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

Submission 2162 - Supplementary Submission

Urgent Concerns Regarding the Impact of the 2026 NDIS Reforms on a Participant with Complex Disability Needs

To whom it may concern, I am writing to raise urgent concerns about the impact that the 2026 NDIS legislative reforms will have on one of my participants, Mark, a 48-year-old man with Level 3 Autism moderate intellectual disability, severe anxiety disorder. Mark’s disability is lifelong, complex, and not responsive to further “treatment.” His stability has been achieved only through highly structured, consistent, specialised support — particularly in community access.

Section: Mark’s history of extreme behaviors demonstrates seriousness

eof his disability Before receiving appropriate NDIS supports, Mark experienced severe behavioural episodes including: punching smashing windows fist kicking cars walls gyprock punching own face self-harm property destruction Thesebehaviours werethedefinitionresult sensory overload communication barriersextremeanxiety Theywereisolated incidents pattern crisis-level responses unmanageddisability needs Mark still remembers these events vividly memories alone trigger intense anxiety fear distress. Past behaviours remain current functional risksupportneeds reduced simply well-managed ### Section: Stability over last six years result high specialized coordinated support For pastsixyears Mark supported provider who hand-selected workers based experience compatibility expertise ensured allworkers useconsistent languageresponses reassurance scripts held regular team meetings stay alignedon Mark’s needs maintained predictablestructured routine prevents escalation Thiscoordinated approach reason Mark exhibited major behaviourssix

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

Submission 2162 - Supplementary Submission

This is not because his disability has improved –- it is because his supports have been delivered with precision, consistency, and clinical understanding. Any disruption to this structure places Mark at significant risk of regression.

Community access is essential clinical support —–not recreation

Under the 2026 reforms, supports must be “directly related to the person’s impairment.” For Mark, community access is exactly that. Community access provides:

• anxiety regulation
• sensory management
• exposure to community environments in a controlled way
• maintenance of functional capacity
• prevention of behavioral escalation
• reassurance and emotional stabilisation Without structured community access, Mark becomes overwhelmed, fearful, and at risk of returning to past behaviors. This is not optional support—it is a core therapeutic intervention.

The new legislative tests risk misinterpreting Mark’s needs

The 2026 reforms introduce:

• A stricter definition of functional capacity
• Requirement to consider “all appropriate treatment”
• Increased scrutiny of community participation supports These changes disproportionately disadvantage people like Mark whose disabilities are permanent, do not respond to medical treatment require lifelong behavioural and psychosocial support.A narrow interpretation of these tests would be dangerous for Mark.#### Restricting Mark’s supports will cause predictable and preventable harmIf the reforms lead to reduced funding or narrower interpretations of what is“reasonableand necessary,”the consequencesforMarkwillbeimmediateandsevere:

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

Submission 2162 - Supplementary Submission

• escalation of anxiety
• behavioural distress
• risk of self-harm
• risk of property damage
• loss of community tolerance
• increased reliance on emergency or crisis services This would undo six years of progress and place avoidable pressure on health, police, and elementary systems.

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 people whose disabilities are profound, permanent, an require lifelong assistance. Mark’s current stability is the direct result of:

• consistent support
• skilled staff
• structured community access
• predictable routines
• coordinated behavioral strategies Removing or restricting these supports will not save money — it will shift costs to crisis systems and cause significant harm.

Requested Action

I respectfully request that:

• The Government and NDIA ensure that community access remains recognised as an legitimate impairment-related support for participants with psychosocial cognitive; ,and behavioal disabilitieS. * THe application oF tH e new legislative tests includes flexibility For participantS whoSe needs canot Be met through “treatment” Or mainstream systemS. 3 . Participants like Mark arE nOt disadvantaged by rigid interpretations thAt fail To considerThe real-world risks associated With their disability. I woulD welComethe opportunityto provide further information about mark’s circumstances AndtheneSSential natureof hissupports. Kind regards, Sharon Director, Supportive Living Solutions Pty Ltd

Submission 2162 - Supplementary Submission