Submission 1607

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

Date: 27 May 2026

Summary

This submission raises concerns regarding proposed reductions to social, civic and community

ticipation supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the

NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. Such supports are often essential to maintaining functional

participation, behavioural stability, communication, employment participation and community

engagement for participants with intellectual disability and related conditions.

I submit that there are legitimate concerns regarding the breadth of the delegated reduction

powers proposed under section 34A, the limited statutory safeguards accompanying those powers,

the risk of unequal impacts across disability groups, and the absence of a clearly articulated

evidentiary basis for the proposed reductions.

I further submit that clearer safeguards for participants, stronger statutory guidance, and a more

clearly articulated evidentiary basis should be established before such powers are enacted.

---

Submission

I make this submission as the parent of a 23-year-old NDIS participant with a permanent

intellectual disability (Down syndrome). This submission addresses aspects of the National

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

(“the Bill”) and the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum, which propose reductions in

funding for “social, civic and community participation” supports and “capacity building daily

activity“ supports.

I acknowledge the critical importance of ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of the

National Disability Insurance Scheme. However, I am concerned that the Bill creates a mechanism

Submission 1607

for broad reductions to social, civic and community participation supports for sustainability

reasons, without sufficient clarity on how supports essential to maintaining participation in work,

daily life, and the broader community will be protected. In our experience, these supports are often

not merely recreational or discretionary. They are essential supports that enable many participants

with intellectual disability and related conditions to maintain routines, communication,

behavioural stability, social connections, work participation, and meaningful engagement in

community life.

The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Bill will “provide a mechanism to directly manage

the financial sustainability of the Scheme by reducing the funding for specified groups of supports

across the Scheme”.[1] That mechanism is set out in proposed section 34A, which would permit

the Minister, by legislative instrument, to determine a percentage reduction for a “specified group

of supports”.[2]

Proposed subsection 34A(5) is particularly significant. It allows reductions even where “the

funding provided under a participant’s plan for a reasonable and necessary support is less than the

total cost of the support”, and where “the funding provided under a participant’s plan for all

reasonable and necessary supports, taken as a whole, is less than the total costs of the supports”.[3]

In our experience, supports within these categories are often clinically relevant and highly

important to participant functioning, stability and participation.

The accompanying public materials state that “social, civic and community participation supports” will be reduced by 50 per cent, and that “capacity building daily activity” allocations will be reduced by 10 per cent.[4] They also state that such supports are “not always improving community participation, inclusion or capacity”.[4] The publicly articulated basis for the apparent conclusion that many such supports are low-value or insufficiently outcome-producing has not been clearly set out. Much of the public discussion surrounding these reforms has focused on anecdotal examples of poor-quality provision and concerns about expenditure growth, rather than on a clearly identified evidence base demonstrating that structured community participation supports are generally ineffective or lack functional value. I am not aware that the government has publicly provided the evidentiary basis for the statement that these supports do not always

Submission 1607

improve participation, inclusion, or capacity. This is concerning, given the profound ramifications

the changes may have on people’s lives.

This is notable given that the NDIA itself has previously identified social and community

participation as important contributors to belonging, confidence, reduced isolation, employment

participation, and community inclusion for many participants.[5] The importance of social

participation and community access in maintaining functioning and wellbeing among people with

intellectual disability, autism and psychosocial disability is also recognised in broader NDIS- related research literature and policy analysis.[7] The relationship between social isolation, reduced

csocial participation and adverse health outcomes is also recognised in broader public health literature, including studies associating social isolation and loneliness with increased mortality risk.[8] While the practical effects of the proposed reforms will vary between participants, reductions that materially increase isolation and disengagement for vulnerable individuals are likely to be concerning from both a disability support and a public health perspective.

For many participants, participation supports should not be seen as ancillary to therapy or simply “nice to have”. They are the settings where functional skills are practised, reinforced and maintained. A participant attending a structured day program or supported workplace may simultaneously maintain communication skills, practise social interaction, regulate behaviour, develop travel competence, sustain work readiness and maintain the routines necessary for stable daily functioning. These engagements also enable participants’ families to more readily participate in work and contribute to the wider economy and community.

In many cases, the practical benefits of these supports may be more substantial and enduring for participants than those of isolated formal therapy sessions delivered outside participants’ ordinary lives. The concern raised by the proposed reforms is therefore not simply that certain categories of expenditure may be reduced, but that supports with significant functional and stabilising value may increasingly be characterised as discretionary or “low-value” expenditure, rather than recognised as important components of maintaining capacity and preventing deterioration.

Submission 1607

Arguably, the substantial growth in expenditure on social and community participation supports may reflect a growing recognition among participants, families and providers that these supports play an important practical role in maintaining participation and functioning.

I am particularly concerned about participants whose disability-related support needs include maintaining function and preventing deterioration. These participants may have progressive or regression-associated conditions. This includes individuals with Down syndrome who experience Down Syndrome Regression Disorder, in whom regression may involve the loss of previously acquired communication, social, behavioural and daily living skills.[6]

For such participants, structured and supported community participation may be important for maintaining functional capacity, communication, routines, mobility, behavioural stability and psychological wellbeing. Reduced access to structured community participation may accelerate functional decline. In such cases, support is important not only for participation but also for maintaining existing capacity and preventing deterioration.

Participants with lifelong intellectual disability may rely on continuity of structured support, as withdrawal of support may result in regression or loss of previously maintained function. A government posture that implicitly assigns greater value to supports that produce measurable progression towards independence or capacity growth risks undervaluing supports whose principal function is to maintain stability, participation and functioning over time.

