State of the Sector: Is the NDIS at Breaking Point? | Podcast

In this episode of the Steadway NDIS Podcast, Chris Hall is joined by Michael Perusco, CEO of National Disability Services (NDS), for an honest and wide-ranging discussion on the current state of the NDIS. 

Together, they explore the growing pressure on quality providers, the unintended consequences of one-size-fits-all pricing, and why support coordination plays a far more critical role in scheme integrity than is often acknowledged. Michael shares insights from the State of the Sector report, highlighting how poor pricing, limited oversight, and policy uncertainty are driving experienced providers and coordinators out of the market—often leaving participants more exposed, not less. 

The conversation also dives into workforce shortages, regulatory gaps, short-notice policy changes, and the need for smarter, system-level reform that balances safety, sustainability, and value for money. A must-listen for providers, leaders, and anyone invested in the future of the NDIS. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 0:00
Welcome to the Steadway NDIS Podcast. My name is Chris Hall, your host, and today I’ve got Michael Perusco with me. Michael is the CEO of National Disability Services (NDS), which is the peak body, of course, in Australia. 

For those of you who may not know, NDS spans everything from advocacy, influence, sector intelligence, and professional development. They have their annual conference every year, and there are various other arms of the organisation, including educational content and its expansion into the e-learning area. 

So today we’re going to talk about the state of the sector broadly—the NDIS. NDS recently released their State of the Sector report. So Michael, without further ado, welcome to the podcast. It’s a pleasure to have you on. 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 0:50
Thanks very much, Chris. Appreciate the opportunity to be on. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 0:53
Yeah. So, look, we want to know what’s inside—inside the bowels of the organisation—and we want to know what’s going on. I’m sure you guys are doing a lot of research. I know the conference was recent. Now that that’s done and dusted, let me kind of go straight to the heart of the matter. 

In your role as CEO, what types of things are keeping you awake at night when you think about the NDIS as a sector? 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 1:21
I think the number one issue is that the quality provider market—network, whatever you like to call it—is absolutely essential to the success of the scheme, and that is the part of the market that is at risk. 

We can no longer take for granted that that part of the market will continue to be part of the market, and that is a real worry for people with complex support needs—and, you know, people with little in the way of support networks, people in regional and rural communities, and also people who need specialised support. 

So that is a big issue, and it’s a big issue because the financial sustainability of that group of providers is at risk. In this role you do a lot of media and radio interviews, and I think the common question is: how can that be the case in a scheme that’s approaching $50 billion? There are many stories about fraud, and the answer is: when you have a one-size-fits-all approach to pricing, it really distorts the market—along with a lack of registration and regulation across a large part of the market. 

If you have one-size-fits-all—one price—and you’re getting the same price to support someone with PEG feeding as you do taking someone shopping, that is a problem. If you’re doing complex work—and that’s most of our members who focus on that work—then it means they’re experiencing losses. They’re making losses for doing that complex work. 

And those who are focusing on the low-complexity work are making money—particularly when they’re unregistered—because then you have the overlay of the registration costs. So what we’ve seen is year after year of pricing that doesn’t represent what’s required at that complex end of the market, along with only 6% of the market being registered—so only 6% who are doing the work that I’m talking about actually bearing those costs. 

And the final thing I’d say is: it’s not me saying this—it’s the agency’s Independent Pricing Committee report that says it. They released that report in May or June this year, and it very clearly said the one-size-fits-all approach to pricing is not fit for purpose. It is doing exactly what I said, and organisations—the quality providers—are only keeping doing it because they’re chewing through their cash reserves. 

We cannot overstate how devastating it will be for the scheme if you lose those providers. They’re the ones you need more of. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 5:15
I mean, look—before my own business, I was a coach, so I was exposed to about 200 providers and saw what the patterns were as well. 

When you think about a profit and loss, it’s only ever revenue minus costs, right? So I would say the price increases that have happened over the last many years—they just cover, basically, your SCHADS Award increases. They may just about cover the superannuation half-percent increases that happen every year in recent years. But roughly speaking, that’s about it, right? 

