Loss of individualised supports and re-medicalisation in the NDIS | External submission

Supplementary Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Annual Review 2024 – 2025

Submitted by: Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association (ANPA) Date: November 5, 2025

Executive Summary

The submission sets out further evidence collected by the Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association (ANPA) over the past year through the Harm Tracker project, formal complaints, and direct testimony from children, parents, carers, and practitioners.

it presents a clear picture of how current reforms are moving the NDIS away from its legislative foundations in the NDIS Act 2013 (Cth) and the rights protected under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

Three themes recur throughout the evidence:

1. Loss of individualised supports

Families report therapy cuts, rigid pricing, and the replacement of effective allied-health programs with behavioural interventions.

these practices undermine section 34 of the ndis act, which requires that supports be “reasonable and necessary”, and breach Articles 3 and 19 of the uncrpd on autonomy and community inclusion.

2. Re-medicalisation and policy capture

Decision-making about children’s services is being shaped by health-sector and charity interests rather than Disabled People’s Representative Organisations (DPROs). The move to locate the ndis under the Department of Health, the

3. Erosion of governance and trust.

Families and advocates describe planning processes that are opaque, automated, and inconsistent. Decisions are often made before meetings occur, and reviews can take months beyond the statutory timeframe.

The failure of procedural fairness contravenes sections 31 to 39 of the NDIS Act and the rule-of-law obligations that bind all Commonwealth agencies.

ANPA’s view is that these trends are reversible but require urgent oversight and the strongest possible accountability from the Committee.

Restoring lawful, transparent, and rights-based administration must now be the Committee’s priority.

Background and Purpose

the Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association is a national Disabled People’s Representative Organisation formed in 2023. Our members are Autistic and/or Neurodivergent parents, carers, and allies raising more than 200 disabled children, many of whom are NDIS participants. A high number of our parent and carer members are participants; around half of our current Board are NDIS participants. We meet criteria for DPRO status under Article 4(3) of the UNCRPD.

over 2024–25 we documented more than 400 cases of harm or service loss through the Harm Tracker 2025 tool and supplementary surveys.

This submission answers the Committee’s call for evidence on:

participants’ experience of access, planning, and review;
quality and availability of supports ;
consistency of NDIS administration with the NDIS Act and the UNCRPD .

it also reports on related policy developments – especially the Thriving Kids framework, the increasing influence of large NGOs and carer-led charities, and the removal of psychosocial and early intervention supports from individual plans.

How the Evidence Was Gathered

From July 2024 to October 2025 ANPA collected:

● 436 verified testimonies through the Harm Tracker Tool;
● targeted surveys on Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) and early-intervention programs such as Inklings;
● correspondence and complaint files with NDIA executives, the ACCC, and State Ministers;
● expert comment from allied-health professionals and legal specialists.

All quotations reproduced in this document are verbatim, with only minor spelling corrections. All identifying information has been removed.

here redacted

here redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii)

here redacted

Legislative and Human-Rights Framework

The NDIS Act 2013 (Cth) requires that every participant receive supports that are:

reasonable and necessary (s 34);
individually assessed and reviewed (s 31 - s 33); and
delivered in a way that promotes dignity, inclusion, and choice (ss 3 - 4).

Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD mirror these duties, particularly:

Article 4(3): active involvement of Disabled people in decisions affecting them;
Article 7: protection and participation of children;
Articles 19 and 23: rights to family life and community living; and
Article 28: adequate standard of living and social protection.

Wording_changes: []

The Voices of Children and Families

Across the past year, ANPA has gathered extensive first-hand testimony from children and parents. These accounts are at the centre of this submission.

The stories from these children and their families demonstrate the real-world effects of systemic change and the erosion of person-centred practice.

1. Children’s Voices

Children who contributed to the Harm Tracker 2025 project spoke about what the loss of supports means for their safety, friendships, and everyday lives.

“Autistic kids are not a budget problem. We are not a problem at all. The NDIA and ableism is the problem.”

Child participant, Facebook Survey, October 2025

“Autistic people should be treated as equals.”

