Submission 3031 — Name Withheld — NDIS Future Generations Bill | External submission

To: Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

Generations) Bill 2026

I write to express significant concerns regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 and its potential impact on Australians living with disability, their families, support networks, and the broader disability sector.

While there is broad recognition that the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) must remain financially sustainable and that measures to address fraud, exploitation, and misuse of funds are necessary, the proposed amendments risk fundamentally altering the purpose and accessibility of the Scheme. The NDIS was established as a rights-based insurance scheme designed to provide reasonable and necessary supports to people with permanent and significant disability. Any reforms must preserve this foundational principle, and the proposed reforms do the opposite of this.

The proposed amendments represent the most significant shift in the philosophy of the National Disability Insurance Scheme since its inception. While presented as measures to improve sustainability, they fundamentally change the balance between participant rights and administrative control. Collectively, these reforms move the Scheme away from an insurance based model centred on individual need towards a fiscally driven program governed by broad Ministerial discretion, prescribed funding categories and increasingly restrictive access to supports.

Sustainability cannot be achieved by reducing supports for people with disability. Sustainability is achieved by investing in evidence-based interventions that prevent crisis, preserve independence and reduce reliance on more expensive government systems.

Concern 1: Restrictive Eligibility Measures

The proposed changes place significant emphasis on redefining eligibility through functional capacity assessments and further clarification of permanence requirements.

Whilst functional capacity is an important consideration, there is considerable concern that the proposed framework may create barriers for individuals whose disabilities fluctuate, are episodic, or whose support needs are not adequately captured through standardised assessment processes. There is also a risk that the reliance on functional capacity assessment focuses heavily on the competence of the assessor, which is already a highlighted and accepted issue amongst therapists.

There is a significant risk that:

Individuals with psychosocial disability, neurological conditions, rare disorders, and complex support needs may be disproportionately disadvantaged; the assessor’s knowledge and understanding becomes integral to their assessment which places significant disadvantage

and potential discrimination opportunities if the assessor is not as competent as their peers.

Standardised assessment tools may fail to account for environmental factors, cumulative disability impacts, behavioural presentations, and support requirements across multiple life domains.
Participants may be excluded despite experiencing substantial and ongoing disability-related barriers.

The NDIS was never intended to support only those with the most visible or measurable impairments. A narrow interpretation of functional capacity risks undermining equitable access and creating unintended discrimination against certain disability cohorts.

Concern 2: Cost Reduction Appears to be Driving Policy Outcomes

Public statements surrounding the proposed reforms have repeatedly referenced reducing fraud, expenditure reduction targets and participant number reductions.

This creates a perception that fiscal outcomes are driving legislative reform rather than participant need, evidence-based practice, or disability rights. This is further evidenced by the proposal in the Bill allowing the Minister full power to arbitrarily cut funding by a given percentage to an entire funding category, regardless of the impacts this will have on individuals.

Cost containment should be an outcome of effective system design, not the primary objective of disability policy.

Legislation that is primarily designed to reduce participant numbers or funding expenditure risks:

Shifting costs onto already strained state systems
Increasing pressure on public health services.
Increasing homelessness, crisis interventions, mental health admissions, and justice system involvement.
Reducing participant independence and community inclusion. This is also compounded by the lack of information that has been released regarding the alternative support systems that will be “replacing” the supports currently funded by the NDIS.

The long-term social and economic costs of withdrawing supports may ultimately exceed any projected savings.

No comprehensive whole-of-government economic impact assessment appears to have been undertaken in relation to these proposed reforms. While the Government has focused on projected reductions in NDIS expenditure, there has been little consideration of the broader economic consequences of removing an estimated 300,000 participants from the Scheme.

The disability sector is a major contributor to Australia’s economy, employing hundreds of thousands of Australians and supporting thousands of small and medium-sized businesses. A significant reduction in participant numbers will inevitably reduce demand for disability

services, leading to business closures, workforce reductions and increased unemployment across the sector.

These job losses will have far-reaching economic consequences, including increased expenditure on income support and unemployment benefits, reduced income tax receipts, lower GST revenue through decreased consumer spending, and diminished economic activity in local communities. In regional and rural areas, where disability services are often major employers, these impacts may be particularly severe.

