Submission 1871

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee

Re: Proposed NDIS Reform Legislation and Integrity Measures

Submitted by

Social Worker, Behaviour Support Practitioner, Provider and NDIS Participant

Introduction

My name is . I am a social worker, behaviour support practitioner, provider and NDS participant. I also have a physical disability and rely on disability supports myself.

I am writing this submission because I feel there is a growing gap between the conversations happening in Parliament and what is actually happening in people’s lives.

I support accountability, safeguards and making sure the NDIS is sustainable into the future. What concerns me is that much of the current discussion seems to assume that if supports are reduced, restricted or made harder to access, the need somehow disappears as well. That is not what happens. The need remains, and the consequences are pushed elsewhere.

Over the years I have worked with people who have experienced homelessness, domestic violence, exploitation, neglect, mental health crises, hospital admissions and involvement with child protection and justice systems. I have also watched people make incredible progress when they received the right support at the right time.

My Perspective as Both a Participant and Practitioner

Disability supports are often discussed as though they are optional extras. That is not my experience, either professionally or personally.

I have a physical disability and the supports I receive are not about luxury, recreation or convenience. They help me get to medical appointments, manage my disability, remain safe in my own home and continue participating in the workforce.

Without those supports I would be at much greater risk of injury. I fall frequently, and there are many tasks that become unsafe when I am alone. Having support available is not about making life easier. It is about preventing harm.

Those supports are also one of the reasons I am able to continue working. They allow me to contribute to my community, pay tax, run a business and support other people with disability. If my supports disappeared, the impact would not stop with me. It would affect my clients, my business, my husband and my ability to keep working in a sector already experiencing significant pressure.

Submission 1871

Nobody is accessing disability supports for fun. Most people are accessing supports because they need them to survive, remain safe, maintain housing, manage their disability or participate in their communities.

The Need Does Not Disappear

When disability supports are reduced, people still need help showering, managing continence, attending medical appointments, regulating distress, maintaining housing and staying safe.

What changes is not the need, but where the consequences end up. Instead of receiving preventative support in the community, people present to emergency departments, mental health services, homelessness services, police, child protection or the justice system.

This is not an efficient way to manage public expenditure. It is also not humane.

The Disability Royal Commission documented widespread violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation experienced by people with disability in Australia and made 222 recommendations for systemic reform (Disability Royal Commission 2023). Any NDIS reform should be tested against whether it makes disabled people safer, more included and more able to live with dignity.

Women, Children and Domestic and Family Violence

I am particularly concerned about the impact these reforms may have on women with disability and children.

Women with disability already experience increased risk of violence, abuse and exploitation. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare identifies people with disability, particularly women with disability, as a population group at heightened risk in relation to family, domestic and sexual violence (AIHW 2024). The Disability Royal Commission also heard extensive evidence about violence, neglect and exploitation experienced by disabled women and girls (Disability Royal Commission 2023).

This is why I am deeply concerned about any reduction to supports such as social and community participation.

These supports are often misunderstood as being primarily social. In reality, they frequently act as protective factors. Support workers, allied health professionals and community services are often the people who notice when something is wrong. They may identify abuse, coercive control, neglect, deterioration in mental health or escalating risk.

When disabled women become more isolated, opportunities for early intervention reduce. In my professional experience, social isolation is rarely neutral. It increases vulnerability and reduces opportunities for safeguarding, advocacy and support.

Submission 1871

At a time when governments are publicly stating that they are prioritising women’s safety, disability policy must be part of that conversation. Women’s safety cannot be separated from access to support, community connection, independence and practical resources that allow people to remain safe.

Mental Health, Suicide Risk and Crisis Systems

The mental health system is already under pressure. My concern is that reducing disability supports will push more people into crisis systems that are not equipped to meet the need.

Many participants rely on NDIS supports for routine, emotional regulation, psychosocial stability, community connection and support to manage daily life. When those supports are removed or reduced, people do not suddenly become well or independent. Many become more isolated, distressed and unsafe.

I am concerned these reforms may increase risk factors associated with self-harm, suicidality, psychiatric admissions, hospital presentations and homelessness. I am not saying this as a theoretical policy point. I am saying it because I see people deteriorate when supports are delayed, cut or made inaccessible.

One issue I have found particularly distressing is the growing sense of hopelessness I am hearing within parts of the disability community.

Over recent months I have seen increasing discussions on social media and have had conversations with people in my professional practice who are expressing fear about what their future may look like if they lose access to essential supports.

Some people have spoken about feeling that they would rather die than live in circumstances where they are unable to meet their basic needs, remain safe, maintain their health or participate meaningfully in their communities.

I want to be clear that these concerns are not arising because people have disability. They are arising because people are afraid of losing the supports that currently allow them to live with dignity, independence and a reasonable quality of life.

As both a practitioner and a person with disability, I find these conversations heartbreaking.

Whether these fears ultimately eventuate or not, the fact that increasing numbers of disabled people are expressing despair, wanting to access Voluntary Assisted Dying, and expressing hopelessness and fear about the future should be deeply concerning to policymakers.

Public policy should give people hope for the future. It should not leave people wondering whether they will be able to survive, remain safe or continue living with dignity.

Submission 1871

Participant Case Example Shared With Consent

The following case example is shared with the participant’s informed consent. She specifically wanted her experience included because she feels she has not been heard.

