Submission 1501

To Whom It May Concern,

RE: Concerns Regarding Proposed NDIS Reforms and “Securing the NDIS for Future Generations” Bill

I am writing as a Disability Support Worker to express serious concern regarding the proposed reforms and funding changes currently being considered for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

While I understand the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, I believe many of the proposed changes will have a significant and harmful impact on participants, particularly those with complex needs, psychosocial disabilities, intellectual disabilities, autism, acquired brain injuries, degenerative conditions, and participants who rely heavily on daily support to maintain independence, safety, dignity, and community participation.

Participant Needs and Individualised Supports

Through my direct experience supporting participants in day-to-day settings, I have observed that support needs cannot always be measured strictly by fixed budgets, broad diagnosis categories, or standardised assessments. Participant needs fluctuate regularly depending on mental health, physical health, behavioural challenges, trauma history, environmental stressors, sensory overwhelm, medical changes, communication abilities, cognitive functioning, and social circumstances.

One of the major concerns surrounding the proposed reforms is the increasing move toward categorising participants into broad disability groups and applying standardised funding expectations based primarily on diagnosis categories or general functional assessments.

In practice, no two participants are the same, even when they share a similar diagnosis. Disabilities exist on a spectrum, and the level of support required can vary dramatically from person to person depending on co-occurring conditions, trauma history, behavioural support needs, mental health, communication capacity, physical health, environmental factors, and daily functioning.

For example, two participants may both have autism, psychosocial disability, intellectual disability, or acquired brain injury, yet one participant may require occasional prompting while another may require intensive daily support, behavioural intervention, constant supervision, or assistance with every aspect of daily living.

By attempting to group participants into generalised funding categories or “expected support levels,” the proposed reforms risk oversimplifying disability and failing to recognise the complexity and individuality of each participant’s circumstances.

This approach could result in:

• participants receiving inadequate funding because they do not “fit” the standard model for their diagnosis;

Submission 1501

• increased behavioural incidents due to unmet support needs;
• higher risks to participant safety and wellbeing;
• increased carer burnout and family stress;
• participants losing independence due to insufficient supports;
• frontline workers being unable to safely or effectively provide care within reduced budgets;
• participants being forced into crisis before additional supports are considered;
• reduced recognition of invisible disabilities and fluctuating conditions.

Disability support cannot safely or ethically operate under a “one size fits all” model. Individualised funding and flexibility are essential because support needs are highly personal and can change significantly over time.

Plan Flexibility, Funding Categories, and Needs-Based Supports

Another major concern surrounding the proposed reforms is the reduction of flexibility within participant plans. Participants may no longer have the ability to access supports according to their changing daily needs and may instead be restricted to tightly controlled budget categories and “approved” supports only. This risks reducing the ability to respond to participants on a genuine needs-based basis and instead forces supports into rigid plan-based limitations.

This could leave many participants without access to appropriate supports during periods of crisis, regression, behavioural escalation, hospitalisation, burnout, mental health decline, or health deterioration.

There is concern that participants may be expected to fit within predetermined funding structures rather than supports being tailored to the participant themselves. This undermines the original purpose of the NDIS, which was built around participant choice, control, flexibility, and person-centred support delivery.

Community Participation and Social Supports

The proposed reductions to social and community participation funding are also deeply concerning. Community access supports are not recreational luxuries; they are essential for reducing isolation, maintaining mental health, building independence, developing life skills, improving confidence, and supporting community inclusion.

For many participants, these supports are the only means they have to safely engage with society and maintain emotional wellbeing.

Cuts to these supports could result in:

• increased social isolation;

Submission 1501

• deterioration in mental health;
• increased depression and anxiety;
• loss of independence and confidence;
• increased behavioural incidents;
• higher rates of hospital admissions;
• reduced ability to maintain employment, education, or volunteering;
• greater risk of self-harm, crisis presentations, and homelessness.