Furthermore, reduced disability supports are likely to increase reliance on publicly funded health, mental health, housing, aged care and justice systems, shifting costs rather than eliminating them.

The true measure of these reforms should not be the reduction in NDIS expenditure alone, but the net economic impact across all levels of government and the Australian economy. Without a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis that considers employment, taxation, welfare expenditure, productivity and cost-shifting to other service systems, it is impossible to determine whether these reforms will generate any genuine economic or social benefit. There is a significant risk that short-term savings within the NDIS budget will be outweighed by substantially higher costs elsewhere, resulting in a net loss to both the economy and Australian society.

Concern 3: Pricing Reform is already reducing Market Capacity

Recent pricing reforms have already reduced the viability of many disability providers, particularly small rural providers, sole practitioners, independent Support Coordinators and specialist allied health professionals.

These reforms have reduced flexibility while increasing compliance requirements and administrative costs.

The proposed legislative amendments compound these changes by further restricting the supports participants may purchase.

Market sustainability is equally as important as financial sustainability. There has been no holistic economic analysis has been done by the Government relating to the economic realities that result from a reduced support workforce. This publicised mantra of reducing fraud is wearing thin and is lying to the community and creating an environment where the disabled are effectively being demonised by the Government who are blaming a Scheme designed to support those most vulnerable in our society.

Fundamentally, a financially sustainable Scheme cannot exist without a sustainable provider workforce.

Concern 3: Increased Administrative Burden and Reduced Flexibility

The proposed amendments may significantly increase reassessment requirements, evidentiary burdens, and administrative complexity for participants.

Many participants already experience extensive delays, repeated requests for evidence, and

significant emotional distress associated with planning and review processes. There has been inconsistent information published by the NDIS regarding the length of plans and their ability to “roll over” or be “auto extended”. Recent plans have been 5 years in length, which has been a relief to families who are tired of regular interactions with the NDIS, often acknowledged to be an exhausting and stressful process. The proposed Bill amendment restricts all plans to be 12 months in length, with no opportunity for rollover or extension. This increases not only the mental load for participants and their families, but places additional reporting requirements in place, which in turn cost more and result is less funding available for therapy. These proposed changes will result in:

Delayed access to essential supports.
Increased administrative costs for both participants and government.
Greater reliance on advocacy, legal services, and Administrative Review Tribunal proceedings. This is already being evidenced as the ART had 76% increase in lodged NDIS appeals in 2025 compared to 2024, and since October 2025, when the last major reform of the NDIS occurred, there have been 7935 active cases lodged with the ART. This is only going to increase, costing the NDIS millions in legal costs. The proposed legislative changes risk increasing the tribunal workloads, which in turn increase the NDIS’ financial spending in legal fees (increased from $10.1 million in 2019 to approximately $75.4million in 2025.)
Reduced participant confidence in the Scheme; already evidenced by the above ART lodgment increase.

Rather than reducing administrative burden, the proposed amendments will increase it, and increase the financial impact on the NDIS, which negates the reasoning behind the proposed changes.

Concern 4: Impact on Participants with Complex Support Needs

Many participants require intensive coordination between multiple service systems, including health, housing, justice, mental health, education, and disability services.

The proposed amendments appear to strengthen the “most appropriate funding body” considerations and place greater emphasis on alternative service systems, none of which have bene identified as yet.

While intergovernmental responsibility is important, the reality is that many mainstream systems remain under-resourced, inaccessible, or unable to provide the level of support required by people with significant disability. This was one of the reasons for the inception of the NDIS, and there is no evidence of improvement in this area.

Without substantial investment in foundational and mainstream supports prior to implementation, participants risk falling into service gaps where no system assumes responsibility.

Participants with Complex Support Needs already face significantly more challenges given their required interaction with the above multiple service systems. Their behaviours and support needs are not linear, thus fluctuate and rely on flexible supports. The proposed amendments do not take any of this into account with no consideration given to individual circumstances prior

to funding cuts. One participant has recently stated that these arbitrary cuts are so potentially harmful that the Government may as well “give people with disability the Green Needle”. This comment alone should show the severe mental impact that these potential reforms are having on the people it is going to directly affect.

The result will be increased risk, reduced safety, and poorer outcomes for some of the Scheme’s most vulnerable participants, which contradicts the reason the Scheme was created.

