Background The NACC, established to investigate serious or systemic corruption in the Australian public sector, has the authority to launch public inquiries into matters like the NDIS if there’s evidence suggesting corruption risks or vulnerabilities. The NDIS, a $44 billion program, has faced scrutiny for alleged fraud, waste, and mismanagement, making it a plausible candidate for such an inquiry. In January 2025, NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton indicated he was considering a public inquiry into the NDIS and would call for public submissions if it proceeded. However, as of now, no official inquiry has been confirmed.

Petition to the National Anti-Corruption Commission
Request for a Public Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) 
We, the undersigned, call upon the NACC to initiate a public inquiry into the NDIS to investigate potential corruption, fraud, and systemic vulnerabilities. With annual costs exceeding $44 billion amid reports of mismanagement by NDIA. (Examples it is alleged that staff do not read reports thoroughly in assessments (see below), issues have also been reported regarding the complaints and FOI Teams) , transparency is urgently needed to ensure the scheme delivers for Australians with disabilities as intended. We urge the NACC to exercise its powers under the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 to hold public hearings, collect submissions, and restore public trust in this vital program.

On February 28, 2025, Rebecca Falkingham, the CEO of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), acknowledged that NDIA staff often do not read the medical reports submitted by applicants. This admission came during a discussion reported by Disability Update, where she highlighted that staff shortages and time constraints contribute to this issue. The NDIA, which administers the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in Australia, has faced criticism for delays and inefficiencies in processing applications, and this revelation has added to concerns about the agency’s ability to adequately assess participant needs based on the evidence provided. The statement aligns with broader critiques of the NDIA’s operational challenges, though it has sparked debate about how the agency can ensure fair and thorough evaluations moving forward.