Impacts on people with an intellectual disability and their families (DRO advocacy)

Submission 401

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission to the Community Affairs Legislation

Committee

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au    Page 1

Submission 401

About Inclusion Australia ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

Summary recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 Recommendation 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Recommendation 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Recommendation 3 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Recommendation 4 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 Recommendation 5……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

Overview ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 A note on accessibility ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

What people with an intellectual disability told us about the proposed changes ……………………………………. 7

Support determinations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 Broad powers to reduce essential supports …………………………………………………………………………………………10 Impacts on people with an intellectual disability and their families ……………………………………………………….10 Disproportionate impacts on people living in Supported Independent Living (SIL) and concerns with the Government’s plan utilisation assumptions …………………………………………………………………………………………. 12 Risks associated with congregated and group-based supports ……………………………………………………………. 12 Inconsistency with findings and recommendations of the Disability Royal Commission …………………………. 13

Case studies demonstrating impact of cuts to SCCP ……………………………………………………………………….. 15 1 - Peter …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 2 - James ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 Functional capacity …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17

Permanence test ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18

Plan renewal ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20

Reasonable and necessary supports ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 21

Registration ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23

End notes …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au    Page 2

Submission 401

About Inclusion Australia

Inclusion Australia (IA) is the national peak organisation representing the rights and interests of Australians with an intellectual disability and their families. Founded more than 70 years ago in 1954, our mission is to work with people with an intellectual disability, their families and our members to make positive change.

Our strength is in our national representation and our connection to our community. We have a member organisation in every state and territory across Australia:

ACT Down Syndrome and Intellectual Disability (ACT DSID)
Council for Intellectual Disability (NSW)
Developmental Disability WA (DDWA)
Inclusion Northern Territory (Inclusion NT)
Parent to Parent (P2P, Queensland)
South Australian Council on Intellectual Disability (SACID)
Speak Out Advocacy (Tasmania)
Victorian Advocacy League for Individuals with Disability (VALID). Our governance is supported by Our Voice, an official subcommittee of our Board comprised of people with an intellectual disability. Our work is further guided by our Policy Reference Group, also led and comprised of people with an intellectual disability across Australia. The Policy Reference Group members come from diverse backgrounds, including First Nations people, people from multicultural communities, and LGBTIQA+ people. They bring combined decades of experience in advocacy and direct experience of many government services and reform processes. Additionally, more than half of our internal team are people with an intellectual disability or family members, embedding lived experience across all aspects of our work.

Inclusion Australia acknowledges the Traditional Owners of Country on which this submission was written and throughout Australia. We recognise their continuing connections to land, waters and skies and pay our respects to Elders past and present.

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au    Page 3

Submission 401

Summary recommendations

Recommendation 1 We recommend the Bill not be passed in its current form. We urge the Community Affairs Legislation Committee to recommend that the Senate extend the inquiry timeframe to ensure the disability community – including people with an intellectual disability and their families – have a genuine opportunity to engage with and respond to the proposed amendments.

Recommendation 2 Far-reaching Ministerial powers should not be delegated to determinations and must be scrutinised thoroughly by the Parliament in primary legislation rather than being left to the Minister. We are deeply skeptical that any such power for the minister could be appropriate, but operating without strict time limits on any order, a thorough process of independent auditing and consultation before orders are made, or without duties on the minister to assess the very significant impact such powers will have on human rights makes the risk of harm extremely high.

Recommendation 3 The definition of functional capacity should actively consider a person’s environment and the support they already receive or accommodations that are already in place. There should also be a manifest eligibility pathway to ensure that people already receiving support through the NDIS have a more straightforward path to getting assessed rather than trying to assess them in a vacuum.

Recommendation 4 Prohibit the use of restrictive practice as a potential ‘treatment’ when determining the permeance of an impairment. The threshold for treatments should also be limited to only those treatments that could ameliorate a person’s disability to the extent that they no longer experience a substantial reduction in their functional capacity - not just anything that could improve the impact of their disability a small amount.

Recommendation 5 Include a provision in section 48A allowing the ability to trigger plan reassessments when a person wishes to undertake a signficant life event.

