NDIA Accountability Project

Man with profound intellectual disability benefits from social and community participation funding

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

Submission 1714

I am the parent of a 31yo man who lives with a profound intellectual disability. The NDIS came in when he was an adult and it changed his life for the better. He lives in his own home (bought by us because we can both work and earn while he is supported to live his life), works part time for full pay, enjoys playing in a mainstream cricket team, is in a bowling league, visits and hosts friends, and is a well-known and contributing neighbour and community member. He is studying towards getting a bobcat license, a lofty goal for someone with his level of disability, yet achievable as he is passionate, and has good supports and people around him who believe in him and actively work to help him get there. His success is the result of an excellent self-managed, tailored support model.

My son’s unique support model requires social and community participation funding. This funding was designed to assist someone for ‘economic and social participation’ which is exactly how it is being used. Self-managing social and community participation has a huge positive impact for far less cost than relying on providers (even the good ones). For my son:

  • Community participation means support to continue being able to work (and pay tax and accrue superannuation), and not having to rely fully on the disability pension and then later, aged care pension
  • Community participation means Mum can stay at work and continue to pay tax and accrue superannuation too.
  • Community participation means support to engage in community activities with a range of people, make and maintain meaningful connections and contributions
  • Community participation means being able to study and get ahead in life, earn a higher income and invest
  • Community participation means building and expanding INFORMAL networks to assist in supported decision making, emotional support and goal setting. These networks mitigate increasing paid support costs over time
  • Community participation means reducing vulnerability – reducing risk of harm and neglect, reducing behaviours of concern, increasing social skills, reducing the need for other government systems such as health. Ultimately, this funding and the proper use of it results in less support costs over time
  • Community participation means levelling the field so my son can do things other people in the community do
  • Community participation means the community learn and grow from having a relationship with my son – increasing tolerance and humanity in a civil society

Reducing community participation funding will ultimately cost the government more.

I was bemused when Mark Butler spoke of the examples of support workers on their phones when in the community with people they are supporting. Why isn’t the support worker/provider held to account? How does reducing people’s ability to access the community make sense when they are not the problem? Why is my son being punished for it?

Further, it is important to acknowledge that phones and electronic devices are often legitimate support tools, not simply distractions. In my son’s supports, phones may be used to check schedules and goals, monitor and prompt medication, support communication, access safety plans, coordinate transport or appointments, document supports in shift reports, and assist with real-time decision making and participation. Poor practice should absolutely be addressed where it occurs (which is often), but it is important not to confuse misuse of a device with the appropriate use of technology that enables effective and accountable support.

My family supports and welcomes NDIS reform, but not this bill. We know things are very wrong with the system – it affects us too. This bill and specifically the reduction in community participation funding by 50% is punishing the wrong people.

I ask the Committee to recommend to not support the bill unless it is amended. The focus of efficiency measures must remain on service provider performance and outcomes, alongside the system issues within the NDIS itself, and closing the many gaps that allow bad actors (and often simply inept services) to flourish. The Bill should be around increasing meaningful inclusion and participation for people with disabilities and sustainability. Not trade off one for the other.

Thank you for your consideration.