The increasing cost that necessarily happens—here’s a small analogy: take Xero as an accounting system. It used to be $200 a month, right? Now it’s $220 a month for a certain tier. That’s a huge increase—that’s a 10% increase—but you haven’t got that happening on the price side of things. 

Also, the differential of the market… but I do— 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 6:09
You didn’t get those increases. Yeah, yeah—you didn’t get those. You haven’t seen those increases in therapy. You haven’t seen those increases in support coordination, though. So actually, you’ve got it backwards. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 6:21
Don’t even get me started on that. That’s awful. I feel awful for the support coordinators out there in particular—and even for your regular core supports providers. 

I guess my general witnessing is that the cost is inflating beyond just superannuation and SCHADS Award, and therefore the squeeze is occurring, right? Yeah, there’s definitely the unfairness of the market—it’s an uneven market. 

When we say “unregistered,” I’d also like to go deep into the realm of independent support workers. So let me express a personal opinion and I want to see what you think about this. 

If I’m a provider—I’m a company—I’m registered, doing all the quality stuff, putting stamps on the service where: “Hey, if Bobby calls in sick, don’t worry, I’m putting on Sharon,” because I’m a company, right? Better guarantee of service delivery. But an independent can’t do that. 

Also, there’s no independent oversight, right? No one’s actually checking the first aid or the CPR or the police check. So we’ve got people who are vulnerable being looked after by people that aren’t being looked over. And so it’s not fair that they can get that $70 an hour, which is the same that I can get as a registered provider. 

To me, it seems like the Wild West still. How has someone thought that would be a good government policy—to allow independents to get it all without doing bugger all? 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 7:48 

Yeah—no, no—I agree with everything except the “bugger all.” 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 7:54
I’m being facetious. 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 7:59
And I think part of the problem is: we actually don’t know. We don’t know—and that’s a problem. But I think we undoubtedly know that there is some really shoddy, unsafe practice. We know that participants are being exploited, and it’s the most vulnerable participants that are being exploited. 

And it is happening, I think, a lot in remote and very remote communities. So it is undoubtedly having a disproportionate impact on Indigenous participants. 

And it’s something that—we have to see the oversight. There has to be oversight of all providers. I’m reticent to say “registration,” because I’m not sure that’s the right vehicle as it is now. I don’t think that’s the right vehicle. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 9:09
Can we unpack that a bit? Because I am intrigued. 

If you go on LinkedIn, for example, and you make a post about this, you’ll get a lot of people pushing back, saying there are lots of great independent support workers—and there are. But that expresses an emotion; it doesn’t think at the level of systems, right? 

Systems-based thinking for a national policy seems like madness to me: that a vulnerable portion of society does not have oversight for the people who are supporting them. That just doesn’t make sense to me. 

Let me take an example and we’ll use it as a case study. If you think about making a complaint or a reportable incident—something like that—right? I’ve experienced it at a previous place that I ran, where we unfortunately had to report abuse to the Commission about a provider that was unregistered. 

Because they were unregistered as a company, there was no teeth. There was no teeth of the agency, because they can’t cut off the purse string, so to speak. They can’t cut off the registration that stops the flow of money. Unless they’ve done an actual provable crime, they can just carry on operating. 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 10:18
Yeah, yeah, yeah—no, it is. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 10:22
How do you— it’s mind-blowing. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 10:27
In what world is this a thing? 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 10:30
It’s a fair enough question to ask. I’ve been in this job for 12 months now, and my head was spinning as I was learning some of this detail. I just couldn’t believe it. 

There is no government program on earth that operates in this way. 

The point I was making about registration is: it’s quite a blunt instrument at the moment. What we say is: there needs to be an appreciation of the group of providers doing the really complex work and the high-risk work—and you want to do that differently to lower-risk work. 