Recommendation 6 Proposed subsection 33(2EA) should be replaced with an individual assessment of other available services in this area, incentivising local service delivery outside the Scheme while ensuring people still have choice about how they receive support. The government should also restore improvements made in the last substantial NDIS amendment which assessed people as a whole person, including the impact of multiple disabilities (if applicable), their environment and their living arrangements. Recommendation 7

Self-directed supports and services-for-one arrangements — including where restrictive practices or behaviour support plans are in place — must not be captured within the initial implementation stage of mandatory registration for high-risk supports. Premature inclusion of these arrangements within mandatory registration requirements risks significant unintended consequences, especially for people who are more likely to have experience violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation in group-based supports and are now supported in bespoke, highly individualised arrangements.

No mandatory registration requirements should apply to these arrangements until there has been detailed co-design with people with disability, families and representative organisations – including families who run a service-for-one – alongside transparent consultation regarding regulatory impacts, safeguarding outcomes and market consequences.

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au    Page 4

Submission 401

Overview

Inclusion Australia supports the intent of the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the Bill) to enable reforms intended to ensure the sustainability of the scheme and strengthen planning, safeguarding and regulatory oversight. This is crucial for many people with an intellectual disability and their families – who the Disability Royal Commission showed disproportionately experience violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.1

The NDIS is key to Australia’s efforts to meet our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and we are committed to working with Parliamentarians to ensure changes are fit-for-purpose – including in relation to overall Scheme sustainability - and do not leave people with an intellectual disability and their families worse off.

However, this Bill introduces a number of extraordinarily broad Ministerial powers with limited safeguards, oversight or accountability mechanisms. In particular, the proposed amendments would allow significant decisions affecting access to supports through legislative instrument with limited transparency, consultation requirements, review rights or ordinary sunsetting requirements.

We are deeply concerned by the concentration of discretionary powers of this scale, particularly where they would result in people with an intellectual disability and families bearing the consequences of sustainability measures without adequate protections, independent scrutiny or oversight.

We are calling on Government to introduce urgent amendments to the Bill and policy approach where appropriate that:

Ensure that any definition of functional capacity is consistent with international standardised tools, such as WHO-ICF, and best-practice as defined by contemporary research literature
Ensure people assessed as requiring reasonable and necessary supports can access sufficient funding to obtain those supports according to their level of need
Preserve transparency and accountability through appropriate review rights where decisions have a material and individual impact on the person and their family, regardless of whether those decisions are mandatory, automated or enabled by operation of legislation alone
Do not increase reliance on group-based supports or unsustainable informal support arrangements as a consequence of Ministerial powers, funding limitations, or market settings
Ensure that self-directed supports – including services-for-one – are not included in the initial planned rollout of mandatory registration of high-risk supports, and instead are meaningfully included in the design of the Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce’s recommended model
Ensure consistency with the findings and recommendations of the Disability Royal Commission, particularly in relation to safety, inclusion, community participation and freedom from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.

We recognise the Bill is highly complex and that many of the proposed amendments would have far reaching impacts for people with disability, families and the broader disability support ecosystem. We stand united with other Disability Representative Organisations (DROs) in calling for genuine scrutiny from the Senate and direct, meaningful engagement with the disability community.

While a range of issues warrant careful consideration, this submission focuses on the priority concerns for people with an intellectual disability and their families.

A note on accessibility We are deeply concerned by the inadequate and inaccessible consultation process accompanying the Bill. Despite the proposed reforms carrying significant and far-reaching implications for people with an intellectual disability, Easy Read materials were not provided on the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing website until Thursday 21 May, leaving only 7 business days for people with an intellectual disability to access and understand the proposed changes, seek support to interpret the material, and take part in the consultation.

This narrow timeframe and lack of accessible materials is insufficient and does not constitute direct, genuine consultation as it has effectively excluded an entire community of people with disability who rely on accessible information.

While we and our member organisations around Australia are undertaking engagement with people with an intellectual disability and families to gather community views and recommendations, this has been significantly limited by the

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au    Page 5

Submission 401

lack of accessible information provided in a timely way in the context of an already narrow consultation period.

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au    Page 6

Submission 401

What people with an intellectual disability told us about the proposed changes In discussions with Inclusion Australia Policy Officers with an intellectual disability about the proposed changes to the NDIS, Social and Community Participation (SCCP) supports were described as closely connected to inclusion, safety, wellbeing, friendship and participation in community life. People with an intellectual disability spoke about SCCP supports as structured supports that assist people to maintain relationships, take part in ordinary community life, build confidence and reduce isolation.