Child participant, Facebook Survey, October 2025

“I am an Autistic kid and I know that we should have the rights to choose our therapist and have our cute little pups trained up by NDIS to be our service dogs because that would make a big difference to our lives and you should want to listen to us. Do better!”

Child participant, Facebook Survey, October 2025

These voices remind us that section 3 of the NDIS Act 2013 (Cth) requires the Scheme to promote dignity, inclusion and to enable full social and economic participation. They also remind us that the generation of children now encountering cuts to their supports are aware of what is being done to them. This should give every adult involved in policy implementation cause to stop and reflect.

Removing or narrowing supports for children directly contradicts the statutory purpose of the NDIS Act and breaches Article 7 of the UNCRPD, which requires that children with Disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them.

A nine-year-old participant captured what the loss of community-based supports looks like in practice:

“(9) wants the government to just be nice to kids and also he would miss his support workers because they take him swimming and to the park to make friends without redacted.”

Parent carer quoting child, Harm Tracker 2025.

2. Families and Carers

Many parents described the devastating effect of losing early intervention and therapy supports.

“Without the NDIS and the early intervention supports we received, my family would not be functioning today. For years we lived in constant crisis. The early supports we accessed through the NDIS quite literally changed and saved our lives.”

Parent carer, Harm Tracker 2025

“Early intervention prevents crisis. It builds skills, confidence, and capacity not only in children but in their families. If early intervention and adequate individual support through the NDis are reduced or removed, we will see a national crisis in the coming years.”

Parent carer, Harm Tracker 2025

The evidence directly engages section 4(15) of the NDIS Act, which recognises that early intervention can reduce future Disability support needs and improve functional capacity. This was the very reason that individualised early intervention was conceived as one of the two “doorways” to the NDIS.

Cuts to early intervention funding contradict this legislative objective and breach Article 23(3) of the UNCRPD, which protects the integrity of the family.

Parennts also spoke about the emotional and material costs of system failure and reflected a painful awareness of the

3. First Nations Perspectives

First Nations families within our membership and networks have consistently described the deep and ongoing impact of colonisation, unsupported Disability, and systemic exclusion. Their testimonies show how these forces intersect within the NDIS, child protection, and justice systems.

“We are painfully losing our sense of trust and safety with the evolving systems in a country we all love and call home. The NDIA continues to carry a colonial mindset that assumes human services is a one-size-fits-all approach.”

First Nations Autistic ANPA Member and mother of Autistic First Nations children

The lack of culturally safe practitioners and governance across the NDIS violates Article 30 of the UNCRPD, which protects the right to cultural life and identity, and Article 4(3), which requires direct consultation with people with disability through their representative organisations (United Nations, 2006). For First Nations peoples, these obligations align with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 (UNDRIP), the UNCRC and Article 23 of the UNCRPD - both of which affirm the right to self-determination and to grow up within family, culture, and community.

Cuts to travel and therapy funding have a disproportionate impact on First Nations families, many of whom live in regional and remote areas where no local practitioners exist. The removal of travel support means the removal of the only formal pathway to access early intervention.

Within our network and membership, multiple First Nations mothers have reported that after the collapse or withdrawal of NDIS supports for themselves or their child, they were almost immediately reported to child protection by a mandatory reporter – usually a practitioner or their child’s school. These reports often occurred not because of neglect or harm, but because the absence of funded support created instability and distress within the family home.

The number of children being removed from the NDIS has grown sharply since 2023.

Annual Report No. 1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 23

According to NDIS quarterly data and state-level estimates compiled from Senate Community Affairs Estimates and advocacy reports, between 22,000 and 28,000 children aged 0–14 have exited the scheme in the past 18 months, the majority in the 5–9 years early childhood and developmental delay cohorts (NDIA, 2025; Senate Community Affairs Estimates, 2025).