However, you need proper oversight of every provider, and you need a worker screening program. That’s the other thing—anyone can do it at the moment. I mean, I don’t know what your experience is, Chris, but I trained as an accountant. We can go and set up a SIL ourselves—and I’m not the one who should be running a SIL. That’s bizarre. 

And it means I can employ people without—I can employ anyone. It’s ludicrous. 

What I’m encouraged by is Minister Butler and Minister McAllister actually get this in a way that we haven’t seen from previous ministers. I think particularly Minister Butler, because I met with him quite early on and his frame of reference is health—aged care, mental health previously—so he knows other systems, and he knows oversight is a good thing. It doesn’t make any sense not to have oversight. Minister McAllister is the same view. 

The challenge at the moment is getting something done about it urgently. We’re not seeing that urgency in the way that we would like, and we need to convert the signals we’re hearing from government into decisions—like independent pricing done in a sophisticated way that incentivises quality and addresses the distortions we’re seeing, but also oversight of all providers, and a timeline. 

Realistically, it is going to take time. There’s a lot of work involved in getting the sophistication in the pricing that we need, without creating a whole lot of further distortion in the market—and on the regulation. We’re talking about big volumes, so it requires a lot of resources to do it and do it right. 

But do the high-risk things first. So: make sure you can’t open a SIL—you have to be registered for SIL. And I think support coordination is another one, because that’s the source of a lot of really dodgy stuff. 

And then a plan for the rest. But we need a decision, and we really need a decision early next year. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 14:53
On the registration thing, I’d give a parallel to a software package. If I’m buying the beginner, intermediate, pro version—in my opinion, independents maybe continue to be part of it, but I don’t think they should get the full price of what a company gets. 

So maybe they’re the beginner, right? But they should become registered at a beginner level, because we’re saying there’s no teeth to the Commission. If someone lodges a complaint that’s investigated and shows poor actions, that should lead to removal of registration. Then that provider number for the beginner should be removed, and they shouldn’t get paid invoices anymore—plan managers shouldn’t pay it. And the intermediates could be your currently unregistered companies and they get maybe a little bit more. 

But you get the idea: graduated, all levels should have the threat of the purse string being removed if they don’t act ethically. 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 15:54
Yeah. And if you’re operating in a very remote community, for instance, there needs to be a pretty high bar that you know what you’re doing and that you’re a reputable operator. If you’re providing really complex care, there needs to be a really high bar. 

And I think the proliferation of sole traders in the scheme—I don’t think it’s something that anyone ever envisaged, and it doesn’t make sense. I don’t think it makes sense for people with disability, and I don’t think it makes sense for value for money in the scheme. So that does need to be addressed. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 16:56
Yeah, it does. 

So if we had the beginner, intermediate, pro, so to speak—you talk about the complex providers. What about HIPS? You’ve got the High Intensity Support product descriptors, and my understanding is you can charge in certain situations—for Module 1 and things like that—you can charge a bit more per hour. 

In your opinion, is that not going far enough to reflect the complexity of that work? 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 17:23
I’d say two things. The base price isn’t right, and we’re seeing less and less participants having that high intensity in their packages—so they’re not being assessed fairly. 

The result is more financial pressure on the quality providers, because they still have to provide the staff. They still need to employ staff with the high skills and experience and knowledge to do the work, but they’re not receiving the price to compensate for it. 

And I think this gets us into another area: the support needs assessment. Moving from the current model—which relies on external assessments, but also on a workforce that isn’t equipped to make consistent decisions—moving from that to a support needs assessment with the ICAN tool, which you would hope, done well, leads to a much more consistent approach. I think that’s a really important reform that’s coming up. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 18:43
It is. There’s also a lot of concern from OTs and other allied health that you can’t beat a functional capacity assessment as it currently is. And there’s also the flip side: when you say “the right qualified workforce,” there’s an argument to be made that it already exists—in the form of an OT, for example—and they’re doing a great job. 

The previous CEO of the NDIA admitted on camera saying, “Oh, we don’t have time to read these FCAs.” That’s not great. 

