NDIA Accountability Project

Concerns About the Proposed NDIS Reforms

‹ PrevPage 1 of 20 · Source p. 1Next ›

Personal Submission Regarding Proposed NDIS Changes

1 July 2026

Page 1 of 18

I am writing as a Participant of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (and as an Australian living with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis) to express my serious concerns about recent and proposed changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

My NDIS funding is not about convenience. It is about maintaining my independence, slowing the progression of disability where possible, remaining connected to my community, protecting my mental health and avoiding more costly interventions in the future.

Over the past several years I have fought hard to obtain and responsibly manage the supports I need.

In summary:

The AAT process

  • I spent 15 months fighting for supports.
  • The process significantly affected both my mental and physical health.
  • I required counselling during the appeal because of the stress.
  • The stress contributed to a decline in my physical functioning from which I am only now recovering.

The NDIA’s legal representative demonstrated a poor understanding of Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.

My therapies

  • My condition is progressive.
  • My therapies help maintain function—not cure my disability.
  • Reducing therapy will accelerate decline and increase future costs.

Community participation

  • My supports allow me to shop, attend appointments, participate in community events, maintain friendships and avoid social isolation.
  • They also enable me to continue studying through the University of Tasmania.

Self-management

  • I use taxpayer funds responsibly.
  • My professional background in accounting and legal practices means I understand financial accountability.
  • I negotiate lower provider rates wherever possible.

Provider choice:

I am also concerned that mandatory provider registration will force many small local businesses out of the NDIS because I am their only participant. This will reduce choice, increase costs and disrupt long-standing, trusted support relationships.

Assistive technology and consumables

  • These fund practical items that enable me to remain safe and independent.

The attached annexes provide further detail about each of these areas and explain why these supports are reasonable, necessary and cost-effective.

I ask that you carefully consider the lived experience of NDIS participants before supporting further changes.

Maintaining independence is far less expensive than funding increased disability.

I respectfully ask you to:

  • oppose reductions to reasonable and necessary supports
  • protect access to therapies for progressive neurological conditions
  • preserve participant choice and self-management
  • ensure social participation remains recognised as an essential support
  • recognise that maintaining independence ultimately saves public money.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my experiences with you.

Yours sincerely,

About Me

  • Diagnosed Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis 1992
  • Progressed to Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis around 2005
  • NDIS participant since 22 August 2019.
  • Self-managed participant.
  • Former accountant and legal practice employee.
  • Currently studying the Diploma of Sustainable Living (online) through the University of Tasmania.
  • Uses a walking stick, four-wheel walker and mobility scooter.
  • Goal: to maintain independence, stay active in the community and slow functional decline.
  • I want to remain living independently, comfortably, safely and securely in my own home and garden, including maintaining and improving my physical and mental health and to be able to participate and learn things that keep my mind and body active and to stay active in the community.
  • I kept a detailed falls diary because falls are a regular part of living with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. Between 1 January 2024 and 23 June 2026, I recorded 56 falls, highlighting the importance of timely therapies, assistive technology and home modifications in maintaining my safety and independence.

Annex A – My Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) Experience

Background

I spent 15 months in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) process fighting for the supports I require to live safely and independently with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (SPMS).

The process was one of the most stressful experiences of my life.

While I understood that the NDIA had a responsibility to ensure funding decisions were appropriate, the process often felt adversarial rather than collaborative.

Lack of Understanding of Progressive MS

The lawyer representing the NDIA appeared to have little understanding of Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.

despite the progressive nature of my condition, he repeatedly referred to relapses, even though I have not experienced a relapse for approximately 15 years.

He also suggested that neurological physiotherapy, physiotherapy and exercise physiology were essentially the same service.

These therapies have distinct purposes:

  • Neurological physiotherapy focuses on movement patterns, balance and neurological function.
  • Physiotherapy addresses pain, strength, flexibility and mobility.
  • Exercise physiology develops safe exercise programs that help maintain physical capacity.

Treating these disciplines as interchangeable demonstrated a lack of understanding of complex neurological conditions and the important role each discipline plays in helping me maintain my function and independence.

Mental and Physical Impact

Before commencing the AAT process, I was not accessing counselling services.

The stress, uncertainty and ongoing pressure of the proceedings resulted in me requiring counselling simply to cope with the process.

Outcome

I fought hard for my package because every support contributes to maintaining my independence and delaying further functional decline.

While I was ultimately successful, the cost was significant. The process affected my mental health, contributed to a decline in my physical functioning, and delayed my ability to focus on managing my condition. I believe there must be a better way for people with permanent and progressive disabilities to have their needs assessed—one that is fair, respectful and informed by an understanding of their medical condition.