These are not isolated administrative adjustments: each exit represents a child whose early intervention supports, therapy, and cultural connection scaffolding have been withdrawn.

in many communities, this has left families without any formal support, and in some cases, under new scrutiny from education or child protection authorities. This scale of removal should be viewed as a national systems failure - one that undoubtedly disproportionately exposes First Nations children with Disability to poverty, exclusion, and the risk of institutionalisation or incarceration later in life.

Keeping supports around families of young First Nationals children, whether a child or adult is Disabled, is a critical mandate for the NDIA.

The Disability Royal Commission’s report Parents’ Experiences of Child Protection (2022) documents these same systemic failures and has been tabled with the Federal and State governments; making this harm foreseeable by both levels of government and the Agency.

parents told the commission:

“When I lost my NDIS supports, I couldn’t keep up with everything. Then I got a call saying there had been a report to child protection. It was like they were waiting for me to fail.” (Disability Royal Commission, 2022, p. 52) the commission found that: “The withdrawal or reduction of NDIS supports contributed directly to crises that were then interpreted by child protection authorities as evidence of neglect.

Annual Report No. 1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 23

The accounts mirror what ANPA members report today, and in increasing numbers. Across every State and Territory, child protection agencies view NDIS supports as protective scaffolding - a stabilising framework that helps families maintain their caring role with safety, in the community and that prevent child removal. When that scaffolding is removed, especially without culturally grounded alternatives, families fall into crisis and surveillance replaces support.

Families now report to The ANPA that NDIA workers are notifying the child protection system about a family as they cut off support from that same family.

For First Nations parents with psychosocial disability – who already experience the highest rates of child removal in the country – this constitutes a national emergency for children, parents, and communities.

Families are also reporting that, upon applying to the NDIS for themselves or their child and being rejected by the NDIA, planners are calling child protective services and referring families to them for poor parenting or insufficient supports in place.

We are concerned that parents are being told to reach out for help, but when they contact the NDIS, they are reported to child protection. We are concerned that not only is this unjust and violent, it is a matter of time until Disabled children and parents begin to go without any support because they are too afraid to contact the only substantial system of support Australia currently has in place. When systems become unsafe to contact and engage with, parents will avoid them. This will lead to the further criminalisation of families where a parent or child is Disabled, escalating State intervention, harm, injury, neglect and death.

Let us be very clear: all of those adverse outcomes will be the moral responsibility of the Agency, not the parents trying to remain whole as a family in abject and despair-inducing material conditions.

Over-representation and incarceration of First Nations disabled children

The consequences of this neglect extend into youth justice. First Nations children with neurodevelopmental and learning disabilities are grossly over-represented in detention and are under-represented on the NDIS. Research by the Telethon Kids Institute found that “Nine in ten Aboriginal young people in detention in Western Australia have at least one neurodevelopmental impairment.” (Bower et al., 2023, p. 1)

The Disability Royal Commission (Public Hearing 25, 2023) similarly found that “Many First Nations children in youth detention have undiagnosed disability, and their disability-related behaviours are criminalised rather than supported.

Restoring Self-Determination and Cultural Leadership

For many, the pathway from school exclusion to incarceration begins with the failure to provide accessible supports early in life – a failure intensified by the erosion of NDIS-funded travel and therapy supports.

At the Safe, Fair, Forever rally in Canberra, Senator Lidia Thorpe articulated what this means in practice:

“We know that our children are being targeted and locked up just because they have a Disability… The government is not talking to people with Disability about the solutions, the self-determination that comes from people with lived experience.”

Senator Lidia Thorpe, Safe, Fair, Forever Rally, 27 October 2025

The testimony echoes countless families across the country; it reinforces the urgent need for First Nations–led, DPRO–led consultation and co‐design as required under Article 4(3) of the UNCRPD and principles of self determination under UNDRIP.

Unless reforms are led by First Nations people with disability, Australia risks perpetuating the same colonial systems of control and removal that the NDIS was meant to dismantle. The NDIS was meant to liberate, not punish. It is currently failing in that purpose.

Psychosocial Disability and Systemic Risk: Disabled Parents Falling Through The Gaps

The experiences of people with psychosocial disability within the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) reveal significant systemic failings resulting in crisis, and ultimately, the risk of total family destruction.

