SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

RE: NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT BILL 2026

My name is Andrew Richards. I am a 47-year-old Australian citizen living in regional New South Wales. I am an NDIS participant with Autism, ADHD, Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD) and Major Depressive Disorder. I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed changes to the NDIS, particularly those that may result in reductions to Social and Community Participation funding and create additional barriers for participants who rely on these supports to safely engage with their communities. For people like me, Social and Community Participation funding is not simply about attending activities, hobbies or social events. It is a safeguarding support that enables me to participate in community life while reducing my risk of abuse exploitation harassment victimisation and social isolation.This distinction is critically important.My concerns are informed not only by my disability but by a lifetime of experiences that demonstrate the very real risks many autistic people face when participating in the community.Throughout my life I have experienced significant abuse discrimination and victimisation because of my disabilities These experiences include childhood abuse institutional abuse community violence domestic violence social exclusion repeated targeting due differences.The cumulative impact has resulted ongoing mental health conditions including C PTSD MDD which interact significantly affecting ability navigate social situations assess risk interpret intentions others respond effectively hostility manipulation exploitation or abuse.These incidents do occur isolated against background lifelong abuses victimisations discriminations For trauma victims negative experiences can reinforce symptoms increase anxiety reduce confidence creating further obstacles participation difficult overcome.

ASSISTANCE DOGS ARE DISABILITY SUPPORTS

To assist me in managing these challenges, I utilise a psychiatric assistance dog that performs important disability-related tasks. My assistance dog helps mitigate the impacts of both my PTSD and my neurodevelopmental disabilities and enables me to participate more safely and confidently in the community. Unfortunately, my use of an assistance dog has itself become a source of significant discrimination and abuse. Since relocating to regional New South Wales, I have experienced repeated incidents involving members of the public interfering with my assistance dog, ignoring requests to stop, dismissing my disability-related needs, engaging in harassment and, on occasion, threatening behavior. These incidents have occurred in public spaces, businesses, healthcare settings and community environments. Some incidents have escalated to the point where I have experienced panic attacks, autistic meltdowns, shutdowns and severe emotional distress. It is important to understand that these incidents are not simply about people being rude about a dog. An assistance dog is a disability support.When members of the public deliberately distract, harass or interfere with an assistance dog, they are interfering with a disability support that a person relies upon to safely access and participate in the community.The practical impact is comparable to interfering with other forms of disability equipment that support independence, participation and safety.Despite this, there remains widespread misunderstanding about assistance dogs their role and the rights of the people who rely upon them.Education Has Been AttemptedWhat is particularly concerning is that these issues have persisted despite repeated attempts at education and community engagement.Efforts were made to improve understanding of assistance dogs through discussions with community members local businesses service providers Local police also undertook community education initiatives aimed at improving awareness reducing inappropriate behaviour toward assistance dogs handlers.

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

Submission 2197

Despite these efforts, many of the incidents continued. This demonstrates that education alone is not always sufficient to eliminate risk and that practical supports remain necessary to enable safe community participation.

SUPPORT WORKERS PROVIDE A SAFEGUARDING FUNCTION

Importantly, these experiences demonstrate why support workers are not simply a social convenience. Support workers do far more than assist me to attend activities. They help me navigate complex social situations, identify risks I may not recognise, advocate when I am being mistreated, assist me when I experience autistic shutdowns or PTSD responses,and provide an independent witness when incidents occur.In my circumstances,support workers are not solely participationsupports.Theyare also safeguarding supports.The needforthese supports doesnotarisesolelyfrommydisability.Italso arises fromthe barriers,discrimination,hospitalityandmisunderstandingthatcontinuetoeexist withinthecommunity.Supportworkershelpmitigatetheimpactofthosebarriersandenablenemtoparticipatedespite them.SUPPORTWORKERSFREQUENTLYPERFORMFUNCTIONSTHATWOULDNOTBENECESARYIF DISABILITYRIGHTSWERECONSISTENCYRESPECTED.THEYHELPMANAGE SITUATIONSINVOLVINGSUBMISSION 2197 discrimination,misunderstandingconflictandvulnerabilitymany non-disabled peopledonotroutinelyencounterTheir presence reduces vulnerabilityprovides accountabilitywhenincidentsoccur assistswithcommunication andadvocacy ,an helpsensure thatI can safely access ordinary community environments many Australians take for granted Over the past several years have experienced repeated harassmentdiscrimination intimidation associated with both disabilitiesuse of assistance dog Inmany casespresence support worker has reduced impact these incidentshelp regulate emotionally assisting leave situations safe advocating on behalf documenting occurred reducing vulnerabil to further harm Evensupport workspresentincidentstilloccurs Withoutworkervulnerable increases significantly

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

Submission 2197

The proposed reduction of Social and Community Participation supports would not simply reduce the number of activities I attend. It would remove an important protective factor that enables me to safely participate in the community at all. For some participants, support workers are not merely facilitating participation. They are helping to prevent foreseeable harm.

