National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2884 - Supplementary Submission
According to the AIHW “About 1 in 5 (1.2 million) adults with disability in 2016 had experienced physical and/or sexual violence from a current or previous intimate partner (and) women with disability in 2016 were about 3 times as likely as men with disability to have experienced intimate partner violence.”
The NDIS Bill proposes to reduce funding for “assistance with social, economic and community participation.” Receiving support to engage with the community, have economic freedom, and social interactions are instrumental for people with disabilities to reduce the risk of financial abuse and social isolation. These supports are instrumental for all people, but most especially people with disabilities who are already likely to have reduced access to the world. Additionally, financial abuse is a higher risk for those who are on the Disability Support Pension, including those who are ineligible due to their partner’s income. This leads to financial reliance and opens people with disabilities, up to abuse. This inherently links to the NDIS, as receiving one set of supports thankfully does not restrict the other.
In the First Action Plan of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022 2032, the Australian Government themselves outlines that “The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability highlighted the challenges that people with disability face in being heard and responded to when they have experienced violence” (p.31 First Action Plan). They also wrote that “Gender-based violence against people with disability tends to occur more frequently, over a longer period of time and across a wider range of settings” (p.31 First Action Plan). According to the AIHW, community attitudes and responses towards DFSV are important because of their role in the prevention of violence, and the likelihood of reporting and help seeking behaviour (AIHW).
Considering this, why has the government then committed to cutting funding for, and thus rejecting their own claims, community support for people with disabilities? Do these plans not seek to improve these identified harms for people with disabilities? This is ableism.
Support workers are one example of a very important support service, that enables people with disabilities to have a “friend” who supports them to engage with the community. This may look like visiting a museum, attending a hobby group, and/or going to appointments. Support workers are also the frontline, so to speak, of support service that people with disabilities would turn to if they were experiencing DFSV. The Australian Government has committed to invest $4.4 million to ensure people with disability have access to consistent community visitor schemes as a safeguarding mechanism, in response to the Disability Royal Commission. This was determined with only 2 weeks for community consultation and submissions, however demonstrates that the Australian Government recognises the importance of community engagement for people with disabilities.
I urge the committee to take this into account when providing their final report, acknowledging that the Government claims they are committed to reducing DFSV against women and children, but clearly not all women and children. If the Government seeks to actually make a difference in this area, they must not cut funding for the very services they claim are vital.