These include arbitrary decision-making, inconsistent access to supports, the conflation of disability and mental illness, and the diversion of people into other systems such as health or child protection.

Such practices undermine the rights of participants, contravene the intent of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, and breach Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) 2006), particularly Articles 12, 19 and 28, which guarantee equal recognition before the law, community inclusion and adequate support for independent living.

Policy context and structural risks

Recent commentary and policy directions have signalled a shift toward excluding psychosocial disability from the NDIS. The Grattan Institute Report (2023, p. 14) recommended “stepping down” participants with psychosocial disabilities into state-delivered mental health programs. This proposal mirrors the yet to be functional

Annual Report No. 1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 23

Families supporting people with psychosocial disability are particularly vulnerable to harm when supports are denied or withdrawn. Many of these families are led by women, often single parents, who also experience disability themselves. The withdrawal of NDIS support has direct consequences for housing stability, parenting capacity and mental health, placing families at increased risk of crisis intervention or child protection involvement.

A de-identified mother’s statement illustrates this trajectory:

“We cannot get the funding desperately needed [for my co-parent] despite turning to every avenue I can find for help… I was forced to leave our family home and separate him from our children because no one would step in until crisis hit…my children’s father is being denied the support he requires.” (Parent participant, 2025)

The intersection of psychosocial disability and carer stress is well-documented.

Peer-reviewed evidence demonstrates that ongoing, consistent psychosocial support reduces crisis presentations, improves employment retention, and prevents escalation into acute care. The withdrawal of these supports, by contrast, contributes to functional decline, family breakdown and higher long-term public costs.

Case study: systemic neglect and harm

A current case, anonymised for privacy, demonstrates multiple procedural and human rights breaches.

The participant - an Autistic father with Bipolar Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - had his support hours cut from six hours per week to three, at a 1:4 staffing ratio. His occupational therapy report and carer impact statement both documented significant psychosocial barriers to independent living.

Nonetheless, the planner stated that his depression and anxiety were “not related to his primary disability” and referred him to the state mental health system.

His carer described the impact:

“He already feels he’s unworthy of support and it is significantly impacting him. If this continues, he risks losing his long-term employment of 18 years as his capacity deteriorates, not because of unwillingness, but because of systemic neglect.” (Parent carer, 2025)

Lack of support has led to a child protection notification in the case of this family.

these decisions breach section 33(2) of the NDIS Act 2013, which requires that planning take into account “the participant’s individual circumstances, goals and aspirations.” They also disregard the duty under section 34(1)(e) to ensure supports are most appropriately funded through the NDIS, not shifted to another system. When participants are directed by the NDIA to “mainstream supports” that do not exist, the predictable result is crisis and harm.

Annual Report No. 1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 23 \nThe planner’s direction that the participant “seek help from NSW Health” illustrates the systemic offloading of responsibility onto already overstretched state services - an approach contrary to the Intergovernmental Agreement on the NDIS (COAG 2012) and the bilateral obligations between Commonwealth and states. Both are bound by the UNCRPD, and neither are observing it. \nThe emerging pattern \nthe pattern evident across psychosocial disability cases is one of structural discrimination reinforced by administrative practice. Participants and carers are forced into cycles of re-assessment, functional capacity reviews, and delayed appeals, with many waiting months for determinations.\ Families report a constant sense of neglect and abandonment by the systems meant to support them, and a sense of disengagement by those systems from any kind of responsibility toward them.\ Overall there is a sense of deep dehumanisation and injustice that pervades families experiences of the NDIS. \nas one parent wrote:

“The planner said, ‘Take your time.’ I asked what would she suggest - since they will not assign any funding for a support worker because it’s a parental responsibility to take my son everywhere?… To stay home all the time until he turns 16?” (Parent participant, 2025) \nPart 3. Governance and Oversight