HEALTHCARE ACCESS AND PARTICIPATION My experiences have also affected my willingness and ability to access healthcare services.In some instances, interactions relating to my disability and assistance dog have resulted in significant distress and disruption to medical treatment. Experiences of discrimination, dismissal and hostility can create barriers to accessing healthcare and undermine trust in services that disabled people rely upon.The experiences described in this submission have occurred across multiple settings, including healthcare services, businesses, community spaces and interactions with service providers. This demonstrates that the barriers faced by disabled people are not isolated incidents but can arise across multiple parts of everyday life.This demonstrates that discrimination does not merely affect social participation. It can affect health outcomes, treatment engagement and overall wellbeing.When participants are repeatedly exposed to these experiences, the result can be withdrawal from services, increased isolation and worsening health outcomes.

REGIONAL DISADVANTAGE AND BROADER IMPACTThis issue is particularly concerning in regional Australia.Regional participants already face significant barriers compared with participants living in metropolitan areas. We often have fewer providers, fewer specialised services, longer travel distances and fewer opportunities to access disability-specific supports.The reality is that choice and control are already constrained by geography.When supports break down in regional communities, there are often few alternative providers and limited opportunities to replace those supports. As a result, the consequences of funding reductions may be more severe for regional participants than for those living in metropolitan areas.

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

Submission 2197

If a participant loses access to funded support, there may be no realistic replacement available. As a result, reductions in funding are likely to result in increased isolation, reduced participation and greater reliance on informal supports and family members. While this submission reflects my personal experience, I do not believe these concerns are unique to me. Many autistic people, people with psychosocial disability, assistance dog handlers and participants living in regional areas face similar barriers when attempting to participate in community life. The concerns raised in this submission therefore extend beyond my individual circumstances and raise broader questions about how proposed reforms may affect some of the most vulnerable participants in the NDIS.

FORESEEABLE HARM Based on my lived experience, it is reasonably foreseeable that reducing these supports will increase my exposure to harassment, victimisation, social isolation and psychological distress.If Social and Community Participation funding is reduced, I will not become more independent.I will simply participate less, attend fewer community events, avoid unfamiliar environments.I will be less likely to engage in educational, recreational and social opportunities.I will be more isolated and my mental health is likely to deteriorate.The risk of PTSD symptoms, anxiety, depression and social withdrawal will increase.The practical effect of these changes will be exclusion rather than inclusion.Reducing support does not remove disability-related barriers. It simply leaves participants with fewer tools to manage them.For many participants, the result will be reduced community engagement, poorer wellbeing and increased demand on already stretched health, mental health and crisis services.Mainstream services cannot replace disability-specific supports.

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

Submission 2197

Police, hospitals, mental health services and emergency services generally become involved after harm has already occurred. Support workers help prevent harm from occurring in the first place.

COST SHIFTING RATHER THAN COST SAVING

Reducing these supports does not eliminate costs. Instead, it shifts those costs onto families, carers, health services, mental health services, emergency services and other parts of government. When people become isolated, lose access to preventative supports or experience worsening mental health, the impacts do not disappear. They simply emerge elsewhere in the system. Preventative supports that enable participation and reduce risk are often significantly less costly than responding after a crisis has occurred.

CONSISTENCY WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE NDIS

The NDIS was established to support the independence, social and economic participation, inclusion, dignity and choice and control of people with disability. The supports I receive contribute directly to these objectives. Community participation is not merely recreational. It is how I maintain social connection, participate in society, maintain mental wellbeing, reduce isolation, and how I continue building capacity and independence. Reducing supports that enable disabled people to safely access their communities is inconsistent with the objectives the NDIS was created to achieve. I am also concerned by suggestions that some autistic participants may face increased barriers to accessing the NDIS in the future. Autism does not disappear when a person reaches adulthood. The support needs associated with autism do not cease because a person has learned to mask, adapt or survive. In many cases, the cumulative impacts of lifelong discrimination, trauma, exclusion and victimisation create additional support needs that require ongoing assistance.

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

Submission 2197

Policies that focus narrowly on diagnosis, assumptions about functioning, or superficial appearances of independence risk overlooking the complex realities faced by many autistic adults.