My experience reinforced the importance of ensuring that decision-makers and those representing the NDIA have a sound understanding of progressive neurological conditions and the purpose of ongoing supports.

Annex B – Why My Therapies Matter

Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis is a lifelong, progressive neurological condition.

The purpose of my therapies is not to cure my disability. They exist to preserve function for as long as possible.

As my condition progresses, communication between my brain and body becomes increasingly impaired. This affects balance, coordination, muscle strength, endurance, fatigue, mobility and safety.

I currently receive:

  • Neurological physiotherapy (monthly)
  • Physiotherapy (weekly)
  • Podiatry (every two months)
  • Exercise physiology (when a suitable practitioner with MS experience can be located)
  • Counselling when required

Each therapist provides exercises specifically tailored to the issues I am experiencing at that time.

These exercises are incorporated into my daily routine.

Without these therapies I am likely to experience:

  • Faster loss of mobility
  • Increased falls
  • Reduced independence
  • Greater pain
  • Reduced ability to undertake everyday activities
  • Increased need for formal supports
  • Earlier reliance on health and aged care services

These therapies are preventative. They help delay deterioration rather than respond after irreversible decline has occurred.

Annex C – Community Participation

Community participation is essential to maintaining both my physical and mental wellbeing.

Because of my disability, many everyday activities require assistance.

My supports enable me to:

  • grocery shop
  • undertake general shopping
  • use the laundromat
  • attend movies
  • attend concerts
  • visit farmers’ markets
  • attend dog shows
  • visit exhibitions, museums and gardens
  • attend community events and festivals
  • visit family and friends
  • participate in community groups
  • attend appointments safely

Without these supports I would become increasingly isolated.

Community participation promotes physical activity, social connection, confidence and mental wellbeing.

Education

My supports have also enabled me to undertake further education.

I am currently studying online for the Diploma of Sustainable Living through the University of Tasmania.

The course is offered free to eligible domestic students through a 100% HECS tuition fee and Student Services and Amenities Fee scholarship.

Without my NDIS supports I would struggle to participate in study because of fatigue, mobility limitations and the day-to-day impacts of my disability.

Studying allows me to remain intellectually engaged while developing practical knowledge that can benefit my home, my community and the environment.

Remaining engaged in education demonstrates that appropriate disability supports enable people to continue contributing to society despite significant health challenges.

Annex D – Self-Management

I self-manage my NDIS funding because it provides flexibility while ensuring value for money.

My professional background includes working as an accountant and within legal practices.

These roles required:

  • financial accountability
  • budgeting
  • compliance
  • record keeping
  • documentation
  • responsible management of funds

These skills transfer directly to managing an NDIS budget.

I actively negotiate lower provider fees wherever possible.

With the exception of Occupational Therapy, all of my providers charge below the maximum NDIS pricing limits.

I continually review provider costs to ensure the best possible value.

Self-management also allows me to:

  • select providers with appropriate skills
  • replace providers who are not meeting my needs
  • minimise unnecessary expenditure
  • ensure funding is directed where it provides the greatest benefit

Responsible self-management saves NDIA resources while ensuring participants receive appropriate supports.

Annex E – Provider Choice and Mandatory Registration

I am deeply concerned about proposals that would require all NDIS providers to become registered.

While registration may be appropriate for larger organisations or providers delivering higher-risk supports, it will have significant unintended consequences for participants like me who rely on small local businesses.

Many of my providers are sole traders or small businesses. They include people who assist with cleaning, gardening and property maintenance—supports that enable me to continue living safely and independently in my own home.

I am their only NDIS participant.

These businesses have told me that the cost, time and administrative burden of becoming registered would not be worthwhile for a single NDIS client. If registration becomes mandatory, they are likely to stop providing NDS services altogether.

This would leave me having to find new providers who may:

  • charge higher prices;
  • have long waiting lists;
  • not understand my individual needs;
  • provide less flexible services; or
  • not be available in my local area.

Over time, I have built trusting relationships with providers who know my abilities, my limitations and how I like tasks to be completed. That trust cannot simply be replaced overnight.

Small providers also contribute to competition within the disability sector. Their presence encourages reasonable pricing, flexibility and personalised service. Losing them is likely to reduce participant choice and increase costs to the NDIA.

As a self-managed participant, I carefully select providers based on quality, value for money and their ability to meet my individual needs. Removing my ability to engage trusted local businesses would undermine one of the key strengths of self-management.