1. Administrative Failure and Systemic Drift

\nevidence gathered through the Harm Tracker, formal complaints, and correspondence with the NDIA demonstrates that the Agency increasingly operates outside the principles and procedures established by the Ndis Act 2013 (Cth). \nfamilies consistently describe plans that are written before planning meetings, calls from planners with no notice at dinner time or during school drop off that they cannot answer that result in plan severance or enormous reduction; and decisions that disregard submitted expert evidence. They speak of review delays extending well beyond the statutory timeframes.\ many have been told by planners that funding was reduced or denied due to “parental responsibility” or because impairments were considered “health issues” or that their needs would be better met by another party. Children and adults are being left with no support as the ndia and state health and child protection systems pass them back and forth repeatedly. This can go on for months, leading to participants becoming more Disabled than previously.

Annual Report No. 1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 23

Such practices breach section 31 (requirement for participant involvement), section 32 (review of participant’s plan), and section 33(2) (requirement to explain decisions). They also contravene the Model Litigant Principles and the administrative law standards of procedural fairness and reasoned decision-making.

The ANPA lodged an additional Notice of Concern with Minister Butler and Chalmers in August 2025 highlighting how automated decision tools are being used to allocate funding, reduce or cut funding, and determine eligibility - without transparency or any legislative basis. We further outlined that this was being done on the basis of cohorts.

When algorithms are used to screen or determine supports, the participant’s right to a human decision under section 100(6) of the NDIS Act is undermined. This has serious implications under Article 12 of the UNCRPD, which guarantees equal recognition before the law. Determining access on the basis of belonging to a cohort is highly discriminatory and unlawful.

Policy Capture and Conflicts of Interest

AANPA and allied DPROs have repeatedly raised concern that large charities and service providers - including Autism Awareness Australia, Aruma, and Headspace - exert disproportionate influence on national policy, and above that of DPROs.

These organisations will likely be significant beneficiaries of proposed block-funded “early-intervention” programs under Thriving Kids and therefore have a financial interest in moving children and psychosocial participants off the NDIS.

Autism Awareness Australia and President Nicole Rogerson have persistently advocated for intensive Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) programs, despite avoidance of explicitly saying so. Rogerson is one of the key founders of the therapy in Australia and used it to treat her own, now adult, son Jack. Until 2019, she also owned one of Australia’s largest and most successful ABA chains.

Their rhetoric has frequently focused on intensive early intervention and making ‘gains’- a framing and model inconsistent with self-determination and the social model of disability on which the NDIS is founded. In a 2021 submission to government they further recommended “clearing out” the Scheme of competitors to intensive early intervention so that parents can only choose from a very limited field of options (which are primarily behaviourist, intensive early interventions) while maintaining the illusion of true choice.

Atheir self promotion widely labels them as the ‘National Voice for Autism’ despite being a carer led health charity that does not enjoy DPRO status. This muddying of the waters, in our view, is deliberate and designed to confound Federal and State government as they seek to determine who to consult with on reform.

HTheir influence erodes section 4(13) of the Act (recognition of the central role of people with disability in decision-making) and breaches Article 4(3) of the UNCRPD, which requires that Disabled People’s Organisations be directly involved in all policy and program development.

Annual Report No. 1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 23 The result of this lobbying is a form of institutional layering - where new policy logics are placed on top of the existing scheme in order for older ideologies, under threat, to persist.

the emergence of the term “profound autism” - largely driven by AAA - the relocation of the NDIS under the Health portfolio, and the framing of “mild to moderate autism” in Minister Butler’s 2024 National Press Club address all reflect a broader re-medicalisation of disability policy and disturbing shift away from the progress hard won by Disability Rights activists over decades.

This trend undermines the rights-based framework of the NDis and risks returning Australia to a charity and medical-based welfare model.

3. Disproportionate Impact on Women and Families

Women remain the majority of unpaid carers.

Testimony collected by ANPA shows that when supports are removed, it is mothers - often with disabilities themselves - who bear the full economic and psychological cost.

“I’m the carer for my Autistic son and my ex-husband. When they cut his plan, it wasn’t just his life that collapsed. It was mine too.”

