Submission 2162

Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding the Impact of the 2026 NDIS Reforms on a Participant with High-Risk Disability Needs

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to express serious concerns about the impact that the 2026 NDIS legislative reforms will have on one of my participants, Sam, a 33-year-old man with Level 2 Autism, ADHD, Verbal and Motor Dyspraxia, Moderate Intellectual Disability, self-injurious behaviour, and a history of intimidating and aggressive behaviours.

Sam’s disability is permanent, complex, and requires highly structured, skilled, and consistent support. Any reduction in his community access or 1:1 supports would place Sam, his family, and the broader community at significant risk.

1. Sam’s behavioural history demonstrates the seriousness of his disability

Over the past three years, Sam has exhibited behaviours including:

• hitting and injuring four support workers during day program attendance
• violent pushing of his mother and father at home
• self-injurious behaviour
• intimidating and aggressive behaviour toward others
• property damage during behavioural escalations

These behaviours are not occasional or situational — they are directly related to Sam’s disability, sensory overwhelm, communication challenges, and difficulty regulating emotions.

Due to the severity of these incidents, Sam was removed from his day program for safety reasons. This was not a choice; it was a necessary protective measure for Sam, staff, and other participants.

2. Sam now relies entirely on 1:1 community access to remain stable and safe

Since being excluded from his day program, Sam has been supported through individualised 1:1 community access, which provides essential disability-related functions:

• emotional and behavioural regulation
• sensory management
• structured exposure to community environments
• prevention of behavioural escalation
• maintenance of functional capacity
• essential respite for his parents
• reduction of risk to family members and property

This support is not recreational. It is a clinical, behavioural, and safety-based intervention that prevents crisis and protects both Sam and those around him.

Submission 2162

3. Without community access, Sam’s family would be in immediate crisis

Sam lives with his parents, who provide substantial informal support. However, Sam’s needs are far beyond what any family can safely manage without structured external assistance.

When Sam becomes dysregulated, he:

• violently pushes his mum and dad, placing them at risk of injury
• engages in self-injury
• may damage property within the home
• becomes increasingly unpredictable and distressed

These behaviours escalate when:

• he is confined to the home
• routines break down
• he does not have access to structured community support

If Sam’s community access were reduced or removed:

• his parents would lose essential respite
• Sam would become isolated and dysregulated
• the risk of aggression and property damage would increase
• the family’s safety and wellbeing would be compromised
• emergency services may be required
• the family unit would be at risk of breakdown

The NDIS was created to prevent exactly this type of crisis.

4. The 2026 reforms risk misinterpreting Sam’s needs

The reforms introduce:

• a stricter definition of functional capacity
• increased scrutiny on community participation supports
• a requirement to consider whether “another system” should fund supports

These changes disproportionately disadvantage participants like Sam, whose disabilities:

• are lifelong
• do not respond to medical treatment
• require behavioural, environmental, and psychosocial support
• cannot be managed through mainstream services

A narrow interpretation of these reforms would be dangerous for Sam and unsafe for his family.

Submission 2162

5. Restricting Sam’s supports will cause predictable and preventable harm

If Sam’s community access or 1:1 supports are reduced, the consequences will be immediate and severe:

• increased aggression
• increased self-injury
• heightened anxiety and dysregulation
• increased violent pushing or physical aggression toward his parents
• increased property damage
• risk of harm to support workers
• increased likelihood of police or emergency intervention
• breakdown of the family unit

This is not hypothetical — it is based on Sam’s documented behavioural history.

6. Sustainability must not come at the cost of safety

I fully support the need for a sustainable NDIS. However, sustainability cannot be achieved by withdrawing essential supports from participants whose disabilities are high-risk, permanent, and require lifelong assistance.

Sam’s current stability is the direct result of:

• 1:1 support
• structured community access
• skilled workers
• predictable routines
• tailored behavioural strategies

Removing or restricting these supports will not save money — it will shift costs to crisis systems and place Sam, his family, and the community at risk.

Submission 2162

I would welcome the opportunity to provide further information about Sam’s circumstances and the essential nature of his supports.

Kind regards

Sharon Director, Supportive Living Solutions Pty Ltd