So there’s understandable concern on the allied health professional side. The ICAN tool has a lot of “could work,” but only if— 

For example, I don’t think you can do these types of things on the phone or remotely. Is the agency going to adequately equip itself to go out and do in-person assessments? 

Because I can tell you one thing from experience as a provider: if I ask my client, “How are you doing today?” a lot of people go, “Yeah, no, no, I’m good, I’m good, I’m good”—but they’re not good. They just fell on the floor half an hour ago and nearly broke their hip. You’ve got to witness someone in the home environment, right? 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 19:57
Yeah, yeah. 

I agree. What’s been created—there’s not a government scheme in existence which has 700-and-odd thousand participants with bespoke plans. The level of complexity associated with that is beyond imaginable. It is almost so hard to get right. 

There has to be a different approach to planning. And given the nature of the scheme, it’s never going to be exactly what you want. But what we’re seeing with the introduction of the support needs assessment—I honestly think it’s better than what we’ve got at the moment, because the level of inconsistency doesn’t make any sense. You can have exactly the same participants in roughly the same geographical areas with the same needs getting very different support. We have to address that. 

And we have to have a better workforce in the agency that can do that work. Actually, that’s an unfair term—“better workforce.” I think planners are doing the best they can within the circumstances and the support they’ve got. I think we need to shift to another model. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 21:52
Okay. 

So let’s segue into some of the other compliance sort of areas in the State of the Sector, right? 

Let’s take NDIS Worker Checks, for example. This links into registration. But imagine you’re a registered provider—you’re doing your NDIS Worker Check. 

One thing I’ve noticed from real experience is that when someone’s NDIS Worker Check is no longer valid, there’s no notification procedure to the employer, right? We actually had a former employee that did something wrong, and it got taken away. We logged on and thought: “Wait a minute—where is she? We registered her. What the hell happened?” It got taken away. It wasn’t notified. 

I come from an IT background, and you’d describe it as a workflow, right? Like: person committed offence, worker check changes to “No,” maybe notify employer—protect the vulnerable person. 

There’s also another thing I discovered: banning orders. You’ll see the headlines—company gets sued—and quite rightly. But there are banning orders for individuals too. And what we found out is that if someone has a banning order, that doesn’t actually speak to the NDIS Worker Check system—there’s no link. 

So excuse my provocative language, but how the hell is an employer meant to have oversight and say, “I’ve got people that are safe working with vulnerable people,” when there are so many missing links from a workflow point of view? 

And it just seems so obvious. Not all the fixes have to cost $200 million. Some could just be: “Yeah, good idea. Let’s put it in place and do it next week,” you know? 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 23:58
But don’t you think that—look, I totally agree about where we need to be, yeah—but I don’t think it’s a quick fix. 

One of the issues is: you’ve got a scheme that is, as I said before, so complex. You have a regulator that’s in its early stages, and it doesn’t have the right IT systems. And the agency certainly doesn’t have the right IT systems. 

So it seems to me there’s like a three-year program of work, with a lot of investment, that needs to happen to do what you’re saying—along with all the other things that need to be done. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 25:00
Maybe. But I’ll give an analogy: Excel—a database—is just a column of data. If someone’s NDIS Worker Check goes to “No,” then it should be: when that goes to “No,” notify employer, which is registered here. That stuff can be done in a matter of weeks. 

And let me give another analogy. You know how AI is coming out and all that stuff? One thing I did: I downloaded all the recent policy documents—the List A, List B, what’s in and what’s out, frameworks, guidelines—and it was 800 pages across about 10 or 12 PDFs. 

In one afternoon, I went to ChatGPT, uploaded all of those documents, wrote a massive master prompt, saved it, and published it as an AI chatbot that keeps your information private and all that kind of stuff. That was done in four hours—just by using one’s brain and bloody doing it. 

So all I’m saying is: I feel like there needs to be a bit more innovation—some quick-win IT fixes that would operationally make a positive impact protecting vulnerable people, but also the day-to-day logistics of businesses. 

