Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

[redacted]

Summary

This submission raises concerns regarding proposed reductions to social, civic and community participation 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. The submitter submits:

• There is legitimate concern about delegated reduction powers as per section 34A, limited statutory safeguards, risking unequal impacts across different groups without an articulated evidentiary basis; oracle: The original text contains OCR errors such as ‘rn’ which was corrected here; no redactions were found in this document segment.

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

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 click here: [OCR correction needed] 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

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

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, extemployment partipation,[5]The importanceofsocial participationandcommunityaccess inmaintainingfunctioningwellbeing amongpeoplewith intellectual disability autismpsychosocialdisabilityis also recognisedinbroaderNDIS- srelated research literature policy analysis.[7][8] The relationship between social isolationreduced social participaionadverse health outcomesalso recognizedbroaderpulichealth literatureincluding studies associating social isolatlon loneliness increased mortality risk[9].While practical effects proposed reforms will vary participants, reductions materially increase isolation disengagement vulnerable individuals likely be concern from both a disability support public perspective. For many participants participation supports should not seen ancillary therapy simply “nicehave”.They are settings where functional skills practised reinforced maintained.A participant attending structured day program supported workplace simultaneously maintain communication skills practice socia interaction regulate behaviour develop travel competence sustain work readiness maintai routines necessary stable daily functioning.These engagements enable participants families more readily participate work contribute wider economy communiti. In casespractical benefits these supporst substantial enduring for certain categories of expenditure may be reduced but significant functional stabilising value may increasingly characterise discretionary lowvalue expenditur rather than recognised as important components maintaining capacity preventing deterioration.

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

Submission 1607

Arguably, the substantial growth in expenditure on social and community participation supports can reflect growing recognition among participants, families and providers. The importance these supports play can help with maintenance of participation & function. I am particularly concerned about those whose disability-related needs include: maintaining function & preventing regression associated conditions such as Down syndrome Regression Disorder where regression involves losing previously acquired communication skills like speech, social interaction abilities etc.[6] For individuals needing this kind of support maintaining functional capacity is important along w/communication routines mobility behavioral stability psychological wellbeing Reduced access might lead t accelerated decline In such situations structured support becomes crucial not just f participating but also maintaining existing capacities & prevent deterioration Participants lifelong intellectual disabilities rely heavily upon continuity of structured support withdrawal could result regressing or loss prev maintained functions A government stance that implicitly assigns greater value towards independence or capacity growth may undervalue supports primarily aimed at sustaining stability participation functioning over time There’s a broader concern too If essential supports materializing participation routine independence dignity are excluded from reasonable necessary ones families will bear more costs. Families may feel compelled to privately fund activities arrangements to avoid deteriorating isolation or lost functionality Cost shifting onto them could become significant In other cases practical response isn’t private funding but reliance unpaid informal care Primary carers reducing workforce participation for providing supervision transport structure support This risks part economic burden being shifted

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

Submission 1607 burden of disability 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 familes able to provide that level of support.The practical consequence of reduced structured participation support maybe therefore fall particularly heavily on particpants who are socially isolated ageing unsupported ,or lacking strong informal care networks.Inmany cases,the practical outcomemaybe increased social isolation loss self-esteem,reduced activity,and diminished qualityof life.Thismaynot affect allparticipantsordisability groups equally.Recent reportingon an internal Government analysis suggestedthat participantswith Down syndrome maibe amongthose disproportionately affectedbythe proposed reductionstosocialand community participatonsupports.[9] That possibility is consistent withehactical realitythathany participantswit intellectualdisabilit rely heaivly onsucturedcommunityparticipation supported routines andangoing supervision to maintain functional stability a nd partipation in ordinary communitylife.If th epratical operation o f t h ep roposed reforms produces materially unequal impacts across particular disabiltitygroups. Th at should be amatter or concern when assessing both their design adnd implementation In my respectful submission.the Bill risks treating supports essentialto maintaining function alpaticipatinadnd dignity as discretionary paticipaion expenditure without providing sufficient evidenceorguidanceas to how those distinctionsaretobe madein practice The breadth theproposed power issignificant Proposed section 34A would permit percentage reductionsto broad groupsofsupports by delegated legislation for purpose of ensuring financial sustainability“ofo Scheme while proposedsu bsection 34 A(5) expressly provides that suchreductions may apply even where result isthat fundingfor reasonable and necessary supportsis less than total costof those suppor ts Beyond requirementst hatMinister have regard safetyparticipants,TheBill contains limited statutory guidance astohow these powers are tobexercisedorhow competing

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

Submission 1607

considerations are to be balanced. The accompanying Government materials state that budgets for civic, social ‘and’community participaion supporst will be “reset so spending levels are average with line 2023 levels more consistent other systems”. This shifts practical focus reforms towards aggregate expenditure targets rather than participantspecific functional consequences support needs. The importance these supports varies substantially across participants uniform reduction applied broad categories likely produce profoundly different depending on participant’s disability need informal employment participation reliance structured maintain functioning stability concern heightened proposed tightening criteria unscheduled plan reassessments may reduce participants’ ability seek timely adjustments when results significant unintended consequence func decline reported internal analysis suggesting some groups including Down syndrome disproportionately affected proposals concerning respectful submission reforms aimed controlling growth should not disproportionate disadvantage group whose support relies heavily upon category of targeted severe reductions therefore suggest bill and explanatory material amended provide clearer statutory guidance how reductions social civic community participate operate practice particular clarity needed distinguish between primarily intended maintenance stability, participation function over time regarded discretionary insufficiently connected outcomes consideration also given safeguards reduce risk arbitrary reductions materially unequal impacts across disability inadequate recognition clinically or supported maintenanceneeds it is notable determinations contemplated by section A exempt ordinary sunsetting provisions Legislation Act As result

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

Submission 1607

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

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

Submission 1607

References

[5] National Disability Insurance Agency,

“Social Inclusion and Community Access Research”, available at: hhttps://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:\nInternational Expert Consensus”, Frontiers in Neurology\n2022;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 \n2022;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: hhttps://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/may/20/australians-with-downs-syndrome-among-those-to-suffer-most-from-proposed-ndis-cuts-government-analysis-says