The NDIS was built to empower people with disability, but its funding, assessment and provider incentives risk reinforcing the very dependency the scheme was designed to overcome.
The NDIS is one of the most significant social reforms in Australia’s history. It was built on a promise – that people with disability would have the chance to live more independent, more connected, and more meaningful lives. It was designed to replace fragmented systems with a single, coherent framework grounded in choice, control, and dignity. But as the scheme has matured, a difficult truth has emerged. The NDIS, in its current form, contains structural features that unintentionally foster dependency. Not because anyone intended it, and not because participants lack capability or aspiration, but because the architecture of the system rewards the wrong things.
The first issue is this: the NDIS treats money as the default solution.
For almost every disability-related challenge, the response is a package of funding. We have built a system where the central question becomes, “What will the NDIS pay for?” rather than “What will help this person grow, participate, and flourish?” When money becomes the primary lever, two things happen.
Mainstream systems – health, education, housing – step back, assuming the NDIS will step in. And participants, understandably, come to see funding as the central pathway to progress. This is not empowerment. It is structural reliance.
Second: people are asked to spend government money, not their own.
This is necessary – of course it is. But it has predictable effects. When we spend money that is not our own, the usual discipline of weighing cost against benefit weakens. Providers can upsell. Hours accumulate. Services continue because they can, not because they transform. And for many participants, NDIS funding becomes their only purchasing power. That is not independence. It is dependency dressed up as choice.
Third: the NDIS is built on deficit-based assessment.
To secure funding, people must emphasise what they cannot do. Families must present their children at their worst. Professionals must write reports that highlight limitations rather than potential. We have created a system where people must perform their deficits to maintain support.
This corrodes dignity. It shapes identity. And it reinforces the idea that dependence is permanent and inevitable.
Fourth: provider incentives are misaligned.
Most providers are paid per hour, per session, per ongoing need. Their revenue depends on participants remaining dependent. This is not a criticism of providers. It is simply the logic of the market we have built. We reward volume, not outcomes. We reward continuity, not capability. We reward dependence, not independence. No system can achieve its purpose when its incentives run in the opposite direction.
Fifth: the NDIS has weak outcome measurement.
We cannot reliably tell whether funded supports improve independence, build skills, or reduce reliance. We cannot distinguish between supports that transform lives and supports that simply maintain the status quo. A scheme that cannot measure outcomes cannot improve outcomes.
And finally: regulation focuses on preventing bad things, not promoting good things.
Safety is essential. But safety alone is not a life. A system that prevents harm but does not promote growth will stabilise dependency rather than challenge it. People with disability deserve more than protection. They deserve opportunity.
So where do we go from here?
We do not need to abandon the NDIS. We need to realign it with its founding purpose.
We need planning that begins with strengths, not deficits. We need funding models that reward capability building, not ongoing reliance. We need providers who are paid for outcomes, not hours. We need a regulatory system that expects good things to happen, not just bad things to be avoided. And we need mainstream systems to step back into their responsibilities, so the NDIS is not the default solution for everything.
These reforms are not radical. They are simply a return to the original promise of the scheme: that people with disability should have the chance to build skills, independence, relationships, and meaningful lives.
Dependency is not inevitable. It is a product of design. And design can be changed.
The NDIS is a remarkable achievement. But its success will not be measured by the size of its budgets or the number of its plans. It will be measured by the lives it helps transform – by the people who gain skills, confidence, and independence; by the families who see their children grow; by the communities that become more inclusive.
The task now is to ensure the scheme fulfils that promise. Independence, not dependency. Capability, not deficit. Opportunity, not mere protection. That is the future the NDIS deserves. And that is the future Australians with disability deserve.
Richard Bruggemann
Richard was the Chief Executive Officer, of the Intellectual Disability Services Council (IDSC) from 1984 until 2006. On retirement he was appointed as Professorial Fellow in the Disability and Community Inclusion Unit of Flinders University where he developed and ran the Graduate Certificate in Disability Studies (Leadership). From 2013 to 2018, he was appointed as South Australia’s senior practitioner to reduce the use of restrictive practices in South Australia. In 2020, he was appointed as Authorising Officer under the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 to consider applications to detain people who lack capacity and whose actions were putting themselves or other at risk of infection.