The NDIS Can't Be Sustainable Without Better Governance

Australians understand that the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) cannot remain untouched. Today it costs around $50 billion each year, almost 70 per cent of new participants are children under 15, and around one in seven six-year-old boys is now an NDIS participant. These are extraordinary figures that demand serious public policy discussion. 

Good governance requires more than reform. It requires reform in the right order. 

Every component of the Scheme should be reviewed—not only participants, but providers, administrators, governance arrangements, procurement, compliance systems and the decision-making processes that underpin the NDIS. No part of a $50 billion public scheme should be beyond scrutiny.  

Unfortunately, much of the current reform agenda appears to be weighted towards participant eligibility and access rather than the performance of the system itself. 

That raises an important question: has government first exhausted the opportunities to improve the performance of the system itself? 

This is not an argument against reviewing participant eligibility. Publicly funded schemes have an obligation to ensure support reaches those who qualify under the law. Periodic reassessment is a legitimate part of responsible administration. 

However, participants do not design the Scheme. 

They do not develop policy. 

They do not determine planning processes. 

They do not accredit providers. 

They do not administer billions of dollars in taxpayer funding. 

Those responsibilities sit with government and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). 

If the objective is to improve sustainability, logic suggests reform should begin where government has the greatest capacity to influence outcomes.

The Independent NDIS Review found that the Scheme had become increasingly complex, difficult to navigate and financially unsustainable in its existing form. It identified inconsistent planning decisions, duplication, administrative burden and a system that had drifted from its original intent. 

 At the same time, the profile of the Scheme is changing in ways that should concern every Australian. 

According to the National Disability Insurance Agency, around 69 per cent of new participants entering the NDIS are children under the age of 15. Participation peaks at six years of age, where approximately one in seven Australian boys—and around one in fourteen girls—is an NDIS participant. Autism is now the largest primary disability category in the Scheme, accounting for more than 300,000 participants. 

These are not just budget figures. They are indicators of a much broader national challenge. 

Every child who requires lifelong disability support deserves the very best care. But every Australian should also want to live in a country where fewer children need that support in the first place.

The long-term sustainability of the NDIS is therefore not simply about managing costs. It is also about understanding why increasing numbers of Australian children require disability supports, and what can be done to reduce future demand wherever possible. 

Fraud, provider misconduct and weak compliance continue to undermine confidence in the Scheme. Every dollar lost through fraud is a dollar unavailable to Australians living with disability. 

Media reporting has exposed organised criminal activity targeting the Scheme, while governments have repeatedly announced new compliance initiatives aimed at reducing fraudulent and inappropriate claims. Every dollar lost through fraud is a dollar unavailable to participants with genuine needs. 

Administrative inefficiency carries costs that are often hidden from public debate. 

Delayed decisions, inconsistent assessments, unnecessary appeals and duplicated processes consume resources that could otherwise be directed towards frontline supports. When decisions are overturned on internal review or through the Administrative Review Tribunal, the cost is not simply financial. It is borne by participants waiting for certainty and by taxpayers funding repeated administrative processes. 

These are not failures created by participants. They are failures of governance, administration and system design. In every well-governed organisation, accountability begins with those who control the system.  

Before Parliament asks whether participants should receive less support, shouldn't it first ask whether every taxpayer dollar is already being spent efficiently? 

Before asking whether fewer Australians should qualify for support, government should be able to demonstrate that it has systematically examined its own administration, governance, compliance systems, procurement practices and regulatory oversight. 

Government should first be able to answer some fundamental questions. 

• Has unnecessary bureaucracy been removed? 
• Have planning processes been simplified? 
• Have provider compliance systems been strengthened? 
• Have fraud prevention measures been fully implemented? 
• Have internal performance measures improved? 
• Have administrative inefficiencies been eliminated wherever possible? 

Australians are generally willing to support reform when they can see that government has first held itself to the same standard of accountability it expects from others. 

Conversely, when reform appears to focus primarily on those who rely on the Scheme while the institutions administering it receive comparatively less scrutiny, confidence inevitably declines. 

The long-term sustainability of the NDIS will not be achieved simply by tightening participant eligibility. 

It will be achieved by ensuring every dollar is administered efficiently, every planning decision is made consistently, every provider operates with integrity and every part of the system is accountable for its performance. 

Participant reviews have a place within that framework. 

But they should be one element of comprehensive reform—not its defining feature. 

There is an even bigger question that extends beyond the NDIS itself. If almost 70 per cent of new participants are children under 15, shouldn't Australia also be asking why? 

If Australia is serious about the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, why is so little attention being given to preventing future demand? 

Government has understandably focused on who qualifies for support. But where is the national conversation about why so many children are entering the Scheme in the first place? 

Where is the investment in understanding the drivers behind this trend? 

Where is the national strategy for prevention, maternal and child health, early intervention, research and improving the overall health of Australians? 

The NDIS will always be essential for Australians living with permanent and significant disability. 

A sustainable NDIS rests on three equally important pillars:

First, ensuring support reaches those who genuinely qualify.

Second, ensuring every taxpayer dollar is administered efficiently, transparently and free from waste.

Third, understanding why demand continues to grow—particularly among Australian children—and investing in reducing preventable causes of disability wherever possible.

Current reforms are heavily focused on the first pillar. Long-term sustainability will depend on giving equal attention to the other two.

 If governments expect Australians to trust difficult decisions affecting people with disability, they must first demonstrate they have been equally rigorous in examining the system they control, while also committing to understanding and addressing the drivers of future demand. 

That is not a question of politics, it is a test of good governance.