The reduction in supports will likely lead to an increase in participants having crises, which not only increases demand on other services, but also increases the risk of fraudulent activity; urgency to provide emergency supports can result in providers over charging, participants getting fewer quotes, decisions made quickly without informed consent and an overall reduction on oversight and safeguarding of participants.

Concern 5: Lack of Meaningful Co-Design

The disability community has consistently advocated that reforms to the NDIS must be developed through genuine co-design with people with disability.

Many stakeholders have expressed concern that reforms of this scale are progressing without sufficient consultation regarding:

Assessment methodologies.
Eligibility thresholds.
Transition arrangements.
Safeguards for existing participants.
Appeals and review pathways. Meaningful reform requires the lived experience of people with disability to be central to policy development. Thus far, this has not been considered, despite thousands of submissions submitted to the Senate in response to these proposals.

Concern 6: Impact on Support Coordination and Participant Safeguards

The proposed reforms raise significant concerns regarding the future role, scope, and accessibility of Support Coordination within the NDIS.

Support Coordination plays a critical role in assisting participants to understand their plans, engage providers, navigate service systems, manage risk, build capacity, and implement complex support arrangements. This is particularly important for participants with psychosocial disability, cognitive impairment, intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, and complex behavioural presentations.

Reducing access to Support Coordination or limiting its availability may result in:

Increased plan underutilisation.
Reduced participant capacity to exercise genuine choice and control.

Greater vulnerability to service disengagement, exploitation, abuse, neglect, and financial misuse.
Increased crisis presentations requiring intervention by health, housing, child protection, justice, and emergency services.
Delayed implementation of therapeutic recommendations and Home & Living supports. The assumption that participants can independently navigate increasingly complex NDIS processes without appropriate support is inconsistent with the realities experienced by many participants with significant disability. It also refutes the very reason that Support Coordination was created in the inception of NDIS.

Rather than reducing investment in Support Coordination, reforms should recognise it as a preventative measure that improves plan implementation, reduces crises, and supports better long-term outcomes.

Tendering Support Coordination to the largest providers is a substantial risk to participant support, personalised service delivery and tailored, person centred care, all of which were the foundational pillars of NDIS. Larger providers should have the capacity to merge smaller independent providers within their company, allowing participants to retain their support coordinators and their personal support; many support coordinators have built long standing professional relationships with the people they support and the level of trust there should not be ignored or undermined.

Concern 7: Risks to Home and Living Outcomes

The proposed reforms may have unintended consequences for participants requiring

Supported Independent Living (SIL), Individualised Living Options (ILO), Specialist Disability

Accommodation (SDA), and other Home and Living supports.

Many participants requiring Home and Living supports have highly complex needs that involve significant functional impairment, behavioural support requirements, risks to safety, and extensive multidisciplinary evidence.

In practice, Home and Living applications already experience lengthy delays, multiple evidence requests, and inconsistent decision-making processes. Evidence is either ignored or misunderstood, and the Home and Living team are not consistent nor justified in the decisions they make, yet can quote the Act as a blanket reason for rejection of approval. With the current system already being very difficult and stressful for participants to navigate and gain the supports they desperately need, the proposed reforms will serve only to exacerbate an already recognised problem.

Further restrictions to eligibility or funding as a result of these proposed changes will result in:

Participants remaining in unsuitable family homes.
Increased hospital discharge delays.
Increased homelessness and housing instability.
Placement breakdowns.
Escalation of restrictive practices.

Increased carer burnout and family breakdown. Home and Living supports should be recognised as preventative investments that reduce reliance on more costly crisis responses and institutional settings. Yet this is currently not the case, and will be even less recognised under the proposed reforms. This is terrifying, not only for those who currently have Home and Living decisions, but for participants in desperate need of Home and living support to survive.

The NDIS should continue to support evidence-based Home and Living pathways that promote participant autonomy, dignity, and community inclusion. They should not arbitrarily be allowed to cut funding for no evidenced reason, with no case-by-case management taken into account.

Concern 8: Disproportionate Impact on Psychosocial Disability

Participants with psychosocial disability may be disproportionately affected by the proposed amendments.

