reforms are proceeding without adequate workforce capacity, resourcing, systems, or safeguards. Staff report high workloads, unfit ICT systems, continued reliance on labour hire in core functions, and poor communication about implementation. Many report learning about reforms at the same time as the public, undermining confidence and service quality.

There is strong concern that changes to eligibility, standardised assessments and automation will increase participant anxiety, intensify aggression towards frontline staff, and elevate psychosocial risks. Staff consistently emphasise that human judgement is essential across eligibility, planning and decision-making, and there is strong resistance to purely automated decisions.

Without sustained investment in workforce capacity, systems and safety, the reforms risk shifting rather than resolving pressures by removing participants without viable alternatives and transferring costs and risks to the health system, families and frontline workers. This would undermine participant outcomes, staff safety and the integrity of the NDIS.

Introduction

As the primary union representing employees in the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (Commission), the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) welcome the opportunity to make a submission to this inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

The CPSU supports the objectives of securing the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) for future generations. However, without sustained resourcing, workforce capacity and safeguards, the Bill could undermine service quality, staff safety, and participant trust.

– NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS) BILL

Submission 343

CPSU SUBMISSION

This submission focuses on the following issues, drawn from a CPSU survey of staff at the NDIA and consultation with Commission staff:

  • concerns about implementation,
  • inadequate resourcing to implement the NDIS reforms,
  • staffing pressures, increased workloads, and the ongoing use of labour hire,
  • changes to access and eligibility, including standardised assessments,
  • automation and decision-making safeguards,
  • aggression and work health and safety risks,
  • ministerial power to set fees, and
  • the growth in Commission complaints and regulatory capacity. Concerns about implementation

Implementation risk is the dominant issue raised by NDIA and Commission staff. Even those who support the reform objectives express concern about execution, including the pace of rollout, poor communication, and inadequate systems and safeguards.

Staff report significant uncertainty about how key reforms will operate in practice. Many rules including those relating to functional capacity assessments and mandatory provider registration will be developed over an extended period, making it difficult for staff to assess impacts or prepare for delivery. Some measures also create legal uncertainty, for example, the Bill appears to exclude people receiving workers’ or motor vehicle compensation from accessing the NDIS, including current participants, with no grandfathering.1

As one respondent stated, “We are building the aircraft whilst we are flying.” Unsurprisingly, a substantial majority of respondents answered “unsure” to many CPSU survey questions about the impact of NDIS reforms.

Across responses, staff consistently highlight increased workload, inadequate staffing, and unfit ICT systems, raising serious doubts about implementation feasibility. While some staff support the goal of improving sustainability and consistency, overall confidence in implementation is low.

Inadequate resourcing to implement the NDIS reforms

The CPSU supports measures that strengthen the integrity and long-term sustainability of the NDIS. However, the evidence from NDIA staff indicates that the proposed reforms risk failing in delivery unless government addresses NDIA workforce and resourcing risks, budget challenges and funding uncertainty.

1 National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, Schedule 1, Part 9, Clause 25B (2) & (3)

– NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS) BILL

Submission 343

CPSU SUBMISSION

NDIA workforce and resourcing risks

There are concerns the NDIS reforms will increase workloads without sufficient staffing or systems. Only a quarter (24%) of respondents believe the NDIA has sufficient staffing and resources to implement the reforms effectively. Additionally, half (50%) expect their workload to increase because of the reforms.

Staff perceive a mismatch between reform ambition and the level of resourcing provided. Workload spikes are anticipated in reassessments, reviews/appeals and the administrative burden, with the risk of burnout. Comments from NDIA included:

“More steps… but no amendments made to KPI’s which is unacceptable.”

“Workload pressures are already barely manageable.”

“There is no possible way the changes can be rolled out smoothly without massive issues.”

“We don’t have the staffing for the assessments… already causing stress.”

Resourcing and workload pressures are already significant within the agency. The proposed changes may be overly ambitious given current staffing levels. When asked how much day-to-day tasks might change, 43% expected a significant impact, only 15% anticipated minimal impact, and 16% were unsure. This indicates widespread concern about substantial changes to roles and responsibilities.

