NLEC parliamentary hearing transcript

Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, 11 September 2026.

About this transcript: NLEC prepared this accessibility transcript from its own recording. It is not an official Parliament recording or Hansard transcript. Speaker names and NDIS terminology have been reviewed. Passages that cannot be heard clearly are marked rather than guessed.

00:00:00 — Chair

We will get a copy of your presentation. I just want to say to you that as someone who has a permanent and complex disability, this is what the scheme is designed for and you should not be concerned that the scheme will not be there for you. But I also hear your comments around CIL, Independent Living, the need to have security around a home and a roof over your head. You certainly understand that. We understand that and I think that that is not in question. I do want you to know that. It is important that you know that and we appreciate your feedback. Before we go to questions, I think Mr Vamplew, you wanted to make an opening statement as well.

00:01:15 — Daniel Vamplew

Yes, sure. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. I am Daniel Vamplew, Executive Director of the National Lived Experience Commission, which is an independent charity. Basically, NLEC, we support sustainable NDIS and effective action against fraud and exploitation. Our submission asks a complementary question. How does Parliament know that decisions intend to protect the scheme, also protecting the people who rely on it? The NDIA already collects participant outcomes data. That work matters but our proposal is to strengthen accountability through independently governed participant-led evidence that follows what happens before and after significant decisions, identifies preventable harm and produces public findings that require a response. Basically, a plan can be processed on time and still fails to meet the person's needs. Funding can be approved but unusable because no suitable service exists locally. A person can appear independent because their supports are working. That is not by itself evidence that those supports are no longer needed. When essential support is reduced, the cost may not disappear. It most likely moves to an unpaid carer, a hospital, a homelessness service or the person themselves. Those consequences belong in the assessment of whether a reform has succeeded. Since the Parliament has passed the 2026 reforms, the immediate task is to ensure that implementation rules and funding decisions are tested against real-world safety and outcomes. We ask the committee to recommend four actions. First is measure participant and administrative harm alongside expenditure and processing performance. Examine the unmet needs, interruptions to essential supports and the consequences of delayed inadequate decisions. Second, establish a standing, independent, lived experience evidence function governed by people with lived experience. Transparent methods, public reporting and a requirement for agencies to respond. Build on existing evidence rather than duplicate it. Third, we'd like to adopt a no-loss transition safeguard. Do not withdraw essential supports in a transition until an adequate alternative is demonstratively operatable, locally available, affordable and safe for the person concerned. A funding announcement is not proof of readiness. And fourth, make co-design accountable. Publish who participated, what decisions they could influence, what changed because their input and the reasons where their recommendations were not adopted. These proposals bring together the recommendations in our written submission and they are a request for stronger public accountability Thank you.

00:04:18 — Chair

Thank you very much, that's very extensive. Before I move to other members of the committee for questions, you do make a number of, raise a number of issues in your submission and I'm just interested in, you talk about administrative processes and you do mention the word harm in there. Can you talk through that concern?

00:04:50 — Daniel Vamplew

Yes, I can. So the harm that's caused is essentially somebody has to go through the process of having their plan reviewed, for instance. The stress and the, I would even say, trauma that people experience is most definitely harmful. It causes depression and anxiety and it's a harmful process to go through. And then, for instance, sometimes the plan will get changed, sometimes, but most of the time the disability has stayed exactly the same. The funding, their supports are still needed, everything's still, nothing's changed essentially, but the process and the plan reviews and things like that, that's very stressful and causes a lot of harm for a lot of participants.

00:05:47 — Chair

So I know that there has, we have made change in terms of the length of time before we have, we review a plan. We've extended it out because for people such as Eric, we know that your condition is not, you know, it may be stable, if it changes you can seek a review. But I do take on board what you said in terms of it is an ongoing issue that we hear about the process of reviewing plans and doing them in a timely way but also in a way that is respectful and compassionate and co-designed. So from your perspective, what would be, have you got a suggestion as to how we improve the system? I know that's a big question.

00:06:39 — Daniel Vamplew

I've got a lot of suggestions for that.

00:06:41 — Eric Barrett-O'Keefe

I've got a lot too.

00:06:47 — Chair

Yeah, there's—what would you like to answer to this?

00:06:53 — Eric Barrett-O'Keefe

Yeah, it's so hard to contact the same person in the agency and you don't know who is working on your case and I have a point of doing what would be that you don't even know what CP was.

00:07:24 — Chair

So what you're saying, Eric, is you'd like more consistency and to deal with one, say, case manager who understands your situation and that you can build confidence and know and that you believe that person has a knowledge of your needs.

00:07:39 — Eric Barrett-O'Keefe

Well, you get a different point of every time and you're going to go through the same story every year, like taking 50 steps back to go 20 steps. But that will not do at you and you'll all have your budget plan and that plan doesn't work for you at all and you go through the funding in six weeks because it can adjust to what you need.

00:08:34 — Chair

Look, thank you for that feedback. I think that's something that we should take on board. Can I just ask before I hand over to Senator Little, is there anything further you'd like to add, Mr Vamplew? I think what we heard from our last witnesses was that in a period of transition, which we are undergoing, there are many things that have not been yet determined. The consultation is underway. But I would like to hear from you in your role, your capacity, is there something that during the transition we need to actually provide that we can do to give our participants some comfort and certainty?