Unlike many physical disabilities, psychosocial disability often presents with fluctuating symptoms, periods of relative stability, and episodic deterioration. Functional impacts can vary significantly over time and may not be adequately captured through standardised assessments conducted at a single point in time. The standardised assessments may also not be fully tailored to Psychosocial disability; it is a well acknowledged fact that NDIS do not take psychosocial disability into as much account as observable physical disability, especially when considering comorbidities and funding for therapeutic supports.

Many participants with psychosocial disability require ongoing support to:

Maintain housing.
Engage with healthcare services.
Build and maintain relationships.
Participate in employment and education.
Manage daily living activities.
Prevent deterioration that may result in hospitalisation or crisis intervention. Restrictive eligibility measures risk excluding participants whose disability-related impairments are substantial but not easily measurable through conventional assessment frameworks. Any reforms must ensure that psychosocial disability remains appropriately recognised within the Scheme and that assessment processes accurately reflect the fluctuating nature of these disabilities.

Concern 9: Risks Associated with Standardised Functional Assessments

The proposed reliance on standardised assessment tools raises concerns regarding validity, reliability, and fairness. Whilst assessments can assist decision-making, they should not replace professional judgement or comprehensive evidence from treating professionals.

A single assessment process may fail to adequately consider:

Environmental barriers.
Behavioural complexity.
Cumulative impacts across life domains.
Cultural considerations.
Trauma history.
Communication barriers.
Informal support availability.
Risks associated with deterioration. There is also a risk that standardised assessment outcomes may be interpreted as definitive measures of disability despite known limitations. The Scheme has historically relied upon multidisciplinary evidence from occupational therapists, psychologists, speech pathologists, behaviour support practitioners, physiotherapists and medical specialists who have often worked alongside participants for years. The proposed assessment framework increasingly shifts decision-making toward standardised assessment tools, internal NDIA interpretation and centrally prescribed funding rules. This risks creating a system where longitudinal clinical evidence is routinely overridden by short assessments conducted by practitioners with limited knowledge of the participant. Such an approach is inconsistent with evidence-based practice and significantly increases the likelihood of inaccurate funding decisions.

Assessment tools should inform decision-making rather than determine access or funding outcomes in isolation.

Participants must retain the ability to provide broader evidence regarding their functional capacity and support requirements.

Concern 10: Cost-Shifting to Other Government Systems

One of the greatest risks associated with restrictive NDIS reforms is the transfer of costs to other government-funded systems.

Where disability supports are reduced or withdrawn, participant needs do not disappear. Instead, those needs are often transferred to:

Public hospitals.
Emergency departments.
Mental health services.
Housing and homelessness systems.
Child protection services.
Aged care services.
Police and justice systems.
State-funded disability programs. Evidence consistently demonstrates that early intervention and community-based disability supports are significantly more cost-effective than crisis-driven responses; with no plan in

place thus far from the government as to the alternatives to the NDIS for the thousands of participants proposed to be cut, these participants will fall into crises and the results will be crisis driven, expensive and dangerous.

Policy decisions should therefore be evaluated based on whole-of-government costs rather than NDIS expenditure alone. There has been no holistic economic analysis has been done by the Government relating to the economic realities that result from a reduced support workforce. The reality is that if you narrow the scheme and cut out 300,000 participants, businesses will close and carers numbers will drop. This will result in unemployment increase, the cost to the Government will increase significantly in welfare costs, resulting in a loss of GST and less tax with no economic or social benefit.

Reducing access to disability supports may generate short-term budget savings within the NDIS while creating substantially higher costs elsewhere across government. There has been no planning or framework indicating what costs will be shifted to other areas of Government, nor how this will be implemented for families.

Concern 11: Erosion of Choice and Control

Choice and control are foundational principles of the NDIS and underpin the Scheme’s participant-centred approach.

There is concern that increasing prescription around funded supports, tighter funding boundaries, and more restrictive interpretations of reasonable and necessary supports may reduce participants’ ability to tailor supports to their individual circumstances.

A more prescriptive system risks returning to the block-funded service models that existed prior to the NDIS, where participants had limited autonomy and reduced influence over decisions affecting their lives.

The success of the NDIS has been built upon recognising that disability is highly individual and that support arrangements must be flexible enough to respond to differing needs and goals.

Reforms should strengthen, rather than diminish, participant choice and control, yet the proposed reforms do not do this.