Budget challenges and funding uncertainty

There are significant concerns that the NDIA is not resourced for the scale of the proposed reforms. The NDIA’s 2025 Incoming Government Brief (IGB) highlighted long-term budget challenges, noting “The NDIA is currently funded year-on-year and, as a result, faces significant budget challenges which, if not addressed, will hinder ongoing reforms and the level of service delivery.” The NDIA’s 2026-27 Portfolio Budget Statements also indicate a substantial reduction in employee benefits from $1.2 billion in 2026-27 to $615 million in 2027-28.2

Other challenges cited in the IGB included:

– NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS) BILL

Submission 343

CPSU SUBMISSION

Sustained funding is necessary to meet growth targets, rein in spending, and implement reforms. The IGB notes that without adequate resourcing, this would “directly impact the NDIA’s ability to achieve the target.” 3

Staffing pressures, increased workloads, and the ongoing use of labour hire

The 2026-27 Budget projects a decline in NDIA average staffing levels (ASL) from 10,509 to 9,840, a reduction of 669 (6.4%).4 This is despite reforms that will expand the NDIA’s responsibilities and functions. At present, the likely workload impact remains unclear due to limited implementation detail.

The NDIA will receive new compliance and enforcement powers related to NDIS payments. Its current capacity in this area is limited. A substantially expanded focus on fraud, non-compliance and enforcement will require a significant uplift in staffing, training and ICT systems.

Staff do not feel equipped for new roles or processes. There is a strong need for comprehensive training and clear role definition (especially planners vs assessors). Without it, there is a risk of inconsistent application.

“Requirement of adequate training regarding the new framework.”

“We need to be fully trained before this goes live.”

“Lack of understanding of the new legislation due to poor training.”

“No clarity on what my role will be.”

Current ICT systems are not fit for the NDIS reforms with significant frustration with existing infrastructure. There is a perception reforms are being layered onto broken systems. ICT issues are also directly linked to inefficiency and workloads. Comments included:

“PACE is not fit for purpose… staff cannot edit submitted documentation.”

“Computer system is not fit for purpose.”

“The system is messy and allows information to be hidden.”

“Better ICT systems needed before rollout.”

Survey results also suggest scepticism about the operationalisation of the new compliance and enforcement powers. While 78% believe these new powers will improve the NDIA’s ability to detect and respond to fraud, only 22% believe the NDIA has sufficient staffing and

3 National Disability Insurance Agency (2025). Incoming Minister Brief. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/13430/response/42583/attach/6/FOI%2024.25%201968%20Document%20Disclosure%20Log.p df?cookie_passthrough=1 4 Commonwealth of Australia (2026). 2026-27 Budget Paper No. 4: Agency resourcing 2026–27 (Part 2: Staffing of agencies). https://budget.gov.au/content/bp4/download/bp4_2026_27_consolidated.pdf

– NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS) BILL

Submission 343

CPSU SUBMISSION

resources to expand compliance and enforcement with the current budgeted staffing numbers.

The rules for expanded mandatory provider registration have not yet been determined, making it difficult to assess workforce impacts for both the NDIA and the Commission. Uncertainty around these settings, alongside the existing complaints backlog, remains unresolved.

Adequate staffing will be critical to safe and effective implementation. Although the 2026-27 Budget indicates that the Commission’s workforce is projected to grow, the CPSU understands the Commission had been operating above ASL. As a result, the increase primarily enables retention of existing staff, rather than supporting additional recruitment.

Labour hire is still an issue

The NDIS was originally designed to be fully funded, with an early estimate of 10,595 NDIA staff in 2018-19 required to deliver the NDIS.5 Subsequent staffing caps, limiting the NDIA to a maximum Average Staffing Level of 3,000 in the Coalition’s first Budget in 2014,6 constrained the NDIA’s ability to build internal capability and contributed to extensive reliance on external labour, including periods where external workers outnumbered ongoing staff.

There has been a substantial reduction in labour hire. The NDIA’s 2024-25 Annual Report states the agency took steps to bring core work in-house in line with the APS Strategic Commissioning Framework, replacing 1,034 labour hire workers in core roles with APS positions. 7 However, approximately 1,183 labour hire workers remain as at 30 April 2026, many of whom are employed by Serco as the first point of contact in contact centres.

The continued outsourcing of core work affects both workers and participants. High turnover among labour hire cohorts can reduce continuity, weaken institutional knowledge, create a need for double handling and contribute to poorer customer experience and delayed planning outcomes. Over time, this undermines participant confidence in the NDIA’s capacity to make administratively fair and consistent decisions, and it limits the agency’s capability to implement legislation and reforms effectively.