00:09:26 — Daniel Vamplew

Certainly. I believe a no-loss transition is essential.

00:09:29 — Chair

Okay, thank you. With supports that are equally as beneficial and available, affordable to the participant before anything was to be transitioned? Well, that is what the government has said. But I think that it is about ensuring that people have confidence in that. It is difficult during a period of change, but I think that is a suggestion that is worthy of acknowledgement.

00:10:08 — Eric Barrett-O'Keefe

Can I give a huge suggestion? In my video, we have been in a lot of places for a few months. In fact, the end of the year is when the kick off, 240,000, and we hear that in the video, but I get scared that I'll be vulnerable.

00:11:07 — Chair

So, Eric, I hear what you're saying, and it is something that we're totally committed, I think, everybody who is involved in this team. Permanent and complex disability will always be acknowledged as important. We deliver skills for people with that complexity. I will hand over now, Eric. Thank you so much for your suggestion there. I'd like to hand over to Senator Little.

00:11:35 — Senator Little

Thank you for your presentations today. I note that the National Lived Experience Commission and your submission has provided 10 recommendations, and thank you for providing those. I'd like to ask a question of you both, one of an issue that Eric raised and another that goes directly to you. The submission says, Mr Vamplew, that you want a lived experience embedded into the scheme. How do you believe that should function?

00:12:14 — Daniel Vamplew

By using people with lived experience of the scheme to have implementation before decisions are made, not after, not just in consultation with, like I said, the decisions that have already been made, before and after, before and after, for instance, transition, before and after any decisions that are changed, I believe lived experience participants should be meaningfully co-designing the changes. From my perspective, that's what I believe that should happen. It should be mandatory, is what I see. Lived experience is basically, it's operational intelligence. It's on the ground, it's where the scheme is, who it's designed for, where it's happening. It's the best mode of evidence, essentially. The more that could be implemented and used in the decision-making, the better. Even a little bit would be better than not. That's what I believe.

00:13:43 — Senator Little

Before coming to Eric for my final question, can I just ask, we have currently an inquiry coming from the Senate on social housing and Eric raised some really important issues about sustainable long-term housing safety for himself and for other people. Are you intending to make a submission to that inquiry to make sure that you're heard because the closing date is the 24th of September?

00:14:13 — Daniel Vamplew

Yes, yes. We certainly will be. With the SIL and the housing, that's one part of it. For instance, in Eric's situation, if he doesn't have the supports with the housing, the housing's irrelevant. It really is irrelevant. It goes hand in hand, but currently, he's not getting both. It's not equal, which is essential to his daily living.

00:14:39 — Eric Barrett-O'Keefe

I keep getting knocked back and saying I need four hours a day, but I can't wait four hours a day because I need support at home, supporting the community, and support at work. I need support around the clock, but I can't get that. I have to go at length to get what I need and waiting for what. I had a goal of coming into the parliament and talking to people, and I'm happy to come down again to talk to other people because I feel that I need the need to be brought in parliament, advocate for what to happen.

00:16:10 — Senator Little

Thank you. I listened very carefully to what you were saying, and I'm going to paraphrase one of the things I heard you say that I'd like you to tell me about a bit more. You talked about the support you need to respond to the stress and the actions that come with change, as we've just seen in the report. Can you tell me a little bit about when you talk about change, what considerations need to be made for people who have a fixed plan about changes that are made that require them to do things differently to the normal because there has been change imposed upon you?

00:16:58 — Eric Barrett-O'Keefe

[Response is not clear enough to transcribe reliably.]

00:17:51 — Senator Little

Thank you. [Response is not clear enough to transcribe reliably.]

00:18:30 — Daniel Vamplew

Eric said that his plan is not built to be where it needs to be because when he has supported independent living, it doesn't include support workers. You wish for that to change? Because he still needs the support workers.

00:18:53 — Senator Little

In terms of the question around when there's change, would your argument be that when there is change, you need additional advocacy in order to respond effectively to that change?

00:19:08 — Daniel Vamplew

Yes, yes, it is because it puts enormous stress on the advocacy to effectively respond to the NDIA in a technical because not everybody knows how to respond in a technically appropriate way.

00:19:45 — Senator Little

Thank you. Thank you for your evidence today.

00:19:52 — Chair

Thank you very much, Senator Little. I really do want to particularly thank you, Eric, for being here today and providing us with your feedback. I think it's been quite brave of you, quite courageous to come today. Thank you so much. It's been exceptionally worthwhile. I do want to just remind you that we do have NDIA officers here who can help you. If you have a specific question or concern or obviously wish to personally advocate for your needs regarding perhaps your issue around housing, we do have officers that are here and they're here for this purpose. So I want to give a shout out to you for making time today to be with us. It's really important and just if you wish to, you can take up this opportunity. So thank you once again for coming. It's very helpful. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will now take a short break for 10 minutes as we will set up for our next witnesses, which include the National Disability Insurance Agency, NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and the Department of Health Disability and Aging. Thank you.