Concern 12: Erosion of Independent Clinical Evidence

One of the most concerning aspects of the proposed reforms is the gradual reduction in the weight afforded to independent treating professionals.

The Scheme has historically relied upon multidisciplinary evidence from occupational therapists, psychologists, speech pathologists, behaviour support practitioners, physiotherapists and medical specialists who have often worked alongside participants for years.

The proposed assessment framework increasingly shifts decision-making toward standardised assessment tools, internal NDIA interpretation and centrally prescribed funding rules, none of which have been identified, planned or publicised. Historically, the NDIS have not made the most appropriate decisions regarding what is reasonable and necessary for participants and their support needs. This has let to increasing s100, s47 and s48 reviews, and a marked increase in ART applications.

This changes also risks creating a system where longitudinal clinical evidence is routinely overridden by short assessments conducted by practitioners with limited knowledge of the participant, if any, or even worse, by a “tick box” assessment system which ignores the individual support needs of the individual and creates plans based on standardised support frameworks.

Such an approach is inconsistent with evidence-based practice and significantly increases the likelihood of inaccurate funding decisions.

Concern 13: Proposed reforms will result in increased fraud

Many of the changes intended to reduce fraud may ultimately create new opportunities for fraud, exploitation and market manipulation. The reform is being sold as a way to reduce fraud in the NDIS, however this is ironically a very real risk of these proposed reforms.

Independent Support Coordinators are one of the Scheme’s most effective fraud prevention mechanisms. They routinely identify inappropriate billing, provider conflicts of interest, financial exploitation and safeguarding concerns. Reducing access to Support Coordination removes an independent layer of accountability and may inadvertently increase opportunities for fraudulent conduct.

Reduced market availability due to smaller providers closing as a result of the new pricing arrangements results in participants having to engage larger providers for their supports. This creates a risk of reduced personal engagement and participants becoming “numbers” rather than having a personal connection with care coordinators.

Reducing plan management reduces the oversight of plan spending which in turn risks over/under servicing, billing for cancellations, incorrect invoicing, claiming of supports not provided.

Fewer providers in the market reduces the choice and control that people have over their supports, as well as increasing support wait times. This increases the risk of fraud as when demand exceeds supply, people may accept any provider available, with no consideration of their ethical practices.

The more complex the NDIS becomes, the harder it becomes for people to understand their plans, which creates information asymmetry; dishonesty thrives when it is hard to determine what is approved/allowed. It also increases the fear associated with losing support, participants may fear reporting providers who are doing the wrong thing if they believe they may lose their funding.

A sustainable Scheme requires not only financial controls but also strong independent safeguards that promote transparency, accountability and participant advocacy. Weakening these safeguards risks increasing fraud rather than reducing it.

Concern 14 – Significant risk of social exclusion, isolation and self harm

One of the most concerning unintended consequences of the proposed amendments is the increased risk of social exclusion, isolation, psychological distress and deterioration in health for people living with disability.

For all participants in the Scheme, the NDIS does not simply fund supports—it funds the ability to live safely, participate in the community, maintain relationships, access healthcare, obtain employment, pursue education and retain a sense of purpose and identity. These supports are the backbone of the protective factors that prevent deterioration, crisis and institutionalisation.

The proposed reforms, including reduced funding flexibility, tighter eligibility requirements, annual reassessments, greater administrative burden and the ability to reduce funding budgets instantly through legislative instruments, risk removing or delaying these essential supports. Where participants lose access to assistance that enables them to remain engaged in everyday life, the consequences extend well beyond financial. They may experience increasing isolation, declining physical and mental health, loss of independence and an increased reliance on family members or already overstretched mainstream services.

For participants with psychosocial disability, intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, dementia and other complex disabilities, the effects may be particularly severe. Social isolation is a recognised risk factor for worsening mental illness, anxiety, depression, behavioural escalation and suicidal ideation. Many participants rely on disability supports not only for practical assistance but also as their primary means of maintaining human connection, routine, structure and emotional wellbeing.

The proposed amendments also fail to adequately recognise the cumulative effect of losing multiple supports simultaneously. A reduction in Support Coordination, allied health services, community participation funding and Home and Living supports can rapidly destabilise a participant’s entire support network. Once these protective factors are removed, participants may experience housing breakdown, carer burnout, increased hospital admissions, interactions with police and emergency services, or admission to institutional settings that could otherwise have been avoided.