5 Commonwealth of Australia (2016). 2016-17 Budget Paper No. 4: Agency resourcing 2016–17 (Part 2: Staffing of agencies). https://archive.budget.gov.au/2016-17/bp4/Budget2016-17_BP4.pdf 6 Commonwealth of Australia (2016). 2016-17 Budget Paper No. 4: Agency resourcing 2016–17 (Part 2: Staffing of agencies). https://archive.budget.gov.au/2016-17/bp4/Budget2016-17_BP4.pdf 7 National Disability Insurance Agency (2025). 2024-25 Annual Report. https://www.ndis.gov.au/publications/annual-report

– NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS) BILL

Submission 343

CPSU SUBMISSION

Changes to access and eligibility, including standardised assessments

Staff have raised strong concerns about changes to access and eligibility, particularly the risk that reforms may exclude vulnerable participants without viable alternatives. Seven in ten (71%) agree or strongly agree that changes to access and eligibility will increase participant anxiety and exacerbate safety risks for NDIA workers.

Respondents expressed anxiety that tightening eligibility may shift rather than resolve system pressures by removing people from the NDIS without adequate foundational or mainstream supports in place. This risks transferring costs and responsibility to the health system, families, and frontline staff. Comments included:

“There is no plan for people removed from the scheme.”

“Mainstream health is already struggling.”

“State supports are not provided to people who lose access.”

There are mixed views on standardised assessments. While 68% agree or strongly agree that a new definition of functional capacity and standardised assessments may improve consistency, fewer than half (45%) believe these tools will adequately capture complex needs. Staff referenced concerns that standardised approaches risk removing individualised decision-making and failing to reflect fluctuating or less visible disabilities, based on experience with I-CAN.

Planners reported that the time burden in planning often comes from navigating complex needs and circumstances. A standardised approach risks deskilling planners and reducing meaningful engagement with participants.

Many planners reported that while they are meeting KPI targets of 3½ to 4½ plans per week, it is a constant struggle. Many reported relying on overtime and missing training to meet targets. Reforms will increase the workload of some tasks, while reducing others:

  • 60% agree or strongly agree requiring evidence that applicants have undertaken “all appropriate treatment” will increase the time needed to assess applications.

  • 58% agree Restrictions on plan reassessments and the introduction of automatic plan renewals will reduce workloads.

There is recognition by staff that reforms are needed. Overall, 61% agree the proposed changes will ensure participants can access reasonable and necessary supports. However, there is concern about gaps in non-NDIS supports (foundational supports issue) as other alternative systems are not ready to absorb excluded participants. The system is fragmented and there is a risk of cost-shifting to the health system. Comments included:

“There is no plan for people removed from the scheme.”

“Mainstream health is already struggling.”

“State supports are not provided to people who lose access.”

– NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS) BILL

Submission 343

CPSU SUBMISSION

Automation and decision-making safeguards

Staff are open to the use of automation for routine administrative tasks with 52% expressing support in principle for low-risk tasks. There is, however, strong opposition to the use of automation in decision-making that affects participant access, eligibility or supports.

Across automation, eligibility and planning, there is a consistent insistence on human oversight. Staff expressed concern that automation risks removing individualised decision-making, embedding errors at scale, and causing harm to participants that frontline staff will ultimately be required to resolve. One respondent cautioned “Learn from Robodebt and don’t use it at all.”

Three in five (60%) staff have concerns about increased errors from expanded automation, particularly in eligibility assessments. There is strong scepticism that written Standard Operating Procedures alone are sufficient safeguards with only a fifth (22%) agreeing or strongly agreeing, and strong consensus that accountability must remain with human delegates.

There is currently no whole-of-government framework setting minimum safeguards for automated decision-making. While measures such as published Standard Operating Procedures and access to human review may mitigate risks, the Bill would allow the Minister to expand automation through future legislative instruments.

Staff are concerned that automation could replicate the limitations observed in I-CAN, particularly its inability to capture complexity, resulting in inappropriate decisions, increased reviews, and higher downstream workloads.

There was a strong consensus that human oversight and safeguards are needed. Automation must be supervised, decisions must be reviewable and accountability must remain with human delegates.