28-Day Communication Rules and Administrative Burden

Additionally, the proposed 28-day communication and response expectations surrounding plan reviews, reassessments, evidence requests, and NDIA correspondence may create substantial risk for vulnerable participants.

Many participants experience barriers relating to literacy, cognition, executive functioning, trauma, mental health, intellectual disability, unstable housing, hospitalisation, communication difficulties, or limited informal supports.

If participants fail to respond within strict timeframes, they may face automatic reductions, suspensions, reassessments, or cuts to their plans despite their genuine support needs remaining unchanged.

This creates a serious risk that vulnerable individuals may lose access to critical supports simply due to communication difficulties rather than actual reductions in disability-related needs.

Standardised Assessments and Eligibility Concerns

There are also significant concerns regarding the proposal to increase reliance on standardised assessments and functional capacity tools rather than long-term therapeutic relationships and evidence from treating professionals.

Many disabilities present differently day-to-day and cannot always be accurately measured through short assessments or “one-size-fits-all” criteria.

If passed, these reforms may also:

• make it significantly harder for people to access the NDIS in the first place;
• force participants to repeatedly “prove” their disability despite permanent diagnoses;
• create delays in accessing essential supports and therapies;
• reduce funding for therapies and early intervention supports;
• negatively impact children who rely on early intervention services;
• create increased stress and burnout for carers and families;
• increase pressure on ageing parents and informal support networks;

Submission 1501

• leave participants vulnerable to abuse, neglect, and exploitation if supports are reduced;
• increase the likelihood of participants entering hospital, mental health units, homeslessness services, or the justice system due to lack of supports;
• disproportionately affect participants living in regional and rural areas where supports are already limited;
• reduce participant choice and control, which was one of the founding principles of the NDIS;
• create fear and uncertainty amongst participants who already experience significant stress navigating the system;
• force participants to prioritise “basic survival” supports over quality of life and independence goals;
• reduce access to support coordination, making the system even harder to navigate for vulnerable participants;
• increase out-of-pocket expenses for families who may be forced to privately fund supports that are no longer covered;
• cause participants to disengage from the NDIS entirely due to stress, complexity, and repeated reassessments.

Foundational Supports and Service Gaps

There is also major concern regarding the Government’s proposal to shift many supports into “foundational supports” outside of the NDIS.

At present, many of these systems are not fully developed, funded, or accessible. This creates a genuine risk that participants will lose supports before replacement services are properly available, leaving vulnerable people without assistance entirely.

Without appropriate transition systems already in place, many participants may experience service gaps, deterioration in wellbeing, or complete loss of access to supports they currently rely upon daily.

Positive Reform Areas

While there are many concerns regarding the proposed reforms, it is important to acknowledge that stronger oversight surrounding fraud prevention, provider accountability, and misuse of funding is a positive step for the scheme overall.

Improving safeguards against exploitation, fraudulent claiming, and unsafe provider practices is important to ensure NDIS funding is used appropriately and reaches participants who genuinely require support.

Submission 1501

However, it is critical that fraud prevention measures do not unintentionally create additional barriers, excessive administrative burden, or reduced flexibility for genuine participants who rely on timely and responsive supports.

Conclusion

As support workers, we regularly witness the positive outcomes the NDIS can provide when participants receive appropriate, flexible, and person-centred supports. We also witness how quickly participants can decline when supports are reduced, delayed, restricted, or made inaccessible.

The NDIS was originally created to empower Australians with disability to live with dignity, independence, safety, inclusion, and equal opportunity. Any reforms introduced should continue to prioritise participant wellbeing and genuine individual need above cost reduction targets.

I strongly encourage the Government and decision-makers to undertake further consultation with participants, families, frontline support workers, allied health professionals, and disability advocacy organisations before implementing reforms that may have life-altering consequences for vulnerable Australians.

Sincerely,

A Very passionate Disability Support Worker