AUSTRALIA’S HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS

These concerns are also relevant to Australia’s obligations under Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 19 recognises the right of people with disability to live independently and be included in the community. Supports that enable people to safely access their communities are fundamental to the practical realisation of that right. For many participants, community participation funding is not simply about attending activities. It is the support that makes community inclusion possible. Reducing those supports risks creating barriers to participation that are inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under the Convention.

PUBLIC EDUCATION AND SYSTEMIC RESPONSIBILITY

I am also concerned that governments have failed to adequately address broader community ignorance regarding assistance dogs and disability rights. If governments wish to reduce reliance on support workers, they should first ensure that disabled people can safely access their communities without facing routine harassment, discrimination and interference with disability aids. At present, that is not the reality many of us experience. There has been no meaningful national education campaign regarding assistance dogs. There remains widespread confusion regarding legal rights, public responsibilities and appropriate behaviour around assistance animals. Participants should not be expected to absorb the consequences of public ignorance. In my view, reducing support while failing to address these systemic barriers simply shifts risk onto disabled people.

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

Submission 2197

Autism, Communication Differences And Community Participation

I am also concerned that discussions about community participation often overlook the barriers created by widespread misunderstandings of autistic communication styles and social presentation. Many autistic people experience negative social reactions not because of anything they have done wrong, but because their communication, body language, emotional expression or social behaviour differs from neurotypical expectations. Research has demonstrated that non-autistic people can form negative impressions of autistic individuals within seconds of meeting them, often before any meaningful interaction has taken place. These rapid judgements can contribute to exclusion, discrimination, social isolation and reduced opportunities for participation in community life. For autistic participants, community participation is therefore not simply a matter of attending activities or accessing transport. it also involves navigating a social environment in which misunderstandings, stigma and negative assumptions remain common. these barriers can have significant consequences for mental health,safety, employment relationships and overall wellbeing. The challenges described in this submission cannot be separated entirely from these broader issues. many of the incidents I have experienced have been shaped by misunderstanding prejudice or hostility towards disability difference while support workers can help mitigate the impact of these barriers,the barriers themselves remain.I believe there is strong case governments invest meaning public education regarding autism,nurodiversityanddisability rights.Greater understandingofautisticcommunication differences couldhelp reduce discrimination improve social inclusion lessen some risks currently contributing need additional safeguarding supports.Improvingcommunityunderstanding will eliminate needsupportworkers disabilityspecificsupports.However it may create communities safer more inclusive accessiblefor autistics Australians otherpeople with disabilitiesshow whythese reforms increase risk vulnerableparticipants My concerns are limited funding reductions alone.The Bill introduces range administrative compliance decisionmaking changes that might increase risks particularly those cognitive psychosocial communication executive functioning disabilities.

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

Submission 2197

These changes include expanded use of automated decision-making systems, significantly longer timeframes for the NDIA to respond to participant requests, reduced opportunities for review when the Agency fails to act, new record-keeping obligations, stricter compliance requirements and powers to suspend plans where participants are deemed “uncontactable”.

Many disabled people experience barriers with communication, paperwork, extective functioning, organisation, memory, mental health, hospitalisation, crisis events and navigating complex bureaucratic systems. These are often the very reasons people require disability supports in the first place. I am concerned that the cumulative effect of these reforms may disproportionately affect participants who are already vulnerable. For example, the Bill proposes that participants may have their plans suspended,and potentially lose participant status altogether if they are considered“uncontactable”for an extended period.Atthe same timethe legislation extends thetime available forendia torepond toparticipantrequestsand reducesparticpants’abilityto challenge delays through externalreview mechanisms.This creates a significant imbalance.Participants face serious consequencesifthey failtorengagewithAgencywhilethelagencyfacesfewerconsequenceswhenitfails tereponsdtoparticants.Iam also conerned about increasinguseofautomateddecisionmaking systemswithinNDIS.Whiletechnologymayimproveadministrativeefficiencydisabilitysupport decisionsofteninvolvecomplexhumancircumstancesthatcannot alwaysbeadequatelyunderstoodthrough automatedprocesses.Many particapntsalreadyexperiencendifficulties naviagtingthenDIS.Further reducing human oversight andreasingrelianceon automattedsystemsriskscreatingadditionalbarriers to fairness,tansparencyandaountabilty.These concernsareparticularlysignificant forparticipantswhorelyonsuppor workers,nominees,familymembers oradvocates helpthem understandcorrespondence,reponstot requests,mangagemendocumentation andnavigate administrative processes.For many participats these supports arenooptional.Theyaresential safeguards thathelp prevent peoplefrombecominglostwithin complex systems.Taken together,these reforms risk creatinga scheme thatis more difficultfor vulnerable participants tonavigate while simultaneously reducings thesupports tha pelpopn navigateitsafely.