Ironically, mandatory provider registration is also likely to increase costs to the NDIA. I deliberately choose experienced local providers who charge below the NDIS Pricing Arrangements wherever possible. If those providers leave the NDIS because registration is not financially viable for a single participant, I will have no option but to engage larger registered providers charging the full NDIS rate. Rather than reducing expenditure,

Page 10 of 18

mandatory registration may increase costs while simultaneously reducing participant choice and control.

I respectfully ask that any provider registration requirements recognise the difference between high-risk disability supports and low-risk services such as domestic assistance, gardening and home maintenance. A one-size-fits-all approach risks reducing participant choice, increasing costs and forcing many capable small businesses out of the NDIS market.

Annex F – Assistive Technology

My Assistive Technology budget is modest but extremely important.

It funds practical items that enable me to remain safe and independent.

These include:

  • walking stick
  • four-wheel walker
  • mobility scooter
  • reacher/grabber devices
  • adaptive kitchen equipment
  • grab rails
  • mobility accessories
  • replacement parts and repairs for mobility equipment
  • other low-cost assistive devices that improve safety

These items reduce falls risk and allow me to complete everyday tasks independently.

Many are relatively inexpensive.

Replacing or repairing a walking aid is significantly less costly than hospital treatment resulting from a fall.

Small investments in assistive technology prevent much larger costs later.

Annex G – Consumables

My consumable funding assists with disability-related expenses that enable me to manage both my disability and my NDIS responsibilities effectively.

These include:

  • continence products
  • disability-specific self-management resources
  • access to the Self Management Hub and similar participant support resources
  • webinars explaining changes to NDIS legislation, participant responsibilities and self- mangement obligations
  • practical information that helps me understand and comply with changing NDIS requirements
  • low-cost disability aids such as medication organizers, adaptive kitchen utensils, jar openers, non-slip grips, dressing aids and other every day items that improve safety and independence.

These resources improve my ability to self-manage my supports, understand legislative changes and make informed decisions. Investing in participant knowledge and low-cost aids promotes independence and reduces the likelihood of more expensive interventions in the future.

Annex H – Why Investment Saves Money

Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis is, by definition, a progressive condition.

While it cannot be cured, appropriate supports can slow functional decline and help people remain independent for longer.

Investment in therapy, assistive technology and community participation is not discretionary spending.

It is preventative spending.

Maintaining mobility reduces falls.

Reducing falls decreases hospital admissions.

Therapies help delay functional decline.

Community participation reduces social isolation and supports mental health.

Education enables people with disability to remain engaged, continue learning and contribute to society.

Self-management promotes efficient use of taxpayer funds and encourages participants to actively seek value for money.

Without these supports, many participants will experience faster deterioration, increased reliance on health services, earlier entry into aged care, greater dependence on informal carers and significantly higher long-term costs.

For people living with progressive neurological conditions, maintaining independence is not only the right outcome for the individual—it is also the most economically responsible outcome for government.

The NDIS should be viewed not simply as a funding scheme, but as an investment in people. By supporting participants to remain active, engaged and independent, the Scheme delivers benefits not only to individuals and their families, but also to the broader Australian community through reduced health expenditure, increased participation and improved quality of life.

Annex I – The Cost of Delayed or

Inadequate Supports

One of the greatest costs to both participants and the Australian community is the delay in providing supports that have already been identified as reasonable and necessary.

My experience with obtaining funding for a ramp to access my backyard demonstrates this clearly.

Delays in Home Modifications

My backyard is not simply a recreational space. It contains my gardens and my chickens, both of which are important to my physical activity, mental wellbeing and quality of life.

Because of my mobility limitations resulting from Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis, i required a ramp to safely access the backyard.

My second request for funding for the ramp was submitted on 16 April 2023.

Despite the importance of the modification, no decision was made for an extended period.

By early 2025, after repeated delays, I lodged a formal complaint. As part of that complaint i provided hospital documentation relating to falls and injuries i had sustained while attempting to negotiate the unsafe access.

Following the complaint, the matter was reviewed by the Complaints team and funding for the ramp was approved almost immediately.

This raised an obvious question for me: if the modification could be approved so quickly after a complaint, why was i left waiting for so long while my safety continued to deteriorate?

Falls and Injuries

I maintain a detailed falls diary.

Between 1 January 2024 and 23 June 2026, i recorded 56 falls.

Many of these falls resulted in bruising, cuts, grazes and other soft tissue injuries.