I actually spoke to someone at the agency just this week about that, and they went, “Oh my God, that sounds amazing.” And they said, “We know we couldn’t do that so quickly internally, because there will be lots of questions.” Quite rightly—I get that. There’s a contrast between private industry innovation speed versus the agency, and that’s okay. 

But I’m telling these stories because there are real grassroots problems—like worker checks and banning orders—that, if fixed, would make a really positive, huge impact. 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 27:02
I have started to think that with the scheme, there are so many things that need to be addressed. Everywhere you turn, you can explore an issue, and you could spend an enormous amount of time trying to address it—spend your whole time working through those. 

And like, say, with the new CEO—Graeme Head—I think the challenge for Graeme is: how do you create a system-level response to stop that from occurring at the source? 

And I think to do it right, I’m kind of thinking it is going to take some time. Governments are risk-averse, and in some ways that’s a positive thing, but it means things take longer. 

So if we know getting that system-level response—so you’re not chasing down the individual issues—is going to take time, what are the interim things that can address some of the critical issues but don’t impact the longer-term solutions? I think that’s the approach we need to take. 

There are a lot of quick fixes you could put in place, but I’m not sure you would get to the outcome you need to get to, to stop it happening all over again. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 29:05
Yeah, okay. 

I guess I love the 80/20 rule. What could you do for 20% effort for 80% impact, right? I am technically minded—I think in systems. 

I know it’s not the only issue out there. What about support coordination? I mean, look—you guys as NDS, you walk a tightrope, don’t you, between representing the industry but also collaborating with government. You’ve got to walk that middle path—listening genuinely to industry concerns, but also having a constructive relationship with the agency. 

How are you walking that tightrope right now when it comes to support coordination in particular—the lack of price increases, and it seems like lots of people are exiting: “Oh, we don’t do that anymore.” People are being left vulnerable. It has a real impact. 

And there are mixed opinions on whether the navigator model is going to work. It’s one of those things where the grenade was thrown in, it exploded, and everyone was left shell-shocked—well, what now? 

So how is NDS walking that tightrope right now in respect to support coordination in particular? 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 30:25
So I’d say a few things. I think the central role of support coordination—and the success or otherwise of the scheme—is not fully appreciated in government, because it’s a level of detail that sits below the macro issues. 

So that’s one thing we’re focused on: highlighting it. What we’re saying is there is a real issue there. Support coordination is the source of much exploitation and inappropriate use of funds, and that’s due to a variety of reasons, including a lack of guardrails in the system that have enabled that to occur. 

And by keeping the price at the level it’s been at for the last whatever years, the good ones are leaving—and they’re not being replaced by the people you would want. So it can actually make it worse, can’t it? Because the good ones are leaving. 

What we’re saying to government is: it is actually counterproductive to an anti-fraud, anti-exploitation approach. If you want to get better value for money out of the scheme, support coordinators are central to any strategy. 

And the challenge with navigators is: it’s not clear what navigators will do, and it’s not clear what the timeline is. So that uncertainty, along with the pricing, is creating activity in the market that makes it much more difficult to get value for money out of the scheme—and also, I think, makes the scheme less safe for participants. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 32:51
Again—two quick fixes. 

Make it mandatory registration—like a Grade A, Grade B—because anyone can just walk into it and go, “Oh, is this a coordination business? Yeah? Okay, great. That one I’ll just do tomorrow.” Yeah—awesome. Great. I’m glad. I’d love to hear that. 

So: mandatory registration—number one, tick. Number two—glaringly obvious—remove the conflict of interest: allow the same organisation to feed itself by having support coordination and core supports or whatever else. Basically self-referring, right? 

The only thing is: I don’t disagree with that, but I think some of the most egregious examples would not be addressed by that. 

Like, the examples where you’re just doing support coordination—you’re doing it for a few participants—you know, I’m here in Melbourne, I’m getting my brother in Perth to provide support to someone in Melbourne. 