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

Submission 2197

Fear Of Retaliation And Participant Confidence

I also wish to raise a concern that extends beyond my own circumstances. Throughout discussions regarding these proposed reforms, I have encountered many participants, family members and advocates who have expressed fear about speaking publicly, making complaints or lodging submissions that are critical of the NDIS or the NDIA. Some fear that criticising the Agency may negatively affect future interactions with the Scheme, funding decisions, reviews or other administrative processes. Whether these fears are justified or not, their existence is concerning in itself. A system that genuinely supports choice, control, rights and accountability should not leave participants feeling afraid to express concerns about proposed legislation or Agency decision-making. I acknowledge that I share some of these concerns myself. Despite making this submission, I remain concerned about the potential consequences of publicly criticising reforms that may directly affect my access to supports and my future participation in the Scheme. I believe it is important for the Committee to understand that these fears exist within the disability community because they may influence who feels safe enough to participate in consultation processes whose voices will be ultimately heard by those involved. When people are afraid to speak openly there’s risk true impact reform isn’t fully understood by decision-makers meaningful consultations require participants feel safe provide honest feedback without actual perceived repercussions.

Recommendations

Recommendations: 1 Retain Social Community Participation Funding Within The Ndis And Recognise That Many Participants These Supports Perform Essential Safeguarding Risk Mitigation And Community Access Functions Rather Than Merely Facilitating Recreational Activities 2 Recognize Safeguarding Vulnerability Reduction And Community Safety As Legitimate Necessary Function Support Worker Assistance Determining Reasonable Necessary Supports

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

Submission 2197

• Ensure proposed reforms do not create additional barriers for autistic participants, participants w/ psychosocial disabilit*, or participants who rely* on support workers,nominees,advocates,or assistance animalst o safelynavigate t he Schem ea nd th ir communities.

Restore a n d maintain participant rights to timely review an d appeal processes , including protections aga inst prolonged administrative inaction b ythe NDIA .

Ensure any use of Automated Decision-Making(ADM)syst ems is subjectto meaningful human oversight,t ransparency,a ccountabilityand accessiblereview mechanisms.*

Review propos ed plan suspension &participant revocation provisions to ensure partic ipants are no t unfairly penalised due disability-relatedcommunication barri ers,hospitalisation,m ental health crises,e xecutivefunctioning difficulties or other circumstances associated withdis ability .* * Consider disproportionate impact funding reductions administra tion changes on parti ci pants living regional,rural remote Australia wherealternative providers and replacement supports often limited unavailable.*** Develop fund national public education campaigns regarding disabilityrights,assistance dogs autism neurodiversity particular focus reducing stigma improving understanding communication differences promoting respectful community inclusion Strengthen legal protec ions enforcement mech ans relating interference assistan ce dog harassment assis* tand disability related discrimination commu nit y settings Ensure compliance record keeping debt recovery measures proportionate acces sible do not create conditions that unfair ly penalise participants family members nominees or providers for administrativ errors or disability relat**ed barriers

• **Ensure NDIS reforms developed implemented genuine partnership people w ith d iability particip ants can provide feedback make complaints participate consultations without fear actual perceived retaliation.

Ensure all refor ms remain consistent Austra lia’s obligations under United Nations Convention Rights Persons Disabilities particularly Article 19 recognises right of peopl e disabilities live independently included in the commun ity.* Recognize reducin g disability support does eliminate need It often transfers costs risks families carers healt h services mental healthservices emergency services parts government Future reform should be assessed against broader social economic impacts solely projected budget savings.

CONCLUSION

I do not need support workers because I am incapable of participating in the community.

I need support workers because participation often occurs in environments where discrimination, harassment and misunderstanding remain common realities for people with disability. The support assists me to participate despite those barriers, not because of any lack of willingness to engage with my community.The experiences outlined in this submission demonstrate that for some participants, community participation funding is not simply about social engagement.It is a critical safeguard. it enables safe participation in everyday life.it reduces isolation. it protects mental health. it helps prevent abuse,exploitationandharm.For participants like me,reducingthesesupportswillnotincreaseindependence, participationorinclusion. itachievestheopposite.IrespectfullyasktheCommitteetoconsidertherealworldconsequencesthesereformsmayhaveforpeoplwhosefundedsupportsamernotmerelysocialinnature,buteessentialtotheirsafety,wellbeingandalternatedparticipationsinaussianisociety.AndrewJohnRichardsRegionalNewSouthWales