Any move towards automation will require additional resourcing. Just under half (46%) believe automation will increase workloads due to requests for human review and nine in ten (87%) these changes will require significant ICT system updates and staff training.

Aggression and work health and safety risks

In 2023, the Ashton Review was commissioned to examine the NDIA’s security and safety arrangements. Delivered to the NDIA in May 2024, it made 36 urgent recommendations to improve staff safety. However, the report was not shared for 15 months, and some basic measures such as CCTV, lockable barriers and opaque glass are not expected to be fully in place until February 2027.8

8 YourLifeChoices (2024). NDIS staff face serious dangers while long-overdue safety reforms stall. https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/government/ndis-staff-face-serious-dangers-while-long-overdue-safety-reforms-stall/

– NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS) BILL

Submission 343

CPSU SUBMISSION

The reforms are expected to increase participant anxiety and frontline staff exposure to aggression as media narratives have amplified fear and conflict, creating heightened risks. Increased eligibility disputes, automation-related errors, staffing pressures and poor communication are likely to intensify issues.

While staff empathise with participants experiencing distress or dissatisfaction, they report that workforce strain is already high and that reforms are layering complexity onto existing pressure, increasing exposure to emotional harm and workload stress. The NDIA has a clear duty to provide a safe workplace and to minimise psychosocial risks.

Reported incidents of aggression and objectionable behaviour have increased sharply over recent years, as shown by the statistics provided to the CPSU below:

  • 1 Oct 2022-30 Sep 2023: 123 incidents
  • 1 Oct 2023-30 Sep 2024: 211 incidents (72% increase)
  • 1 Oct 2024-30 Sep 2025: 464 incidents (120% increase)9
  • 1 Oct 2025-31 Mar 2026: 1,192 incidents over six months (including 26 Code Grey and 1 Code Black activations)

Overall, this reflects an 869.1% increase over three years, from 123 to 1,192 reported incidents (Oct 2022 to Mar 2026).

While the NDIA has promoted a ‘Speak Up’ campaign for reporting work, health and safety issues, a recent CPSU survey of NDIA members found:

  • 89% of respondents did not submit a Speak Up report when experiencing psychosocial hazards,

  • among those who did, 69% were dissatisfied with the outcome, and

  • the most common barriers were low confidence in meaningful action and feeling unsafe or uncomfortable raising concerns.10

Taken together, increased eligibility disputes, automation, and staffing pressures are likely to further exacerbate already unsafe frontline conditions. More needs to be done as only a third (34%) believe the NDIA has appropriate measures in place to protect their wellbeing and safety while reforms are implemented.

Ministerial power to set fees

The CPSU is concerned about the breadth of the Minister’s power to set maximum fees. Broad discretion creates a risk that NDIS payments could be subject to future arbitrary cuts.

9 This increase occurred alongside a headcount increase of 1,623 in that year. 10 Community and Public Sector Union (2026). WHS Report - Widespread Unsafe Workloads: NDIA Regional Services Planners.

– NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS) BILL

Submission 343

CPSU SUBMISSION

The CPSU notes the previous freezing of Medicare rebate indexation,11 and has concerns a similar approach could be applied to NDIS pricing settings.

Ministerial power is also inconsistent with the NDIS Review’s recommendation that the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority should be responsible for pricing.12

The growth in Commission complaints and regulatory capacity

The Commission handles complaints relating to the delivery of NDIS services, and its workload is closely intertwined with NDIA decisions and broader NDIS settings. Given the Commission’s compliance and enforcement role, greater clarity is needed about the respective compliance and regulatory responsibilities of the Commission and the NDIA. It is currently unclear to some staff why the NDIA is expanding its compliance activities and what flow-on impacts this will have on the Commission’s staffing levels and workload.

The Commission has experienced excessive workload issues for an extended period. Since its establishment, complaints volumes have steadily increased and now far exceed original projections. While staffing was increased in 2022-23 based on projected complaints of 15,000-16,000 per year, actual volumes have now effectively doubled. Complaints rose from 2,130 in 2018-19 to 29,054 in 2023-24, with approximately 33,500 projected for 2024-25. The IGB also reported a casehold of approximately 23,000 matters. 13

The Commission’s 2025 IGB states “In reality, the NDIS Commission’s workload has increased beyond the level used to model costs in 2023-24, and as such, the NDIS Commission will continue to find it difficult to meet demand.” 14 The scale of the backlog of complaints has required the Commission to set up a dedicated team to clear historic complaints lodged before July 2025 by 30 June 2026, leaving complaints lodged since to be addressed.