And I think I’m fine with the conflict-of-interest point you make—that will do a bit—but I actually don’t think that will address the most egregious things that are happening in the support coordination space. It needs to be a mixture of responses, and registration is a critical part of that. 

And of course, if you’re going to ask someone—it’s like going for a promotion: “Hey, congratulations, Chris, you got the promotion, but you’ve got to take the same salary.” If you’re going to ask people to register and level up, then it’s only fair to give them a price increase as well, right? So it would be nice if those things can go hand in hand. 

And when it comes to certainty, it’s interesting, isn’t it? It’s an insurance scheme—it’s funded by the government—but the private market is fulfilling it, right? The best way that a private market can thrive is through certainty. So it does seem like we’re, as an industry, kicking ourselves in the foot by not providing certainty at all. 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 35:09
Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, no, no—I totally agree. 

I think the other thing that hurts the sector is the decisions by the agency at really short notice—and really consequential decisions. 

I think the introduction of the interval payments this year was an example. It was basically a week’s notice. 

The pricing adjustments to therapy—put aside the impact of that, or the merit of that decision—I think just the fact that it was done at such short notice was significant. Organisations had to rebuild their operating models as a result of that decision. 

And actually, the same goes for the interval payments. The plan managers who you actually want in the system are spending millions of dollars converting their systems to cope with interval payments. 

So that needs to stop. 

And just—I mentioned the therapy price decision—so I also want to say the decision around travel is not consistent with best practice. What we’re seeing right across the country is therapy moving back to centre-based models, and less and less options available—particularly in regional and rural areas, or in the case of Tasmania, outside the cities. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 37:03
Okay, let’s segue into something like: we all need to come together in the industry, right? We can help each other by being collegiate. 

So I think membership is a key part of that when it comes to NDS, for example. The membership fee structure you guys have can range anywhere from $190 to $13,500—it depends on your revenue, right? 

So I suppose for the small players, for the medium players, they might go, “Oh God, that costs a lot,” right? It could be a disincentive sometimes to grow—or, not to grow, but you get the point. It’s like, “Oh God, that’s going to be costly.” 

So as one scales, I suppose you’ve got certain benefits that remain the same, and then there might be other benefits that scale accordingly as your business grows as well. 

How does NDS delineate between the things that stay the same and the things that you get more of? Because sure—your revenue’s going up—but if your membership cost is going up, what’s the return? What are the proportional things that rise in terms of the return on that investment? 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 38:10
Yeah. And we spoke about this prior to the podcast, and I think there is some work for us to do to look at the fee structure. 

But I think the structure as it is, it enables smaller providers—along with larger ones—to essentially get the same sort of support, and it’s structured at a level that’s affordable. 

And I think the overall benefit of membership—it is such a dynamic environment. It is so fluid. You need the information to navigate the changing landscape. You absolutely need that. 

I think what you get for your larger fee: if you’re a member, you get 30% off the training, which—if you’ve got more employees—then it pays for a bigger chunk of your membership. And at the high level, it probably pays for most of it. Or you get 30% off your event costs. Larger organisations will send a few more people, and you get 30% off those. 

So I think the membership pricing works. Can it be improved? I think we’re thinking about that. 

But one of the things we are thinking about at the moment is: how do we deliver the best value for this sector that we want to thrive? That’s advocacy, it’s navigating the environment, but it’s also practical support that organisations need around financial sustainability, training and development, the AI offer, legal advice, et cetera. So that’s where our thinking is at the moment. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 40:25
Yeah. And on the training—it’s interesting, because it’s that 30% off. Is that only for in-person training, or does it also extend to e-learning and the learning management system side—both? 

Thank you for mentioning that because that helps it click in my brain. Do you know what I mean? Because I can see that then—you’re going to arrive— that does make a big difference. 

Before coaching, I also did a bit of e-learning stuff. I used to sell projects to registered training organisations and universities, and I know what that world looks like. 

