Submission 2197

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 have included childhood abuse, institutional abuse, community violence, domestic violence, social exclusion and repeated experiences of being targeted because I am different.

The cumulative impact of these experiences has resulted in ongoing mental health conditions, including Complex PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. These conditions do not exist separately from my autism. Rather, they interact in ways that significantly affect my ability to safely navigate social situations, assess risk, interpret the intentions of others and respond effectively when confronted with hostility, manipulation, exploitation or abuse.

These incidents do not occur in isolation. They occur against a background of lifelong experiences of abuse, victimisation and discrimination. For people living with trauma, repeated negative experiences can reinforce PTSD symptoms, increase anxiety, reduce confidence and create additional barriers to community participation that are difficult to overcome.

Submission 2197

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 behaviour.

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 Attempted

What 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 and service providers. Local police also undertook community education initiatives aimed at improving awareness and reducing inappropriate behaviour toward assistance dogs and their handlers.

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 participation supports. They are also safeguarding supports.

The need for these supports does not arise solely from my disability. It also arises from the barriers, discrimination, hostility and misunderstanding that continue to exist within the community. Support workers help mitigate the impact of those barriers and enable me to participate despite them.

Support workers frequently perform functions that would not be necessary if disability rights were consistently respected. They help navigate situations involving discrimination, misunderstanding, conflict and vulnerability that many non-disabled people do not routinely encounter.

Their presence reduces vulnerability, provides accountability when incidents occur, assists with communication and advocacy, and helps ensure that I can safely access ordinary community environments that many Australians take for granted.

Over the past several years I have experienced repeated harassment, discrimination and intimidation associated with both my disabilities and my use of an assistance dog.

In many cases, the presence of a support worker has reduced the impact of these incidents by helping me regulate emotionally, assisting me to leave situations safely, advising on my behalf, documenting what occurred and reducing my vulnerability to further harm.

Even with support workers present, incidents still occur.

Without support workers, my vulnerability increases significantly.

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 IMPACT

This 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 and difference. While support workers can help mitigate the impact of these barriers, the barriers themselves remain.

I believe there is a strong case for governments to invest in meaningful public education regarding autism, neurodiversity and disability rights. Greater understanding of autistic communication differences could help reduce discrimination, improve social inclusion and lessen some of the risks that currently contribute to the need for additional safeguarding supports.

Improving community understanding will not eliminate the need for support workers or disability-specific supports. However, it may help create communities that are safer, more inclusive and more accessible for autistic Australians and other people with disability.

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, executive 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. At the same time, the legislation extends the time available for the NDIA to respond to participant requests and reduces participants’ ability to challenge delays through external review mechanisms.

This creates a significant imbalance. Participants face serious consequences if they fail to engage with the Agency, while the Agency faces fewer consequences when it fails to respond to participants.

I am also concerned about the increasing use of automated decision-making systems within the NDIS. While technology may improve administrative efficiency, disability support decisions often involve complex human circumstances that cannot always be adequately understood through automated processes.

Many participants already experience difficulties navigating the NDIS. Further reducing human oversight and increasing reliance on automated systems risks creating additional barriers to fairness, transparency and accountability.

These concerns are particularly significant for participants who rely on support workers, nominees, family members or advocates to help them understand correspondence, respond to requests, manage documentation and navigate administrative processes.

For many participants, these supports are not optional. They are essential safeguards that help prevent people from becoming lost within complex systems.

Taken together, these reforms risk creating a scheme that is more difficult for vulnerable participants to navigate, while simultaneously reducing the supports that help people navigate it safely.

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 and whose voices are ultimately heard.

When people are afraid to speak openly, there is a risk that the true impact of proposed reforms is not fully understood by decision-makers.

Meaningful consultation requires participants to feel safe to provide honest feedback without fear of actual or perceived repercussions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations

1. Retain Social and Community Participation funding within the NDIS and
   recognise that, for many participants, these supports perform essential
   safeguarding, risk mitigation and community access functions rather than
   merely facilitating recreational activities.
2. Recognise safeguarding, vulnerability reduction and community safety as
    legitimate and necessary functions of support worker assistance when
   determining reasonable and necessary supports.

Submission 2197

• Ensure that proposed reforms do not create additional barriers for autistic participants, participants with psychosocial disability, or participants who rely on support workers, nominees, advocates or assistance animals to safely navigate the Scheme and their communities.
• Restore and maintain participant rights to timely review and appeal processes, including protections against prolonged administrative inaction by the NDIA.
• Ensure that any use of Automated Decision-Making (ADM) systems is subject to meaningful human oversight, transparency, accountability and accessible review mechanisms.
• Review proposed plan suspension and participant revocation provisions to ensure participants are not unfairly penalised due to disability-related communication barriers, hospitalisation, mental health crises, executive functioning difficulties or other circumstances associated with disability.
• Consider the disproportionate impact of funding reductions and administrative changes on participants living in regional, rural and remote Australia, where alternative providers and replacement supports are often limited or unavailable.
• Develop and fund national public education campaigns regarding disability rights, assistance dogs, autism and neurodiversity, with particular focus on reducing stigma, improving understanding of communication differences and promoting respectful community inclusion.
• Strengthen legal protections and enforcement mechanisms relating to interference with assistance dogs, harassment of assistance dog handlers and disability-related discrimination in community settings.
• Ensure that compliance, record-keeping and debt recovery measures are proportionate, accessible and do not create conditions that unfairly penalise participants, family members, nominees or providers for administrative errors or disability-related barriers.
• Ensure that NDIS reforms are developed and implemented in genuine partnership with people with disability and that participants can provide feedback, make complaints and participate in consultations without fear of actual or perceived retaliation.
• Ensure that all reforms remain consistent with Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly Article 19, which recognises the right of people with disability to live independently and be included in the community.
• Recognise that reducing disability supports does not eliminate need. It often transfers costs and risks to families, carers, health services, mental health services, emergency services and other parts of government. Future reforms should be assessed against their broader social and economic impacts, not solely their projected budget savings.

Conclusion

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

I need support workers because participation often occurs in environments where\ndiscrimination, harassment and misunderstanding remain common realities for\npeople with disability.

The support assists me to participate despite those barriers, not because of any lack\nof willingness to engage with my community.

The experiences outlined in this submission demonstrate that for some participants,\ncommunity participation funding is not simply about social engagement.

It is a critical safeguard.

It enables safe participation in every day life.

It reduces isolation.

It protects mental health.

It helps prevent abuse, exploitation and harm.

For participants like me, reducing these supports will not increase independence,\nparticipation or inclusion.

It will achieve the opposite.

I respectfully ask the Committee to consider the real-world consequences these\nreforms may have for people whose funded supports are not merely social in nature,\nbut are essential to their safety, wellbeing and continued participation in Australian\nsociety.

Andrew John Richards

Regional New South Wales