Concerns regarding NDIS reform impacting participant safety and review rights (Provider advocacy)

Submission 2647

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Re: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future

Generations) Bill 2026

Introduction

I am writing this submission as a South Australian disability support provider, employer, advocate, and community member with lived and professional experience supporting people with disability across a range of settings since the early years of the NDIS.

I support genuine reform of the NDIS where reform strengthens participant safety, improves accountability, reduces fraud, prevents exploitation, and ensures public funds are used appropriately.

However, I do not support the Bill in its current form.

While I acknowledge the Scheme is not perfect and requires reform, I hold serious concerns about the scale, speed and structure of the proposed changes and their potential impact on participants, families, carers, small providers, and the broader disability community.

In my view, legislation of this significance should not proceed without further consultation, greater transparency, stronger safeguards, and meaningful review rights.

The NDIS is not merely a funding mechanism. For many people it is the framework that allows them to participate in education, employment, family life, community connection, and everyday activities that many Australians take for granted.

Changes of this magnitude must be approached carefully, proportionately and with people with disability at the centre of decision-making.

Key Recommendation

I respectfully urge the Committee to recommend that the Bill not proceed in its current form. At a minimum, implementation should be delayed to allow:

• Genuine consultation with people with disability and families.
• Consultation with disability representative organisations.
• Consultation with allied health professionals.
• Consultation with providers, including small and regional providers.
• Independent human rights analysis.
• Greater transparency regarding operational implementation.
• Development of stronger appeal and review mechanisms.

Positive Outcomes Achieved Under the Current NDIS Framework

Through my experience working alongside participants and families, I have witnessed significant positive outcomes made possible through participant choice, control, relationship based support, and tailored capacity-building approaches.

Submission 2647

These outcomes often do not fit neatly into spreadsheets or cost projections, but they represent genuine social and economic value.

Examples include:

Community Participation and Belonging

Many participants we have supported previously experienced exclusion from mainstream environments due to sensory, communication, emotional regulation or social challenges. Through peer-led and neurodiversity-affirming supports, participants have:

• Developed friendships.
• Increased community participation.
• Improved confidence.
• Built social communication skills.
• Developed greater independence.
• Reported feeling accepted and understood for the first time. Many young people have described support groups as the first environment where they felt they genuinely belonged.

Supporting Educational Outcomes

Participants have remained engaged in school through the implementation of disability affirming strategies, regulation supports, environmental adjustments and collaborative approaches involving families and educational settings. These supports have assisted with:

• Reduced school refusal.
• Improved attendance.
• Increased participation.
• Reduced behavioural escalation.
• Greater educational engagement.

Reducing Family Crisis and Carer Burnout

The NDIS has enabled many families to remain together and function more sustainably. Supports have contributed to:

• Reduced caregiver burnout.
• Reduced family breakdown.
• Increased workforce participation by parents and carers.
• Reduced reliance on crisis services.
• Improved family relationships. Many families have been able to spend time together as a family rather than existing solely in crisis management and survival mode.

Building Long-Term Capacity

Capacity-building supports have assisted participants to:

• Develop communication skills.
• Recognise emotional and sensory cues.
• Improve self-advocacy.
• Increase independence.

Submission 2647

• Reduce shutdowns and distress.
• Develop regulation strategies.
• Participate more effectively in mainstream environments. These are not short-term outcomes. They represent investments in future independence, wellbeing and social participation.

Preventing More Intensive Service Responses

Over time, I have observed supports assisting to:

• Reduce escalation into crisis.
• Reduce risk of hospital presentations.
• Reduce risk of homelessness.
• Delay or avoid entry into more restrictive service systems.
• Support people to maintain housing.
• Support people to remain connected to family and community. The cost of early intervention and capacity building is often significantly lower than the cost of responding to preventable crises.

Concerns Regarding Mandatory Registration

I support appropriate safeguards and quality standards across the sector. However, I am concerned that mandatory registration requirements may unintentionally reduce participant choice and remove smaller, highly specialised providers from the sector. Many small providers:

• Operate with strong governance practices.
• Maintain policies and procedures comparable to registered providers.
• Deliver highly individualised support.
• Employ people with lived experience.
• Fill service gaps larger organisations often cannot. For some providers, registration is not primarily a quality issue but an administrative, financial and executive-function barrier. The risk is that participants may lose access to providers who understand them, have established trusted relationships, and provide culturally, clinically or neurodiversity-affirming supports. Choice and control should remain a foundational principle of the Scheme.