This participant lives with multiple disabilities, including physical disability, autism, intellectual impairment, mobility impairment and continence needs. She is a wheelchair user and requires substantial support for transfers, toileting, continence management, showering and daily living.

During a planning process, she was reportedly told that one of her disabilities had “expired”, despite continuing to require a wheelchair and physical support. Her plan was significantly reduced.

Following this, her health and functioning deteriorated. Her adjustable bed and wheelchair was broken and unreplaced, and she spent extended periods living and sleeping in a recliner in soiled continence aids. Because she only had limited support hours despite significant continence needs, she was frequently unable to access appropriate toileting, showering or hygiene support outside those hours.

This led to deterioration in her physical health, mobility, functional capacity, mental wellbeing and independence.

Her family has also experienced significant vulnerability, including abuse and violence. The impacts of the reduced supports extended beyond her and affected her child, who also required additional support due to distress and harm experienced during this period.

The matter has not yet reached a final outcome at the Administrative Review Tribunal. After approximately 13 months navigating review and tribunal processes, she received an interim plan with substantially increased support hours. This suggests the original plan did not adequately reflect her actual support needs, but by the time interim supports were restored, significant harm had already occurred.

She was unable to access legal aid support while living in Queensland and only obtained free legal assistance after relocating to Canberra. This raises serious concerns about unequal access to advocacy and legal support depending on where a participant lives.

Advocacy and Access to Justice

I am deeply concerned about underfunding and reduction of disability advocacy services.

Many participants cannot safely or effectively navigate planning disputes, complaints, reviews, safeguarding concerns or tribunal proceedings without independent advocacy. This is especially true for people with intellectual disability, psychosocial disability,

Submission 1871

trauma histories, communication barriers, cognitive impairment, domestic violence experiences or significant functional impairment.

If participants cannot access advocacy or legal support, they may abandon appeals, accept unsafe plans or remain in situations that cause harm. Advocacy is not an optional extra. It is safeguarding and access-to-justice infrastructure.

NDIA Planning and Administrative Trauma

I have personally experienced the planning process as humiliating and traumatising.

During one planning meeting, a male planner spent a significant amount of time discussing my inability to independently fasten a standard bra due to my disability. The interaction felt invasive, inappropriate and degrading. It also demonstrated a lack of understanding about disability, dignity and functional support needs.

I have also seen participants describe planners who did not understand basic disability terminology or who appeared not to have read clinical reports. Poor planning decisions create downstream costs through reviews, tribunal matters, delayed supports, deterioration, provider administration and crisis escalation.

If the government wants to improve sustainability, planner capability and NDIA internal processes must be addressed. Cutting supports without fixing poor decision-making will not solve the problem.

Public Discourse, Ableism and “No One Left Behind”

Australians have repeatedly heard the message that no one should be left behind. I support that principle. But from where I sit, many disabled people already feel left behind.

I see participants waiting months or years for support. I see people deteriorating while navigating reviews, appeals and tribunal processes. I see women living with violence, trauma and social isolation while trying to access the support they need to stay safe. I see children with disability and their families being told mainstream systems will fill gaps, despite those systems already struggling.

The public discourse around the NDIS has become deeply harmful. Disabled people are often spoken about as costs, burdens or problems to be managed. People with disability are not stupid. We hear those messages and understand what is being implied.

For many of us, those messages reinforce shame and fear we already carry. Public hetoric matters. It affects how disabled people are treated in the community and how safe we feel seeking support.

Submission 1871

If the national commitment is that no one should be left behind, then disabled women, children, families and people with complex needs must not be the ones asked to carry the burden of reform.

Recommendations

I ask the Committee to recommend that:

• NDIS reforms are not progressed without meaningful consultation with people with disability, families, frontline workers, providers and disability representative organisations.

• Participant choice and control remain central to the scheme and consistent with Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations 2006).

• No reduction to community participation, support worker access or capacity- building supports occurs without proper assessment of DFV, safeguarding, and family violence risks.

• Disability advocacy and legal support services are urgently and sustainably funded across all states and territories.

• NDIA planners and delegates receive mandatory disability-informed, trauma- informed and safeguarding training.

• Planning decisions give appropriate weight to allied health evidence, functional capacity and real-world risk.

• Complaint and safeguarding systems are independently reviewed to ensure they are timely, accessible and trauma-informed.

• The government recognises disability supports as preventative infrastructure that reduces pressure on hospitals, mental health systems, family violence services, child protection, homelessness services and justice systems.

Conclusion

I support reform. I support accountability. I support safeguarding.

What I do not support is a reform agenda that appears to reduce support before addressing the systemic problems that are already causing harm.

The need does not disappear when support is removed. It simply reappears elsewhere, often after people have deteriorated, families have broken down or crisis systems have become involved.

I ask the Committee to listen to disabled people, families, providers and frontline workers who are already living with the consequences of these decisions.

Submission 1871

Thank you for considering my submission.

Reference List

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2024, Family, domestic and sexual violence: people with disability, AIHW, Canberra, viewed 29 May 2026, hhttps://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/population- groups/people-with-disability.

Disability Royal Commission 2023, Final report: Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, viewed 29 May 2026, hhttps://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report.

United Nations 2006, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, United Nations, viewed 29 May 2026, hhtps://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/ instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities.