Submission 2162 - Supplementary Submission
Subject: 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, and 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, and specialised support — particularly in the area of community access.
1. Mark’s history of extreme behaviours demonstrates the seriousness of his disability
Before receiving appropriate NDIS supports, Mark experienced severe behavioural episodes including:
- punching and smashing windows with his fist
- kicking cars, walls, and gyprock
- punching his own face
- self-harm
- property destruction
These behaviours were the direct result of sensory overload, communication barriers, and extreme anxiety. They were not isolated incidents — they were a pattern of crisis-level responses to unmanaged disability needs.
Mark still remembers these events vividly, and the memories alone trigger intense anxiety, fear, and distress. His past behaviours remain a current functional risk, and his support needs have not reduced — they have simply been well-managed.
2. Mark’s stability over the last six years is the result of highly specialised, coordinated support
For the past six years, Mark has been supported by a provider who has:
- hand-selected support workers based on experience, compatibility, and behavioural expertise
- ensured all workers use consistent language, responses, and reassurance scripts
- held regular team meetings to stay aligned on Mark’s needs
- maintained a predictable, structured routine that prevents anxiety escalation
This coordinated approach is the reason Mark has not exhibited any major behaviours in six years.
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 behavioural escalation
- reassurance and emotional stabilisation
Without structured community access, Mark becomes overwhelmed, fearful, and at risk of returning to past behaviours.
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
- a 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 harm
If the reforms lead to reduced funding or narrower interpretations of what is “reasonable and necessary,” the consequences for Mark will be immediate and severe:
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 emergency 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, and require lifelong assistance.
Mark’s current stability is the direct result of:
- consistent support
- skilled staff
- structured community access
- predictable routines
- coordinated behavioural 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 a legitimate, impairment-related support for participants with psychosocial, cognitive, and behavioural disabilities.
- The application of the new legislative tests includes flexibility for participants whose needs cannot be met through “treatment” or mainstream systems.
- Participants like Mark are not disadvantaged by rigid interpretations that fail to consider the real-world risks associated with their disability.
I would welcome the opportunity to provide further information about Mark’s circumstances and the essential nature of his supports.
Kind regards,
Sharon Director, Supportive Living Solutions Pty Ltd
Submission 2162 - Supplementary Submission