Three falls required hospital treatment:

  • A deep laceration above my eye requiring stitches and tissue glue.
  • A severely sprained wrist.
  • A fractured wrist.

Page 15 of 18

Each fall increased my anxiety about moving around my own home and property and reinforced how important timely supports and environmental modifications are for people living with progressive neurological conditions.

Those 56 falls are not simply statistics. Each one represents a real risk of injury, loss of confidence and further decline in my independence. Although many resulted only in bruises, cuts and grazes, three required hospital treatment, demonstrating how quickly seemingly minor falls can become significant health events.

Increased Reliance on Supports

While waiting for the home modification, I became increasingly reliant on others.

Because I could not safely access parts of my property, I required greater assistance from:

  • support workers;
  • gardeners; and
  • other informal supports.

Had the ramp been approved in a timely manner, much of this additional assistance could have been avoided.

Emotional Impact

The delays occurred while I was already coping with the emotional effects of the lengthy AAT process.

Being effectively cut off from my backyard was devastating.

My gardens and chickens are an important part of my daily life. They provide purpose, routine, gentle physical activity and significant mental health benefits.

Losing independent access to this space meant losing an important part of my wellbeing.

The emotional impact extended well beyond frustration with administrative delays. It affected my confidence, independence and enjoyment of my own home.

Lessons Learned

My experience demonstrates that delaying reasonable and necessary supports does not reduce costs.

Instead, delays can result in:

  • preventable falls;
  • avoidable injuries;
  • hospital presentations;
  • increased reliance on funded supports;
  • reduced independence;
  • poorer mental health; and
  • a diminished quality of life.

Timely investment in appropriate supports and home modifications is not simply beneficial for participants—it is also a sound financial decision.

Preventing even one serious fall or hospital admission is likely to cost significantly less than treating injuries that occur because necessary supports were delayed.

My experience is a practical example of why the NDIS should prioritise early intervention, timely decision-making and participant safety. These approaches improve outcomes for participants while reducing costs to both the NDIS and the broader health system.

Annex J – Concerns About the Proposed NDIS Reforms

The proposed NDIS reforms have been presented by the Government as necessary to reduce fraud and ensure the long-term sustainability of the Scheme. I support strong action against fraud. Every dollar lost through fraudulent activity is a dollar unavailable to participants who genuinely require support.

However, I am concerned that many of the proposed reforms impose additional restrictions on participants rather than focusing primarily on those responsible for fraudulent behaviour.

The Minister has repeatedly cited fraud as a key justification for these reforms. However, the Government’s NDIS fraud report was not publicly released until 1 July 2026. It is difficult for participants and the wider community to meaningfully assess whether the proposed reforms are proportionate when the supporting evidence became publicly available only after the reforms had already been promoted.

Commentary published in The Point on 1 July 2026 also highlighted that estimated losses from business tax fraud substantially exceed estimated losses from NDIS fraud. While these are different policy areas, the comparison raises an important question about proportionality. Fraud should always be addressed, but responses should be carefully targeted at those committing fraud rather than introducing broad restrictions that affect hundreds of thousands of participants who comply with the rules.

I am also concerned about the proposed changes to review and appeal rights.

When I challenged an NDIA decision through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, I ultimately succeeded after 15 months. Although the process was extremely stressful, it provided an independent avenue for decisions to be reviewed.

I am also concerned that the proposed reforms reduce participants’ ability to obtain meaningful independent review of NDIA decisions. My own experience demonstrates why this safeguard is so important. Although the process took 15 months and came at considerable personal cost, the Tribunal ultimately found in my favour. Without access to independent merits review, I would not have received supports that have since proven essential to maintaining my independence.

A fair review process should not depend solely on internal decision-making. Participants need access to an independent body capable of reviewing decisions on their merits, particularly where those decisions affect their safety, health and ability to live independently.

I am concerned that these changes may make it more difficult for participants to obtain an independent review of decisions that directly affect their independence, safety and quality of life.

Page 18 of 18

For participants living with permanent and progressive disabilities, access to a fair and independent review process is an essential safeguard. Decisions about reasonable and necessary supports should be open to meaningful review where participants believe errors have been made.

I respectfully ask Parliament to ensure that reforms aimed at improving the NDIS do not reduce participant rights, limit access to independent review, or impose additional burdens on participants who are already managing complex disabilities responsibly.

Fraud should be pursued vigorously. Those responsible should face appropriate consequences. However, reforms should target fraudulent behaviour rather than reducing choice, flexibility and procedural fairness for the overwhelming majority of participants who comply with the rules.