There is also a significant psychological impact associated with uncertainty surrounding ongoing support. Many participants have reported heightened anxiety, fear and hopelessness arising from the prospect of losing essential services or having funding reduced despite no improvement in their disability. Participants have spent years proving their disability to the NDIS in order to get the supports they need, and now there is the overwhelming fear and uncertainly of that being negated and them having to prove it all over again. The cumulative stress associated with repeated reassessments, prolonged delays and the perception that support is no longer guaranteed may itself contribute to declining mental health. This has already been demonstrated in the media; there have been multiple reports of families on the brink of collapse due to funding being reduced or removed. The supports that the NDIS provide have laid the promised foundation for families being able to cope with disability, a life no one

chooses, and now they are ripping this away from them with no consultation, safety net or established back up plan. That is tantamount to neglect and abuse.

For some individuals, particularly those with severe psychosocial disability or a history of self harm or suicidality, the loss of supports may remove critical protective factors that have enabled them to remain safe within the community. While not every participant will experience these outcomes, it is well established that reduced access to appropriate disability supports increases the risk of crisis presentations, psychiatric hospitalisation, self-harm and suicide for vulnerable individuals.

The NDIS was established to enable people with disability to live ordinary lives with dignity, autonomy and inclusion. Reforms that increase the likelihood of exclusion, isolation and preventable deterioration are inconsistent with these objectives and risk undermining decades of progress in disability rights and community inclusion.

The Committee should carefully consider not only the financial implications of these reforms but also their human consequences. The true cost of reducing disability supports cannot be measured solely in budget savings; it must also be measured in lives diminished, opportunities lost and preventable harm experienced by Australians with disability.

Disability support is a recognised protective factor against suicide, abuse, neglect and premature mortality. Removing these supports does not remove disability, it removes the safeguards that enable people to live safely within their communities. Any legislative reform that has the potential to weaken these safeguards must be subject to rigorous independent impact assessment before implementation.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee:

Delay implementation of any restrictive eligibility measures until comprehensive co-design and independent evaluation has occurred.
Publish the assessment methodologies, evidence base, and validation studies supporting any proposed functional capacity eligibility assessment framework.
Ensure participants with psychosocial disability, fluctuating conditions, neurological conditions, and complex behavioural support needs are protected from unintended exclusion resulting in regression, decreased functionality and increased mental health concerns.
Establish independent oversight mechanisms to monitor the impact of reforms on participant outcomes.
Guarantee that participants currently accessing the Scheme are not disadvantaged through retrospective application of new eligibility criteria.
Invest in foundational supports and state-based disability services before reducing access to the NDIS. Ensure these are sustainable, disability codesigned and transparent.

The Committee should undertake a comprehensive independent impact assessment of the proposed amendments before implementation, including modelling of impacts on:

Participants with complex support needs.
Psychosocial disability cohorts.
Home and Living outcomes.
Support Coordination access.
Tribunal appeal volumes.
Hospital admissions.
Housing and homelessness services.
Carer wellbeing.
Whole-of-government expenditure. Such an assessment is essential to ensure that reforms intended to improve sustainability do not unintentionally undermine participant outcomes or increase costs elsewhere within the broader service system.

Conclusion

The NDIS is one of Australia’s most significant social reforms and has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians living with disability.

While improvements to sustainability, governance, and fraud prevention are necessary, these objectives must not come at the expense of access, equity, participant choice and control, or the fundamental rights of people with disability.

The proposed amendments would create barriers for individuals who rely upon the NDIS to live safely, participate in their communities, maintain relationships, access employment and education, and avoid more costly crisis-based interventions. The amendments are not person centered, do not consider induvial need and the unique situation that every person with a disability experiences.

Any reform must preserve the original intent of the Scheme: supporting Australians with permanent and significant disability to live ordinary and meaningful lives with dignity, autonomy, and opportunity. The current proposals do the exact opposite, and will result in exclusion, isolation, increased dependence on hospitals, increased justice involvement and, terrifyingly, increases in self harm and suicide due to lack of support and feeling undervalued and not worth their government’s support. This is already happening; there have been

Respectfully submitted,