From: Wayne Sullivan, CEO, Positive Throttle
Date: 9/07/2026
Dear Committee Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment / Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026.
I make this submission as the founder and CEO of Positive Throttle, an NDIS-aligned provider based in Echuca, Victoria. Positive Throttle delivers practical, relationship based supports focused on skill development, employment readiness, confidence, independence, transport, community participation and real-world capacity building.
I support the goal of ensuring the NDIS remains sustainable for future generations. The NDIS must be protected from waste, poor-quality services, misuse, and supports that do not genuinely improve participant outcomes. However, I am concerned that if the Bill is implemented without proper safeguards, it may lead to abrupt removal or reduction of supports for participants who still need structured assistance to maintain progress, independence, employment pathways and mental health.
Recent reporting indicates that the Bill is intended to tighten access, reassess eligibility, introduce clearer tests of functional capacity, consider mainstream and family supports, prevent automatic rollover of unspent funds, and strengthen scheme sustainability. I understand why these issues are being considered. However, reform must not become blunt cost-cutting that removes supports before alternative systems are available or before the participant has had a fair, evidence-based review.
- Practical capacity-building supports should be recognised as real work In my experience, the best disability support is not passive. It is not simply taking someone out for coffee, sitting beside them, and doing little more than filling hours.
Good support is active. It involves planning, observation, trust-building, skill development, communication, behaviour-aware mentoring, risk management, reflection, and ongoing adjustment to the participant’s goals and capacity.
At Positive Throttle, support is built around real tasks and real outcomes: work readiness, practical skills, confidence, independence, routine, emotional regulation, safe community access, and employment participation. This work can be especially important for participants who have struggled with conventional or office-based services.
One participant I have supported has recently progressed into employment after long term practical mentoring and consistent support. That outcome did not happen through a generic model. It happened through years of structured, interest-based, practical support, with real expectations, accountability and relationship.
The Bill should ensure that practical capacity-building supports are not undervalued simply because they do not look clinical or traditional. For some participants, practical mentoring and employment-readiness support may be the very thing that reduces long term dependence on the scheme.
- Participants should not be pushed off a funding cliff My major concern is that participants may have supports reduced or removed too abruptly.
If a participant has built trust with a provider, started engaging, and is making progress, sudden removal of support can create harm. It can cause regression, loss of confidence, isolation, disengagement, mental health decline, and increased pressure on families and informal supports.
The Bill should include clear safeguards requiring a planned transition or step-down process before supports are removed or significantly reduced.
A staged reduction is very different from a sudden cut-off. If the goal is to reduce reliance on the scheme, participants should be supported to build capacity and transition safely, not simply be removed from support because a budget target needs to be met.
I recommend that the Bill require decision-makers to consider:
whether the participant is currently making functional progress;
whether support removal may cause regression or harm;
whether a staged reduction plan has been considered;
whether mainstream services are actually available, accessible and suitable;
whether families or informal supports can realistically absorb the support gap;
and whether provider observations show that the participant still requires practical support.
- Functional assessment must include real-world evidence I understand the move toward clearer functional-capacity assessment. In principle, that can be positive. The NDIS should focus on function, not just diagnosis.
However, functional assessment must not become a desktop exercise. A participant’s true capacity is often only visible in real-world settings — in the workshop, in the community, during travel, when managing frustration, when dealing with instructions, when attempting work-like tasks, or when building confidence after repeated failure.
Registered or audit-assessed providers who work directly with participants often hold valuable evidence. Progress notes, risk observations, support records, and provider reports can show how a participant functions outside an appointment room.
The Bill should recognise that provider evidence can be relevant to planning, reassessment, and review decisions. It should not replace allied health evidence, but it should be considered where it shows functional impact, support needs, progress, risk, or regression.
- Employment-related support should be treated as an investment Employment-related supports should not be treated merely as another cost category.
When delivered properly, employment support can help a participant move toward independence, contribution, routine, self-worth and reduced reliance on long-term support. In many cases, employment-readiness work requires more than writing a resume or attending a job interview. It may involve confidence building, communication, personal presentation, emotional regulation, transport training, task persistence, workplace behaviour, and supported exposure to work-like environments.
If the Bill tightens access or reduces support categories without protecting employment-related capacity building, it may undermine one of the most important pathways out of long-term dependence.
I recommend the Bill include safeguards to protect practical employment-related supports where there is evidence the participant is building work readiness or maintaining employment capacity.
- Mainstream services must exist before NDIS supports are removed I understand the policy direction that the NDIS should not replace health, education, employment, housing or mainstream systems. That principle is reasonable.
However, a participant should not lose NDIS support based on the assumption that another system can assist them when that system is not actually available, suitable, accessible, or timely.
Recent reporting has raised concerns that state and territory systems may not be able to provide like-for-like services for people moved out of the NDIS. This is a serious risk. If NDIS supports are removed before mainstream systems are ready, participants and families may be left with nothing.
The Bill should require evidence that alternative supports are real and available, not theoretical.
- Certified and registered providers should not be treated as incidental
As a provider, I have invested heavily in governance, audit preparation, documentation, insurance, worker screening, policies, procedures, safety systems and quality standards. That process is not easy, especially for a sole operator or small provider.
If the government wants quality, accountable providers, then the system should recognise the value of evidence produced by providers who are doing the work properly.
Providers who document support, track outcomes, manage risk, and comply with practice standards should have a meaningful role in providing evidence during planning and review processes.
Otherwise, the system risks encouraging paperwork compliance while ignoring the people who are actually observing participant function and progress in the real world.
- Recommendations I respectfully recommend that the Committee consider amendments or safeguards to ensure the Bill:
requires staged transition planning before significant reduction or removal of supports;
requires consideration of harm, regression, disengagement and mental health impact before supports are removed;
recognises real-world provider observations and progress notes as relevant functional evidence;
protects practical capacity-building and employment-readiness supports where they are producing measurable progress;
requires evidence that mainstream or informal supports are genuinely available before NDIS-funded supports are withdrawn;
avoids blunt reductions to social participation, life skills and employment-related supports where those supports are preventing isolation, regression or crisis;
ensures participants are not removed from support simply because they have lower visible needs when those supports are helping them maintain function and independence.
Conclusion
I support a sustainable NDIS. I support stronger accountability, better evidence, and removal of poor-quality or wasteful services.
But sustainability should not be achieved by abruptly cutting practical supports that are helping participants build confidence, independence, employment readiness and community connection.
The NDIS was built on the idea that people with disability should have the support they need to live with dignity, choice, participation and opportunity. Reform should protect that principle, not weaken it.
The Bill should make sure participants are not pushed off a funding cliff without proper evidence, transition planning and consideration of real-world impact.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Kind regards,