Similarly, pressures exist in relation to reportable incidents lodged by providers. A significant backlog had built up over time, requiring the creation of a special allocations team to triage and address the backlog. The CPSU understands there were approximately 5,000 remaining in the queue after January 2026.

The CPSU is concerned that proposed reforms may further increase complaint and incident volumes, particularly if mandatory provider registration expands and market activity shifts, worsening performance. The Commission’s 2024-25 Annual Report already found that only 47% of complaints were resolved within 90 days, well below the 70% target and down from 58% in 2023-24.15

11 The Conversation (2019). What is the Medicare rebate freeze and what does it mean for you? https://theconversation.com/what-is-the medicare-rebate-freeze-and-what-does-it-mean-for-you-114169 12 NDIS Review (2023). Working together to deliver the NDIS. https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/resources/reports/working-together-deliver ndis/ 13 NDIS Commission (2025). Incoming Minister Brief. 14 NDIS Commission (2025). Incoming Minister Brief. 15 The Conversation. (2019). What is the Medicare rebate freeze and what does it mean for you? https://theconversation.com/what-is the-medicare-rebate-freeze-and-what-does-it-mean-for-you-114169

– NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS) BILL

Submission 343

CPSU SUBMISSION

The expansion of mandatory registrations of providers will require significant additional resourcing regardless of any transition period. More broadly, all areas of the Commission will need increased staffing and capability to ensure workloads manageable, staff are protected from harm, and the regulator remains effective. Anticipated increases in registrations are likely to lead to increases in complaints, reportable incidents, and business-as-usual work, compounding existing backlogs across the Commission.

The impact of longstanding workload pressures is reflected in previous APS Census results. In 2025, 21% of respondents reported workloads well above capacity and 41% slightly above capacity while only 8% reported workloads slightly or well below capacity. Only 35% said their workgroup has the tools and resources needed to perform well.16

These pressures have also contributed to a persistently poor workplace culture. While the Broderick Review has initiated important improvements, this work must be prioritised and adequately resourced as part of NDIS reforms to ensure workers are not exposed to unsafe conditions and so that the Commission can operate as an effective regulator.

Although the Budget provided additional funding for the Commission, its adequacy remains uncertain. The 2025 IGB noted there were approximately 20,000 registered NDIS providers and over 175,000 unregistered providers. Australian National Audit Office reporting indicates 254,018 active unregistered providers in Q4 2024-25, with 181,938 managing 42% of plan-managed payments. 17 The Commission has acknowledged this means it has “minimised visibility of a vast proportion of the provider market”. In 2024, the Commission registered 7,096 providers. 18 The IGB also states that, without additional Budget measures, the Commission’s budget will decrease by $72.5 million on 1 July 2027, likely leading to significant staff losses and reduced capacity to increase scrutiny of providers. 19

Conclusion

The CPSU supports measures that strengthen the integrity and long-term sustainability of the NDIS, however, the evidence from NDIA and Commission staff indicates that the proposed reforms risk failing in delivery unless government addresses the core constraints that have repeatedly undermined performance, namely inadequate resourcing, insufficient workforce capacity, high workloads, unfit systems, and unresolved safety risks.

While most staff support the goal of improving sustainability and consistency, confidence in implementation is low. Without adequate safeguards, the reforms risk shifting costs and risks

16 NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2025). APS employee census - NQSC highlights report 2025. https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025 11/APS%20Employee%20Census%20-%20NQSC%20-%20Highlights%20Report%202025.pdf 17 Auditor-General Report No.2 2025–26 Effectiveness of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission’s Regulatory Functions, https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/effectiveness-the-ndis-quality-and-safeguards-commissions-regulatory-functions 2025 18 NDIS Commission (2025). Incoming Minister Brief. 19 NDIS Commission (2025). Incoming Minister Brief.

– NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS) BILL

Submission 343

CPSU SUBMISSION

into other systems rather than resolving underlying problems, to the detriment of participants, staff and the NDIS as a whole.

– NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS) BILL