People also discussed SCCP in relation to safety, wellbeing and human rights. Concerns were raised that reductions to community participation supports could leave people isolated, unsafe or unable to take part in everyday community life at all. One person said:

“Peoplewillbedisadvantagedandnotabletobefullypartofcommunity.”

They also described concerns about safety where people require support to access the community:

“Theyalsowillnotbeabletobefullysafeiftheyneedtogooutintothecommunitywithsupport…and theylosethatsupportbecauseit’snotfunded.”

The discussion highlighted concerns that mainstream community settings are not always equipped to provide disability support in the absence of funded support workers. One person explained:

“Thecommunityorganisationsarenotsetup…tohavepeoplewithdisabilities…thestaffwillhavetobe retrainedindisabilityorhaveemployeesthatareemployedspecificallyforsupportingpeoplewith disabilities…that’sgoingtotakealongtime.”

People also reflected on fears that reductions to SCCP could increase isolation and reduce participation in ordinary community activities. One person commented:

“Wedonotwanttogobacktowherepeoplewithdisabilitiesarehiddenaway.Wewanttobefreetobe partofourcommunityandsociety…Peoplearescaredthatifthisgoesaheadtheywon’tbeabletodo that.Theywon’tbeabletogoouttoshops.Theywon’tbeabletogoandvisitfriends.”

Another Policy Officer said:

“Beingabletoparticipate…that’sahumanright.”

People also spoke about the relationship between social isolation, mental health and wellbeing. One person reflected that reductions to SCCP could lead to more social isolation and said:

“You’regoingtogetmentalhealthproblems…it’sgoingtoputmorepressureonthehealthsystemfor peoplewithdisabilities.”

Policy Officers also spoke about the importance of structured social activities following school, particularly where friendships and social connection had become harder to maintain. One person explained:

“Ihaven’thadmanyfriendshipssinceIlefthighschool.SosinceI’vebeenjoining[thesocialgroup],Iget somemorefriendshipsandgettingalotmorefriends.”

Another reflected on the transition out of school and the loss of connection that can occur:

“Everyonewasleavingandpeopledidn’thaveoldpeople’snumbersoranythinglikethat.”

People discussed how structured social activities can provide opportunities to build and maintain relationships at a time when many other social pathways may be less accessible, especially post-school. For example, many people with an intellectual disability do not access the same post-school pathways as peers without disability, including tertiary education, mainstream employment or broader social networks where people without disability more commonly find and build social connections, currency and opportunity.

One person described their SCCP supports as involving organised social activities across the week, including outings, movies, sport and community events:

“Monday,Tuesday,Thursday,andaSunday,theyhavethingsonthosedays.IkindofthinkofwhichonesI wanttogoto…Thewholepointofitissocialconnection…findingfriends.”

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au    Page 7

Submission 401

Policy Officers repeatedly described the importance of structured and trusted environments for social connection. One person explained:

“Somepeopledon’twanttoreachoutandactuallysendpeopletheirphonenumberorFacebookaccount.

Somepeoplejustwanttomeetatthesocialeventsandjustbefriendshipsthere.”

This also reflects the fact that people with disability, including people with an intellectual disability, are more likely to be the victims of scams or fraud, as recent findings from the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed.2

Another person reflected on the broader difficulties some people with intellectual disability experience in making and maintaining friendships:

“Somepeoplefeelabitisolated.”

Concerns were also raised about assumptions that people can replace funded supports with informal supports. One person stated:

“Youcan’tforcepeopletobefriendswithyou.Youcan’tforcepeopletobethereasanunpaidsupport.”

Another explained the importance of paid supports where informal supports are limited:

“TheonlysupportIhaveispaidsupport…ifIdidn’thavethefunding,I’dbestuffed.”

People also discussed the role structured supports play in enabling safe participation in the community. Some described requiring support to attend events, travel safely,3 navigate unfamiliar environments or participate confidently in social settings. One person described how structured supports create predictability and safety:

“Yougettothetrainstation,theypickyouup…thenyougototheevent,thentheytakeyouhome.”

Another person described how, without support, participation in unfamiliar community settings could become difficult:

“Itwouldbehardformetogooutintothecommunitysomewherethatisunfamiliar…Iwouldn’tfeel safe.”

