Submission 1503

28th May 2026

Dear Committee Secretary,

I am a parent of an 18-year-old young man who is an NDIS participant and I oppose the NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026. The aspect that concerns me most is Part 4 of the Bill — The proposed up to 50% reduction to social and community participation funding. People with disability and their families have fought for decades to achieve what many take for granted — the ability to be valued and contributing members of their communities. This proposed reduction threatens what so many have fought so hard to advance.

If my 18-year-old son’s community participation supports are cut, it will deeply impact his wellbeing, especially at this crucial time as he begins his post-school journey. Both he and our family have worked hard across his high school years to build his skills and confidence to participate in mainstream community groups and activities, including volunteer roles. We have watched him grow from a very timid and anxious boy — before the NDIS — into a self- asured and confident young man because of the social interactions and connections he has made with the support of his NDIS funding.

As a minimally speaking young person with significant sensory and movement differences, hhe requires 1:1 support to safely and meaningfully engage in community life. If his funding is reduced, I fear he will lose many of the skills and confidence that he, and all who support him, have worked so hard to achieve.

I also worry for our broader community. Inclusive communities are stronger and healthier communities. Our son has brought new understandings of disability and inclusion to those around him. We can only build truly inclusive communities by having people with disability present in everyday life. If funding is reduced, he and many of his peers risk increased isolation, loss of confidence, declining mental health, and withdrawal from community life.

The weight of reductions to community participation funding will fall disproportionately on already overstretched mothers and carers. I care for my son, my ageing mother, and my husband, who is frequently unwell. My son’s supports have allowed me to carry out my caring responsibilities with greater ease and to remain employed part-time. Part 4 as currently drafted provides no protections for carers who rely on participant funding to sustain their own employment and caring responsibilities.

Submission 1503

If his funding is cut — particularly as he finishes school — this balance will collapse. The impact on my mental health, and that of my whole family, will be significant. The additional financial strain will also be considerable.

I am also concerned that the cuts enabled by Part 4, without legislated safeguards, will in practice lead to a return to congregated approaches — grouping people with disability together for social and community activities in place of individually funded participation and inclusion. History demonstrates that when individualised supports are reduced, systems default toward cheaper congregated models rather than genuine inclusion.

I work in the disability sector supporting families of children with disability. Many of the families I work with have children who, under this Bill, could have their community participation funding cut drastically or be removed from the NDIS entirely. Their children have fluctuating capacity — and even where a disability may appear less severe on paper, there are periods that require support equal to what my son receives. If they are to have their funding significantly reduced or removed whilst there is no robust safety net outside of the NDIS to support them, then the consequences will be devastating.

My work in recent years has focused on supporting family members to meaningfully contribute to co-design processes. The UNCRPD requires state parties to “closely consult” with people with disability and their representative organisations on matters affecting their lives — Article 4(3). This has never genuinely occurred within the NDIS reform process, and many of the current problems were foreseen by the disability community long before they emerged.

The structure of this Bill compounds that failure. The most consequential details have been deferred to post-passage Ministerial instruments, meaning the community is being asked to accept a legislative framework without knowing how it will operate in practice, and without guaranteed mechanisms to challenge those instruments once made. This is structurally incompatible with Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD, which Australia ratified in 2008.

People with disability and their families should not bear the consequences of policy failures, poor market regulation, and systemic mismanagement. Only when people with disability and their families are genuinely heard will we get decisions right.

The growth pressures within the scheme are well documented as being driven largely by provider-side inflation, poor market regulation, and fraud — not by participants accessing social and community participation supports. I urge the Committee to redirect integrity

Submission 1503

measures toward provider behaviour and pricing reform, as such measures would address the ttrue cost drivers without stripping participants of the supports they rely on to remain connected and contributing members of their communities.

I also urge the Committee to ensure that the proposed $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund is not allowed to become a vehicle for returning people with disability to congregated, s egregated programming. If this Fund is to genuinely support social and community participation, it must be co-designed from the outset with people with disability and their families — not designed for them. Co-design must be embedded in the Fund’s governance as a legal requirement, not offered as a goodwill gesture after decisions have already been made.

Done well, this Fund could complement individual participant funding rather than replace it. Done poorly, it will repeat the very history this submission warns against.

Recommendations

• Remove or substantially amend Part 4 to prevent blanket reductions to community participation funding.
• Ensure the proposed $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund cannot replace individualised supports with congregated or segregated models of participation.
• Legislate genuine co-design requirements consistent with Article 4(3) of the UNCRPD.
• Focus scheme sustainability reforms on provider regulation, pricing oversight, and fraud prevention rather than reducing participant access to community participation supports.

If this Bill passes in its current form, Australia risks repeating many of the failures of the past — people with disability being “shut out” with increasing segregation, isolation, carer strain hardship, while moving further away from the vision of an inclusive Australia that the NDIS was intended to support.

Yours sincerely,