Parent carer, Harm Tracker 2025

The cuts to psychosocial and parenting supports breach section 4(3) of the NDIs Act (supporting families and carers) and Articles 6 and 23 of the UNCRPD, which require governments to recognise and address the specific situation of women with disabilities and to protect family life.

4. Loss of Early-Intervention Capacity

evidences across hundreds of submissions show that families with children under twelve are already being diverted from the NDIS toward unfunded or pilot programs. This has occurred without proper consultation with the NDIA Board, State and Territory governments, or DPROs, contrary to section 5(d) (co-operative intergovernmental arrangements).

the effect is to replace individualised, rights-based supports with block-funded services delivered by non-DPRo charities and businesses, almost by stealth. this shift disregards section 4(2) (supporting people with disability to exercise choice and control) and breaches articles 19 and 26 of the uncrpd, which require that rehabilitation and habilitation services be voluntary and community-based.

5. Implications of Non-Compliance with the Act and UNC<redacted: rpd>

The if these practices continue, several consequences may arise.

Annual Report No. 1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 23

With regards to administration of the scheme – the NDIS Act requires that every internal review be conducted independently. Section 100(6) provides that ‘an internal review of a reviewable decision must be conducted by a person (the reviewer) other than the person who made the reviewable decision.’

The deliberate use of the word “person” shows Parliament’s intention that a review must be performed by a human decision-maker exercising their own judgment. While the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 2C allows that “person” may include a body corporate, the wording and structure of s 100(6), which contrasts “the person who made the decision” with “the person who reviews it”, indicate that it refers to a natural person.

Automated or algorithmic plan reviews cannot satisfy this requirement: they cannot apply discretion, make decisions in context, ensure procedural fairness, or be held accountable for reasons for decisions.

Accordingly, the NDIA’s use of algorithmic or template-based reassessments risks breaching s 100(6) and undermining the statutory right to an independent human review. Such decisions may be invalid for failure to comply with the Act and with the rule of law.

More broadly, participants may seek judicial review on grounds of legal unreasonableness, failure to consider relevant matters, or breach of procedural fairness. The use of automated decision tools without legislative authority may also amount to jurisdictional error or acting ultra vires. These breaches engage Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which guarantees equal recognition before the law and the right to support in exercising legal capacity.

Systemic exclusion of children, First Nations peoples, and parents with psychosocial disabilities further exposes the Commonwealth to potential findings of non-compliance under the UN CRPD Optional Protocol. Combined with an open ACCC investigation regarding market distortion and loss of choice and control as a result of the July Price/PAPL cuts, the legal and reputational risks to the Scheme are now significant.

6. Governance and Oversight

The NDIA has become, in the words of many participants, “a law unto itself.” Decisions are made without transparency, appeal processes are delayed, and complaints are referred back to the same Agency that made the original decision. There is at present no effective independent oversight mechanism with power to compel correction.

This absence of accountability violates the principles of good governance: lawfulness, transparency, and reasoned decision-making - that underpin the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth). It also contradicts Article 4(1) of the UNCRPD, which requires governments to adopt all measures necessary to give effect to the rights recognised in the Convention.

Recommendations

Immediate halt to any further cuts or reassessments, and the implementation of Thriving Kids or step downs of psychosocial plans, pending full co-design with DPROs, State governments, and the NDIA Board.
Legislative amendment to prohibit the use of automated decision-making in determining or varying participant plans unless expressly authorised by regulation.
Independent oversight body with statutory powers to investigate NDIA decisions and enforce compliance with the NDIS Act and UNCRPD.
Restoration of psychosocial and early-intervention supports, recognising the interdependence of health, family, and disability systems.
Transparent consultation processes ensuring that Disabled People’s Organisations, not charities or service providers, lead policy design.
Gender-impact assessment of all NDIS reforms, with specific reporting on outcomes for women and parent-carers with disability.
Reaffirmation of the NDIS as a social, not medical, model, grounded in autonomy, dignity, and participation.

