Delivering on the promise of the NDIS

27 April 2026 | Angela Jackson

When the Productivity Commission first recommended the creation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) 15 years ago, it did so in response to a system that was underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient. The need for reform was undeniable. Since then, the NDIS has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians with disability, replacing uncertainty with support and bringing choice and dignity to many who were long denied both.

But progress does not mean perfection. Elements of the scheme’s design and implementation have drifted from that original vision, undermining service quality and placing the scheme on an unsustainable financial trajectory. Reform is once again necessary to preserve the program’s core purpose.

The NDIS was built on a powerful idea: that people with disability should have the same choice and control over their lives that most Australians take for granted. Individualised funding, combined with competition among providers, was meant to lift quality and drive innovation. In practice, however, largely unregulated markets have too often failed to do either.

An explosion in the number of unregistered providers, plan managers and support coordinators has diluted accountability and made it harder for participants to navigate the system safely. Quality and safety concerns have become a recurring feature of the scheme. In this context, proposals to require registration for all providers and introduce pre approved panels for plan managers and support coordinators must be considered. Alongside a national system of worker registration recommended by the Productivity Commission last year, they could ensure those core principles, choice and control, do not come at the expense of quality and safety.

At the same time, difficult conversations are emerging about who the NDIS is for. Nervousness about proposals to transition some people off the scheme is understandable. For many participants, the NDIS has become the only reliable source of support. But that reality reflects broader gaps in the system – it is not a reason for the NDIS to go unexamined.

The NDIS provides highly individualised and intensive assistance, which for people with significant and permanent disability is appropriate. It was never designed to be the default provider of services that could be delivered more efficiently through mainstream or community based systems. As those systems have withered, pressure has flowed into the NDIS, raising costs while often delivering poorer outcomes.

This helps explain why almost twice as many people are now receiving services through the NDIS than the Productivity Commission envisaged in 2011. A particularly stark increase has occurred among children with autism and developmental delay. In many cases, the absence of accessible early intervention services outside the NDIS has driven both diagnosis rates and scheme entry.

The proposed Thriving Kids program represents an opportunity to reset this trajectory. By making early intervention services evidence based, widely available and delivered in convenient community settings, support can be provided earlier and more consistently, without requiring families to navigate an increasingly complex scheme. Crucially, such services would be available to children regardless of NDIS eligibility, filling a gap in the disability support system.

The consequences of neglecting community based supports are perhaps most stark for people with psychosocial disability. Only a small proportion qualify for the NDIS, yet the need for ongoing psychosocial support extends far beyond that group. As the Productivity Commission’s review of the National Mental Health Agreement reported last year around 500,000 people with moderate to severe mental illness are not eligible for the NDIS and have no access to psychosocial supports. The failure to rebuild these services has left too many people without support and placed further strain on the NDIS to fill the gap.

Reform will not be easy. Participants face uncertainty, and providers will need to adapt to a system with stronger regulation and clearer expectations. But the alternative is worse. Without reform, the NDIS risks becoming financially unsustainable and functionally ineffective, letting down both participants and the broader public who support it.

Australia embraced the NDIS because it promised fairness, dignity and security. Thoughtful reform – focused on quality, sustainability and the rebuilding of supports beyond the scheme – is the surest way to keep that promise.