Submission 948
As a person with a disability and a disability advocate, I recognise the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). I support the need for reform. However, I am deeply concerned that the current approach is disproportionately targeting participants and their families, rather than addressing the systemic inefficiencies and exploitation within the scheme itself.
At present, funding reductions and increased scrutiny appear to be falling most heavily on those the NDIS was designed to support—people with disability—while widespread issues involving fraud, price inflation, and unethical provider behaviour remain insufficiently addressed.
It is difficult to reconcile why participants are being asked to justify essential supports, while examples of clear market exploitation persist. For instance, it is not uncommon for the cost of basic assistive equipment to significantly increase once a supplier becomes aware that the purchaser is an NDIS participant. This kind of price inflation, along with providers claiming for services not delivered, represents a serious integrity issue. These are the areas that require decisive action.
A clear example of this price distortion is something as basic as a foldable walking stick. The exact same aluminium folding walking stick can be purchased online for under $15 with next-day delivery. Yet very similar—and often identical—products are routinely sold through disability or mobility providers for around $45–$70.
Even mainstream Australian retailers sell comparable foldable walking sticks in the $12–$30 range.
This is not a difference in quality or function—it is the same basic product. The only difference is that once it is supplied through disability channels, the price increases dramatically. This kind of systemic overcharging is a far more significant contributor to cost blowouts than participant supports, yet it remains largely unaddressed.
Recent evidence presented to a parliamentary inquiry indicated that approximately $3.7 billion— around 8.3% of total NDIS expenditure—was attributed to “integrity leakage” in the last financial year. This highlights that the problem is not participant overuse, but systemic weaknesses that allow misuse of funds at scale.
You noted in your address to the National Press Club that unscheduled plan reviews are contributing to cost pressures, and suggested that plan managers may play a role in this. If that is the case, what concrete steps are being taken to regulate and hold these actors accountable?
Submission 948
From a participant perspective, a significant driver of plan reviews is that initial plans often fail to accurately capture the full impact of a person’s disability. Participants are then forced into review processes simply to secure adequate and reasonable supports. Addressing planning quality at the outset would reduce the need for costly reassessments.
I am also concerned by suggestions that community and social participation supports should be reduced due to perceived misuse by support workers. If there are issues with worker conduct, then it is the responsibility of providers and regulators to address this directly. It is not appropriate to penalise participants by reducing access to supports that are critical for inclusion, independence, and wellbeing.
For many of us, these supports are not discretionary. Personally, I rely on community participation funding to attend medical appointments, maintain commitments I have made, and attend social events (family, friends, events). These are fundamental aspects of daily life, not luxuries.
More broadly, I was concerned by commentary suggesting that pre-NDIS community programs fostered genuine inclusion. Historically, many such programs resulted in segregation rather than integration, limiting opportunities for people with disability to participate fully in society. The NDIS was designed to change this, and it is critical that reforms do not unintentionally reverse that progress.
I am also aware of cases where participants are being drawn into lengthy and costly processes through the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), requiring them to resubmit extensive medical evidence that has already been provided. This creates unnecessary financial and emotional strain, particularly for individuals with significant and permanent disabilities whose support needs are not in question. It raises serious concerns when administrative and legal processes appear to override the assessments of qualified medical and allied health professionals.
Additionally, there is growing frustration within the community about decisions being made remotely, without adequate understanding of individual circumstances, and sometimes in contradiction to on-the-ground assessments conducted by NDIS staff and treating professionals.
Minister, there is a broader equity issue at play. Many Australians are questioning how the Government can afford substantial tax concessions, while at the same time tightening supports for some of the most vulnerable members of our community.
Submission 948
A sustainable NDIS must be built on fairness, accountability, and genuine partnership. I strongly urge the Government to prioritise:
- Targeting fraud, overcharging, and unethical provider practices
- Improving the accuracy and consistency of initial planning decisions
- Reducing administrative inefficiencies and duplication
- Ensuring regulatory action is directed at those misusing the system—not participants
- Engaging meaningfully with people with disability and their families in shaping reforms Once these systemic issues are addressed, there will be a stronger foundation for collaborative discussions about long-term sustainability.
I would welcome the opportunity to see a reform approach that works with participants, rather then placing additional burden on them