Submission 1574

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submitted by:

NDIS Support Coordinator and Parent Advocate Regional South Australia

I am submitting this response both as an experienced NDIS Support Coordinator working in regional South Australia and as a mother advocating for her adult son and a grandmother raising grandchildren with disability.

Through both my professional and personal experiences, I have witnessed firsthand the increasing complexity, inconsistency, and gaps within the NDIS system. I am deeply concerned that the proposed changes will further isolate vulnerable people with disability, reduce meaningful participation in community life, and increase confusion around responsibility between the NDIA, State systems, and service providers.

Ministerial Powers and Lack of Safeguards

One of my greatest concerns is the increasing power being given to the Minister to make changes to supports and categories without sufficient transparency, consultation, or safeguards.

These decisions have direct impacts on the daily lives, health, dignity, and human rights of people with disability. Such significant powers should not sit with one office without stronger accountability and consultation mechanisms, particularly consultation with people with lived experience, families, and frontline workers.

The reality is that policy decisions made in Canberra directly affect whether vulnerable people eat properly, leave their homes, access healthcare, maintain relationships, or remain safe.

Concerns Regarding Changes to Social and Community Participation Funding

I am extremely concerned about the proposed restrictions and narrowing of “Social and Community Participation” supports.

The current language and proposed interpretations fail to recognise the reality of disability and the critical role these supports play in preventing isolation, decline, and mental health deterioration.

There appears to be a misunderstanding of what these supports actually involve.

Submission 1574

For many participants:

having a support worker assist them to attend medical appointments,

grocery shopping,

banking,

accessing services,

attending community activities,

or receiving support to participate in self-employment, are not optional social activities. They are essential daily living supports that allow a person to function safely and participate in society.

These supports should not be viewed simply as “social and community access.” They are fundamental to maintaining independence, wellbeing, routine, physical health, and connection to the broader community.

Reducing these supports will not reduce need. It will simply increase:

• social isolation,
• mental health decline,
• carer burnout,
• hospital presentations,
• homelessness risks,
• and crisis interventions.

Belonging, meaningful participation, and connection to community are basic human needs and basic human rights. Employment, volunteering, community access, and social inclusion are what give people purpose, identity, and value.

It is deeply concerning that these areas are being treated as discretionary rather than essential.

Thin Markets and Lack of Alternative Services

A major issue that continues to be ignored is the complete lack of alternative services available to fill the gaps if NDIS supports are reduced.

Historically, programs such as Personal Helpers and Mentors (PHaMs) provided vital psychosocial and community-based supports. Governments made the decision to transition many of these responsibilities into the NDIS system. However, once this occurred, many community and state- funded supports disappeared.

The problem now is that when people cannot access support through the NDIS, there are often no services left to assist them.

In regional areas particularly, supports simply do not exist.

Participants are routinely turned away from:

• hospitals,
• mental health services,

Submission 1574

community programs,

government organisations,

and state-funded supports,

because they are considered an “NDIS responsibility.”

At the same time, the NDIA frequently states that certain supports are the responsibility of the State system.

The result is that vulnerable people fall directly into the gaps between systems while agencies argue over responsibility.

This is one of the biggest systemic failures I have witnessed both professionally and personally.

Lack of Accountability and Communication Within the NDIA

Another significant issue is the inability to obtain clear, consistent, and timely guidance from the NDIA.

Support Coordinators, participants, and families are routinely unable to speak directly with decision-makers who have authority to resolve even simple issues.

Instead:

• people are directed to call centres,
• receive inconsistent advice,
• are transferred repeatedly,
• and often receive no resolution.

This creates enormous stress for participants and families who are already overwhelmed.

Concerns Regarding the Role of Local Area Coordinators (LACs)

In my experience, the current LAC model is ineffective and creates additional bureaucracy rather than meaningful support.

Participants are frequently told by the NDIA to speak to their LAC, while LACs advise participants to contact the NDIA directly because they do not have authority to make decisions or provide meaningful guidance.

This duplication causes:

Submission 1574

• delays,
• confusion,
• frustration,
• and a lack of accountability.

Many participants and families believe they are receiving support from the NDIA through the LAC system, when in reality LACs often have limited ability to influence outcomes.

This model requires urgent review.

The NDIS was created to improve the lives of people with disability through choice, control, inclusion, and meaningful participation.

I am deeply concerned that the proposed changes move away from those principles and risk creating a system focused more on cost containment than human outcomes.

People with disability deserve more than survival. They deserve:

• connection,
• dignity,
• purpose,
• safety,
• and meaningful participation in their communities.

Reducing supports without ensuring genuine alternative systems exist will only increase harm, isolation, and crisis.

I urge the Committee to carefully consider the real world impacts these reforms will have on participants, families, and frontline services, particularly in regional and thin market communities.