I feel like there’s also, at the industry level, a big opportunity to have a national e-learning strategy. What I mean by that is things like—Etrainu, for example—they’ve got, I believe, the passport concept. The idea is: if you’re a support worker—and it doesn’t matter what—you migrate between different companies in the same industry, you should be able to take your recognition of prior learning, and all of the core training you’ve done, to any employer very easily, right? 

So I think that’s an example of a national strategy. And I think as the peak body, we need to lead in that way, because if there is some sort of passport or mobility of training, it needs to be from a trusted source. And I think that’s what we can deliver. 

Your uniqueness as an organisation—as a peak body—is that the key thing of e-learning is subject matter expertise. You need a SME, right? You need the SME to tell the person what to make the course look like. 

So I think there’s a huge opportunity there. Also, if you think IT—think about training registers and all the stuff you need to pass audit. Imagine if you could put the non-digital stuff into a nice little training register online and go: “Auditor, there’s my whole training register,” you know? 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 42:31
Yeah, that’s right. And I think it is our role to really be thinking about how we make that part of running a disability organisation easier. 

Make some of that hygiene much more straightforward, because whatever happens with pricing—even if we get independent pricing and a more sophisticated approach—there’s never going to be rivers of gold, and there shouldn’t be. It’s going to be tight. 

So we need to make sure we are being proactive in supporting our members to be as efficient as they can, so there’s more funds to be spent on the frontline. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 43:18
Yeah, exactly. 

Look—one final question, Michael, in terms of workforce shortages—burnouts—recruitment and retention. That’s become increasingly a problem at all levels in the industry and beyond. 

What do you feel like is needed to stabilise the disability workforce? 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 43:44
I think it’s difficult to look at the disability component of the care workforce in isolation. 

At the moment, you do get paid more to be an aged care support worker. You get paid more as a sole trader in the NDIS. There is no baseline qualification in the disability sector. 

So there are those issues—and there are general workforce issues because of what’s happening in our population. 

Disability-specific: I think bringing back the idea that you can have a career in disability—and that it is remunerated in the same way that it is in other sectors—and that it is a recognised profession, and there is an expectation of baseline qualifications. I think all that’s important and needs to be done. 

And it’s also a very thorny issue. The labour shortages generally in the country, across all sectors, are pretty tough. There are macro levers that need to be pulled that apply to all sectors. 

Immigration is a key part of that, which is likely to be a key political discussion in 2026. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 45:30
Brilliant. Brilliant. Yeah— it all links. 

I suppose what I’ve gotten out of today’s conversation is: it’s a rich spider web of connected dots. And sometimes, through these conversations, we go, “Oh yeah—wait a minute. Hello—connect that one to there,” and that kind of helps fix that. 

You can’t do anything in isolation in the NDIS. You’ve got to really think at a systems level. 

So thank you—thank you very much for your time today, Michael. It’s been a real pleasure to unpack where the state of the sector is. And I’m sure you’d like to—maybe one last plug for the State of the Sector report. I think that’s important to mention to people, isn’t it? 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 46:04
Yeah. So each year we do the State of the Sector, and it won’t be a surprise that it’s a much tougher operating environment for the reasons that I’ve outlined. 

And it really strengthens our advocacy agenda to have that data to back it up. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 46:21
Yeah. Brilliant. Brilliant. 

Well, Michael, thank you so much again for your time today. My pleasure—from the NDS. And yeah, we look forward to having further conversations. Thank you for everything you guys are doing. 

Speaker 2 (Michael) 46:32
Yeah, thank you. 

Speaker 1 (Chris) 46:34
Okay. Thanks everyone. 

Steadway supports people with disability to live independent, meaningful lives on their own terms. As a registered NDIS provider, we deliver high-quality, personalised supports designed around each person’s goals, needs, and aspirations. 

We proudly serve Sydney’s Upper North Shore and Hornsby, as well as the Central Coast, Lake Macquarie, Newcastle, and the Hunter Valley. Our experienced team is committed to compassionate, reliable, and forward-thinking disability support—focused on building trust, consistency, and real outcomes that last.