Conclusion

The NDIS was founded as a social contract between government and Disabled people.

It was intended to be an assurance that disability support would no longer depend on charity, medical models or crisis. The evidence presented here shows that this contract is under strain.

Unless the Commonwealth restores compliance with its own legislation, ensures genuine consultation, and re-centres the voices of children, parents, and First Nations peoples, it risks further breaching both domestic and international law. The outcome will not only be human harm but systemic collapse of public trust.

Submission

The pathway forward is clear: respect the law, listen to Disabled people, and act within the principles that created the Scheme.

We conclude this submission with a poem from ANPA President Sarah Langston which expresses the current situation the Disability community finds itself in with the NDIS cuts.

We thank the Committee for your time.

The ANPA and The Nobody Worse Off Coalition

the Cuts (they say we are radicals)

By Sarah Langston

here are people flying business class in high end suits

and staying at the Hyatt

and charging it all to the tax payer as they advise the gubmint on the NDIS.

they are sipping $20 cocktails as they give wise counsel to Ministers on the poor little cripples.

they are faux-co-designing with your money and they are doing it in style and on the other end of these years of earnest talks

will be contracts tenders seats on boards; shares and mergers. charity demands luxury

Submission 23

for it is such difficult work for them to care so much.

Don’t you know their child smears on walls? Therefore they’ve more than earned our admiration and a tap to the main vein of the community chest.

those well heeled white women are deeply concerned!

and they definitely deserve to be well rewarded for it, right?

-–

somewhere in naarm a mother is cleaning spew out of a sink and wondering if her grown child will kill her in her sleep, or if they will kill themselves instead.

she sets up the appointments and does what she can to keep ings safe

The following bullet points represent text that was wrapped mid-sentence due to page layout: e - bouts of crying e - d scrounging for change for parking e - she writes letters e - strategises with colleagues e - and sends FOIs to journalists. She will go to Canberra again soon and maybe she will sleep in her car maybe not She will get every meeting she can And cackle in the hallways Refusing to miss out on joy and comraderie and work even as the scent of sick lingers under her fingernails

another washes her face after crying for two hours washing blood from her dress in the sink.

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 23

she eats the last piece of bread, swallowing hard, throat swollen with infection.

there’s no money for antibiotics this week. and she’d claim it on the safety net

but she lost the card and she can’t cope with phone and her chemist doesn’t email. so, she can’t sort it out.

she watches her sleeping son. The is recovering in bandages having put his arm through a window in when his ipad i went flat.

she makes her way to the table to work again to write to her Senators again

hoping she does not die from the infection

for who will bandage her little boy then?

deep in the bush a principal takes meals to a mother who can’t speak or move from pain. her baby nurses while she sleeps and the toddler and the kindy kid watch playschool in the 3m² safe fort she has built around them.

she cannot take medication for the endless pain because she still has a baby on the boob and she cannot stand for long enough to wash formula bottles and her plan’s been cut and she can’t concentrate for long enough to get through a tribunal hearing.

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 23

to get support workers back.

she takes the pain instead because t here is no other choice.

The principal enters with his wife; they sweep the floors. He reads books to the children, an d his wife hoists the little one on her back whilst dishes are done.

He murmurs to her that the Aunties would be furious if they knew.

she agrees. They will tell them tomorrow and they will take care of this however they can.

th i s , Says his Wife, is white man’s Care. He nods

yes

This is all their systems have in them

ap parently

Tomorrow The aunties Will come And They will handle This On Country Their way .

The Blak Principal an d His blak wife w ill write letters . Again , Furious An D through tears

a Minister stands before media With disdain for Them

They Are, he says radicals

Annual Report No.1 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 23

extremists.

they are gritters. bludgers. rorters.

Then

The group chats rumble as we scream as one.

When the screaming quiets, a still calm moves through the room of the community.

We go cold. Now hot in our hearts only for each other And our eyes Awake to what we must do to be free.

If it is radical to demand to live With dignity and safety on our bones

The taken for granted armor of everyone else

Then let us be radical instead forever.