Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

By Associate Professor Jo Watson

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee - Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Prepared by Associate Professor Joanne Watson, Speech Pathologist and disability researcher

This is an individual submission and does not represent the views of the author’s employer, Deakin University nor the organisations she currently sits on the board of.

Author Expertise and Position:

I am a speech pathologist, lecturer and researcher with over 35 years of experience working alongside people with intellectual disability, including people with profound intellectual and multiple disability and complex communication needs. I have a sister with intellectual disability and sensory impairment who is a participant of the NDIS, and a mother with quadriplegia who is not a NDIS participant.

I sit on the board of 4 disability focused organisations include Hunter Circles, Hearth Disability Supports, Volition and Loom. I have a strong national and international reputation in the field of supported decision making particularly as it relates to people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities.

A central contribution of my work has been demonstrating that, for people who do not use formal communication, particularly those with profound intellectual and multiple disability, relationships built through social and community participation serve as the primary mechanism through which voice, agency, and personhood are realised (Arstein-Kerslake et al., 2021; Watson et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2017).

Jo Watson Submission NDIS Bill (2026)

Submission focus

This submission is grounded in a relational understanding of disability and safeguarding. It focuses specifically on the impact that proposed reforms will have on Australians with disabilities’ relationships, social connection, and isolation, and the consequences this has for safety, rights, and inclusion.

Introduction and Scope

This submission addresses key provisions of the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, including:

• Schedule 1, Part 4 – Ministerial determination of supports
• Schedule 1, Part 6 – revised “reasonable and necessary” supports
• Schedule 1, Part 3 – strengthened link between impairment and supports

Central argument

My central argument is centered around the likely increase in harm caused to people with intellectual disability if their access to social and community participation funding is cut. The combined effect of the provisions outlined in the new Bill (2026) risks increasing social isolation, particularly for Australians with the most complex needs, and in doing so, are likely to undermine safeguarding outcomes rather than strengthen them.

Relationships and community engagement are essential to safeguarding

Within the context of the NDIS, safeguarding is largely framed through systems of regulation, reporting and oversight, as reflected in the central role of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission in registering and regulating providers, responding to complaints and reportable incidents, and monitoring

Jo Watson Submission NDIS Bill (2026)

3

compliance with standards and codes of conduct (NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Commission., 2025).

However, a large body of evidence, including the findings of Australia’s recent Disability Royal

Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of People with Disability, and research

commissioned by the NDIA itself that social and community participation is essential for facilitating

safety for people with disability (Smith et al., 2022 p.33-34).

The presence or absence of relationships is one of the most significant determinants of safety. The Royal

Commission identified that violence and abuse are more likely to occur in segregated and closed

environments and that people who are socially isolated or poorly connected are at heightened risk

(Public hearing 3: The experience of living in a group home for people with disability 2023). This was

particularly evident in our research during the Covid 19 Pandemic, which explored the experiences of

people living in group homes in Melbourne under strict lockdown rules. In this study we found that

isolation negatively impacted the safety of people with disability living in group homes, with not only

increased reports of feeling unsafe but actual violence and abuse (Watson et al., 2025).

Safeguarding should be more than procedural. It should be relational. Research conducted by my

colleagues and I have found that for people with severe and profound intellectual and multiple disability complex communication needs, safeguarding depends on relational closeness developed through ongoing social connection rather than isolation (Watson et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2017).

The evidence base is clear that people with disability experience significantly higher rates of violence and abuse particularly those living in service based or segregated environments. It is also clear that social isolation is a key contributing factor to this (Public hearing 3: The experience of living in a group home for people with disability 2023; Tomsa et al., 2021)

Human Rights Framework (CRPD)

Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) are directly challenged by this Bill.

Article 19 – Community inclusion obliges Australia to ensure access to supports necessary to live in the community, avoid isolation and segregation (Gallagher et al., 2026).

Additionally, Article 12 – supported decision making, obligates Australia to ensure that people with intellectual disability have the appropriate support to live maximally autonomous lives (Watson et al., 2022). The research of my colleagues and I, clearly point to the need for relationships in achieving this autonomy (Watson et al., 2017). Such relationships are particularly important for people with the most complex support needs whose autonomy is dependent on networks of people who know the person well over time (Watson et al., 2019).

Any reduction in supports that reduce connection, relationship-building, ongoing presence in community undermines both Article 19 (inclusion) and Article 12 (decision-making). In this context, of particular concern is 6.1 Schedule 1, Part 4 – Ministerial Determination of Supports, that allows the Minister to adjust or cap funding for categories of supports, including: social and community participation. reduced access to relational and community-based supports disproportionate impact on people already at risk of isolation such as people with severe and profound intellectual disability.

Social Capital and Relational Alternatives

Research on social capital, including the studies previously outlined, demonstrates that relationships are not incidental, but they are central to safety, rights, and wellbeing.

Jo Watson Submission NDS Bill (2026)

Several solutions already operating within Australia are offered as ways of ensuring social connection. It

is clear however, that these models require community-based supports to grow and flourish. These

models include the intentional building of circles of support and community-based networks (Araten- Bergman & Bigby, 2022).

Hunter Circles is widely regarded as an excellent contemporary example of practice in action, translating

the principles of circles of support into meaningful, lived social inclusion. Based in New South Wales, it is

a grassroots initiative focused on intentionally building freely given relationships—bringing together friends, neighbours, family and community members to form a supportive network around a person with disability. What distinguishes Hunter Circles is its explicit focus on belonging and relational safety. The model recognises that many people with intellectual disability, particularly those moving out of institutional or group home settings, remain socially isolated despite being physically present in the community. In response, Hunter Circles works one person at a time to build genuine, reciprocal relationships that are not based on payment, but on connection, shared interests and mutual contribution. Importantly, the approach is grounded in the idea that relationships are the strongest safeguard against abuse and exclusion. By strengthening informal networks, Circles create natural oversight, reduce isolation, and support people to take up valued roles as citizens.

Jo Watson Submission NDIS Bill (2026)

References

• Smith, L., Bennett, M., Gardner, B., & Morello, R. (2022). ‘Getting out into the world’: pathways to community participation and connectedness for NDIS participants with intellectual disability, on the autism spectrum and/or with psychosocial disability. . Research and Evaluation Branch Policy Advice and Research Division - National Disability Insurance Agency. https://dataresearch.ndis.gov.au/research-and-evaluation/improving-outcomes-participants/social-inclusion-and-community-access-research#our-research-projects

• Tomsa, R., Gutu, S., Cojocaru, D., Gutiérrez-Bermejo, B., Flores, N., & Jenaro, C. (2021). Prevalence of Sexual Abuse in Adults with Intellectual Disability: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041980

• Watson, J., Anderson, J., Wilson, E., & Anderson, K. L. (2022). The impact of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) on Victorian guardianship practice. Disabil Rehabil, 44(12), 2806–2814. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1836680

• Watson, J., Jenkin, E., Anderson, K., O’Shea, A., Murfitt, K., David, J., & Dew, A. (2025). A human rights framing of the experiences of supporting people with intellectual disability in congregate care: Post-pandemic reflections. . Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 1–11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2025.2513336

• Watson, J., Voss, H., & Bloomer, M. J. (2019). Placing the Preferences of People with Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities At the Center of End-of-Life Decision Making Through Storytelling. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 44(4), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919879701

• Watson, J., Wilson, E., & Hagiliassis, N. (2017). Supporting end of life decision making: Case studies of relational closeness in supported decision making for people with severe or profound intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30(6), 1022–1034. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12393