Submission on the Proposed NDIS Amendments – Social and Community
Participation Funding
I am writing as the parent and primary carer of my 22-year-old daughter to express my strong opposition to the proposed amendments that would reduce Social, Civic and Community Participation funding by 50% and Capacity Building Daily Activities funding by 10%.
While I appreciate the need to ensure the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, these proposed changes will have significant unintended consequences for participants with high support needs and for the families who care for them.
The consultation papers suggest that from 1 October 2026, Social, Civic and Community Participation budgets will be reset to approximately 2023 spending levels, including a 50% reduction in budget allocations, alongside the introduction of an Inclusive Communities Fund. However, for participants like my daughter, these changes fail to recognise that community participation funding is not discretionary— it is an essential support that enables health, independence, employment and community inclusion.
My daughter already receives insufficient funding to meet her community participation goals. A further 50% reduction would make it impossible for her to maintain the meaningful life she has worked so hard to build.
The proposed amendments would directly affect her ability to:
-
Attend and participate in her work in supported cafe which provides purpose, routine, skill development and an opportunity to contribute to the community;
-
participate in community activities that reduce social isolation and support her mental wellbeing;
-
maintain the regular weight-bearing exercise prescribed to manage her co- existing health conditions, including coeliac disease and low bone density;
-
maintain the structured daily routine she requires to remain physically and emotionally well.
Unlike many young adults, my daughter cannot independently plan, organise or occupy her day. She relies on support workers to assist her to engage safely and meaningfully in the community. Without these supports she cannot simply “stay home” independently. Instead, responsibility falls entirely on our family.
The impact of these proposed amendments extends well beyond my daughter.
My husband has already reduced his workforce participation because of his caring responsibilities. If our daughter’s community participation funding is reduced by half, he would almost certainly be forced to retire early to provide supervision and support during the hours currently covered by funded supports.
This would have lifelong financial consequences. His superannuation would be substantially reduced, increasing the likelihood that he would need to rely on Centrelink in retirement. Rather than reducing government expenditure, these changes risk shifting costs from the NDIS to the social security system.
I am the primary income earner for our family. My ability to maintain full-time employment depends on my daughter’s funded supports remaining in place. If those supports are significantly reduced, my own workforce participation will inevitably be affected as additional caring responsibilities fall on our family.
The proposed amendments therefore risk reducing workforce participation by both family carers, decreasing tax revenue while increasing future reliance on government income support.
There are also significant health consequences.
My daughter has coeliac disease and low bone density, making regular weight bearing exercise medically necessary to reduce her risk of osteoporosis and fractures. Without funded supports to access the community and participate in these activities, her physical health is likely to deteriorate, resulting in increased health system costs in the future.
Equally concerning is the impact on mental health.
My daughter depends on structured, supported community participation to provide purpose, routine, social connection and emotional wellbeing. She does not have the capacity to independently entertain herself or create meaningful daily activities without support. Removing these supports will increase isolation, reduce community inclusion and negatively affect her mental health.
These impacts will also be experienced by our entire family. The emotional burden of replacing essential disability supports with unpaid family care will significantly affect our own mental health, wellbeing and family relationships.
The proposed amendments appear to assume that families can absorb reductions in formal supports. For many families, including ours, this is simply not possible. Family carers are already providing substantial unpaid care while balancing employment, financial commitments and their own health. I have a vascular malformation in my
cervical spinal cord which ruptured in 2018 resulting in a brain haemorrhage. This condition has been managed conservatively as it it is too high risk to surgically manage without risking quadriplegia. I have chronic pain as a result and have been advised to keep my blood pressure/stress low which is a challenge in itself. Rupture again will likely result in quadriplegia and reliance on NDIS myself or death.
Reducing social and community participation funding does not reduce the need for support—it simply transfers responsibility from the NDIS onto ageing parents and unpaid carers.
The NDIS was established to enable people with disability to live ordinary lives, participate in their communities, pursue employment and maintain their health. For my daughter, community participation funding achieves exactly these outcomes.
I respectfully ask that the Government reconsider the proposed reductions to Social, Civic and Community Participation funding and Capacity Building Daily Activities. Decisions about funding should remain based on an individual’s functional needs and goals rather than applying broad reductions that disproportionately affect people with significant disability.
The long-term costs of these proposed amendments are likely to outweigh any short term savings through increased carer burnout, reduced workforce participation, poorer health outcomes, greater social isolation and increased reliance on other government-funded services.
For our family, these supports are not optional. They are essential to my daughter’s health, independence, employment, inclusion and quality of life, while also enabling both parents to continue contributing to the Australian workforce and economy.
Our family’s experience demonstrates that these proposed amendments risk undermining the very objectives of the NDIS. Any reforms should preserve supports that enable genuine participation, employment, health and independence for people with disability, while recognising the critical economic contribution made by family carers who are only able to remain in the workforce because appropriate disability supports are in place.