Concerns Regarding Functional Capacity Assessments and Reassessment

I understand the Government proposes a new support needs assessment process and functional capacity framework from 2026 onwards, including use of the I-Can Support Needs Assessment framework. I am particularly concerned about the impact this may have on autistic participants and others whose disabilities are highly contextual, fluctuating or difficult to communicate during brief assessments.

Many autistic people:

• Mask their difficulties.
• Minimise support needs.
• Experience verbal shutdown.

Submission 2647

• Struggle to identify and explain internal experiences.
• Present differently depending on environment.
• Require trusted relationships before disclosing vulnerabilities. A short assessment with an unfamiliar assessor may not accurately capture real-world functional challenges.

I am concerned that an overreliance on standardised assessment tools could lead to underestimation of support needs and reduced funding for people who are already highly vulnerable.

Assessment processes must recognise lived experience, longitudinal evidence, existing allied health evidence and contextual factors rather than relying heavily on brief interactions.

Concerns Regarding Ministerial Powers and Reduced Review Rights

One of my strongest concerns relates to the concentration of decision-making power within the proposed framework.

People with disability should always retain meaningful rights to challenge decisions that affect their lives.

Where funding is reduced, suspended, varied or removed:

• Clear reasons should be provided.
• Participants should have access to review mechanisms.
• Participants should have access to appeal pathways.
• Independent oversight should remain available. The removal or limitation of review rights risks undermining procedural fairness and public confidence in the Scheme.

I am particularly concerned by reports that future planning arrangements may significantly reduce external review options available to participants

Concerns Regarding Funding Suspensions and Service Gaps

The proposed ability to suspend supports or leave participants without funding for extended periods presents significant risk.

Many participants rely on funded supports for:

• Personal care.

• Medication support.

• Community access.

• Emotional regulation.

• Safety monitoring.

• Housing stability. Extended periods without decisions or supports may create unacceptable risks including:

• Hospitalisation.

Submission 2647

• Mental health deterioration.
• Family breakdown.
• Homelessness.
• Neglect.
• Serious injury. The disability community has repeatedly seen the devastating consequences when people fall through service gaps. Any suspension, variation or removal of supports should be accompanied by immediate review rights and appropriate safeguards.

Concerns Regarding Participant Contact Requirements

I am concerned about proposals that may allow funding disruptions where participants are deemed non-contactable.

Many participants experience:

• Autism.
• Psychosocial disability.
• Trauma.
• Anxiety disorders.
• Executive functioning challenges. These factors may directly affect communication. Failure to answer a private number or unexpected phone call should never become the basis for losing critical supports.

The burden should remain on government agencies to utilise multiple accessible communication methods, including:

• Email.
• SMS.
• Scheduled appointments.
• Accessible written communication.
• Support coordinators and nominees where appropriate.

Human Rights Considerations

Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

The principles underpinning the Convention include:

• Dignity.
• Autonomy.
• Individual choice.
• Inclusion.
• Participation.
• Equality of opportunity.

Submission 2647

Any reform that reduces participant autonomy, limits access to review mechanisms, or creates barriers to support should be carefully assessed against Australia’s obligations under the CRPD. I encourage the Committee to undertake detailed consideration of the human rights implications of these reforms before implementation.

Economic Contribution of the NDIS Public discussion frequently focuses on Scheme expenditure without acknowledging the economic value generated by disability supports.

The NDIS contributes to Australia’s economy through:

• Employment creation.
• Workforce participation.
• Tax revenue.
• Superannuation contributions.
• Small business growth.
• Increased participation of carers in paid employment.
• Reduced reliance on crisis and acute services. The disability workforce is heavily represented by women. Many providers also employ people with disability, lived experience advocates and neurodivergent workers whose knowledge and expertise strengthens service quality. Reform should preserve these economic and social benefits rather than unintentionally undermining them.

Conclusion

The NDIS requires reform; however, reform must remain participant-centred, evidence based, rights-focused and implemented carefully.

I am deeply concerned that the Bill, in its current form, risks creating unintended harm by concentrating decision-making power, reducing review rights, increasing barriers to support, and introducing significant uncertainty for participants, families and providers.

I respectfully urge the Committee to recommend further consultation, stronger safeguards, meaningful appeal rights, and a slower implementation process that allows genuine co design with the disability community.

People with disability deserve reform that is safe, transparent and respectful of their dignity, autonomy and lived experience.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.

Yours sincerely

South Australia

Large portions of the submission originated from information, concerns, examples and experiences that I personally provided. AI assistance was limited to helping synthesise and present those views in a coherent and accessible format.