There is also a broader practical concern. If supports that materially sustain participation, routine, independence and dignity are progressively excluded from the concept of reasonable and necessary support, the burden of maintaining them will increasingly fall to families. In many cases, families may feel compelled to privately fund community participation, structured activities and support arrangements to prevent deterioration, isolation or loss of functioning. Cost shifting onto families could become significant.

In other cases, the practical response may not be private funding but greater reliance on unpaid informal care. Primary carers may reduce their workforce participation to provide more supervision, transport, structure and support. This risks shifting part of the practical and economic

Submission 1607

disablement support from the Scheme back onto unpaid family care, with broader consequences for workforce participation and economic productivity. Many family carers may face the choice of working less, with serious financial consequences for families and individuals. Importantly, many participants will not have families able to provide that level of support. The practical consequences of reduced structured participation support may therefore fall particularly heavily on participants who are socially isolated, ageing, unsupported, or lacking strong informal care networks. In many cases, the practical outcome may be increased social isolation, loss of self- esteem, reduced activity, and diminished quality of life.

This may not affect all participants or disability groups equally. Recent reporting on an internal Government analysis suggested that participants with Down syndrome may be among those disproportionately affected by the proposed reductions to social and community participation supports.[9] That possibility is consistent with the practical reality that many participants with intellectual disability rely heavily on structured community participation, supported routines and ongoing supervision to maintain functional stability and participation in ordinary community life.

If the practical operation of the proposed reforms produces materially unequal impacts across particular disability groups, that should be a matter of concern when assessing both their design and implementation.

In my respectful submission, the Bill risks treating supports essential to maintaining functional participation and dignity as discretionary participation expenditure, without providing sufficient evidence or guidance as to how those distinctions are to be made in practice. The breadth of the proposed power is significant. Proposed section 34A would permit percentage reductions to broad groups of supports by delegated legislation for the purpose of “ensuring the financial sustainability” of the Scheme, while proposed subsection 34A(5) expressly provides that such reductions may apply even where the result is that funding for reasonable and necessary supports is less than the total cost of those supports.

Beyond a requirement that the Minister “have regard to the safety of participants”, the Bill contains limited statutory guidance as to how these powers are to be exercised or how competing

Submission 1607

considerations are to be balanced. The accompanying Government materials state that budgets for

social, civic and community participation supports will be “reset so spending levels are on average

in line with 2023 levels and more consistent with other systems”. This shifts the practical focus of

the reforms towards aggregate expenditure targets rather than participant-specific functional

consequences and support needs.

The functional importance of these supports varies substantially across participants. A uniform

reduction applied across broad support categories is therefore likely to produce profoundly

different consequences depending on the participant’s disability, support needs, informal supports,

employment participation, and reliance on structured participation to maintain functioning and

stability. This concern is heightened by the proposed tightening of criteria for unscheduled plan

reassessments, which may reduce participants’ practical ability to seek timely adjustments to

supports when reductions result in significant unintended consequences or functional decline.

The reported internal Government analysis suggesting that some groups, including participants

with Down syndrome, may be disproportionately affected by the proposed reductions is

concerning. In my respectful submission, reforms aimed at controlling expenditure growth should

not disproportionately disadvantage participant groups whose support needs rely heavily upon

the categories of support targeted for severe reductions.

I therefore suggest that the Bill and accompanying explanatory materials be amended to provide

clearer statutory guidance on how reductions to social, civic and community participation

supports are intended to operate in practice. In particular, greater clarity is needed on how

supports primarily intended to maintain stability, participation and functioning over time will be

distinguished from supports regarded as discretionary or insufficiently connected to participant

outcomes. Consideration should also be given to safeguards that reduce the risk of arbitrary

reductions, materially unequal impacts across disability groups, and inadequate recognition of

clinically or functionally supported maintenance needs.

It is also notable that the determinations contemplated by proposed section 34A are exempt from

the ordinary sunsetting provisions under the Legislation Act 2003. As a result, reductions

Submission 1607

implemented through delegated legislation may remain in force indefinitely without the periodic

treview ordinarily applicable to most legislative instruments.

Given the breadth of the proposed powers and the potentially profound consequences for

participants who rely upon these supports to maintain functioning, participation, employment and community engagement, I respectfully submit that the Bill requires clearer safeguards, stronger statutory guidance, and a more clearly articulated evidentiary basis before such powers are enacted.

Thank you for considering this submission.

27 May 2026

---

Footnotes

[1] Explanatory Memorandum, National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, p 3.

[2] National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, proposed s 34A(1).

[3] National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, proposed s 34A(5).

[4] Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, “About the changes to the NDIS”, National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, available at: https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/ndis-legislation-changes/amendments/ndis-amendment-securing-the-ndis-for-future-generations-bill-2026/about-the-changes-to-the-ndis

• [5] National Disability Insurance Agency, “Social Inclusion and Community Access Research”,

available at: https://dataresearch.ndis.gov.au/research-and-evaluation/improving-outcomes- participants/social-inclusion-and-community-access-research

• [6] Santoro JD et al., “Assessment and Diagnosis of Down Syndrome Regression Disorder: International Expert Consensus”, Frontiers in Neurology, 2022;13:940175.

• [7] Giummarra MJ, Randjelovic I and O’Brien L, “Interventions for social, community and civic participation for adults with intellectual disability, psychosocial disability or on the autism spectrum: An umbrella systematic review”, Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, 2022;3:935473.

• [8] Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, Harris T and Stephenson D, “Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2015;10(2):227–237.

• [9] Natasha May, “Australians with Down syndrome among those to suffer most from proposed NDIS cuts to social activities”, The Guardian Australia, 20 May 2026, available at: https:// www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/may/20/australians-with-downs-syndrome-among- those-to-suffer-most-from-proposed-ndis-cuts-government-analysis-says