This is consistent with findings from both the Disability Royal Commission and research on “everyday harm”.4 People with disability frequently experience harm through everyday interactions where they are ignored, excluded, spoken about rather than spoken with, or have their choices overlooked. While these experiences may appear minor in isolation, research shows they can build up over time and have a significant impact on a person’s wellbeing, trust, confidence and sense of safety when participating in community life.

People also raised concerns that reductions to SCCP supports could result in people withdrawing from community participation altogether. When asked how they would feel if their regular social participation support stopped, one person said:

“Ifeeldepressedandlonelyanddon’twanttogooutwithanyoneelseafterthat…Ifeelthere’snosense ofbelonginganymore.”

People with an intellectual disability also experience substantially higher rates of mental health conditions and significantly lower rates of preventative healthcare compared with the general population.1 At the same time, there is a lack of recognition in current mental health and disability policy that people with intellectual disability as a group are at high risk of experiencing mental ill-health.2

As a result, people with an intellectual disability who experience mental ill-health face major barriers in access to mental health services and treatments, compounded by what researchers have called an “impoverished service system” characterised by poor cross-sector coordination and a lack of preparedness of staff to meet individual’s support needs.3

Additionally, diagnostic overshadowing is a significant barrier for people with an intellectual disability to receive appropriate support for mental ill-health. This is the tendency for medical practitioners to consider expressions of pain (including psychological pain) as ‘behaviour’ or attributable to a disability diagnosis, rather than a clinical issue requiring diagnosis, treatment and ongoing support.4

These discussions highlighted the significant role SCCP supports can play for people with intellectual disability in maintaining social connection, participating in community life, accessing trusted supports and building a sense of belonging. The discussions also demonstrated that, for many people, these supports provide structure, routine and continuity at times when other pathways to community participation may be

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au    Page 8

Submission 401

limited or inaccessible. People spoke about SCCP supports as assisting them to maintain friendships, participate in ordinary community activities, access opportunities safely and remain connected to their local communities.

The discussions further highlighted concerns that reductions to these supports may increase social isolation, reduce participation in community life and place greater pressure on informal supports that may already be limited or unavailable. We discuss the impacts that many aspects of the proposed NDIS Bill would have on families and informal supports on page 19 of this submission.

People also spoke about the relationship between social participation, wellbeing, confidence and safety, particularly where structured supports assist people to participate in the community in ways that are reliable, familiar and trusted.

These concerns have important implications for mental health and wellbeing. Social connection, meaningful participation and a sense of belonging are recognised protective factors for mental health, yet people with intellectual disability already experience disproportionately high rates of mental ill-health and significant barriers to accessing appropriate support. Reductions in SCCP supports risk removing key sources of connection, routine, confidence and trusted relationships that help sustain wellbeing. For some people, this may result in increased social isolation, anxiety, loneliness and psychological distress, while also reducing opportunities for early identification of emerging mental health concerns. In this context, changes to SCCP supports have the potential to compound existing mental health inequities experienced by people with intellectual disability.

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au    Page 9

Submission 401

Support determinations Building on the discussions with Policy Officers with an intellectual disability detailed above, we have significant concerns regarding the proposed support determinations under section 34A, which would empower the Minister to reduce funding across entire categories of NDIS supports for the stated purpose of Scheme sustainability, beginning with SCCP and Capacity Building supports. These act as a system wide reductions – occuring even when support has already been individually assessed as reasonable and necessary.

This initial power will apply to ’old framework plans’ and are expected to take effect immediately if the Bill passes. Similar powers for the Minister to cut, cap, and limit the frequency of supports also exist for new framework plans at section 32K(3B).

Broad powers to reduce essential supports While current public discussion has focused primarily on SCCP and Capacity Building supports – since we know this is where Government is planning on initiating 50% and 10% reductions respectively – the proposed powers are not confined to those categories. The breadth of the drafting would enable reductions to any category of NDIS support through Ministerial determination. This creates significant uncertainty for participants and families, particularly given the absence of clear statutory limits on the scope of supports that may be subject to future reductions.

These powers are extraordinarily broad and are accompanied by limited safeguards, oversight or accountability mechanisms. While the Minister is required to “have regard to participant safety”, the Bill does not establish any minimum safety threshold, consultation requirements, evidentiary standards, independent oversight mechanisms, or merits review rights for people affected by these determinations. The proposed legislative instrument would also be exempt from sunsetting requirements, allowing potentially enduring reductions to support categories without ongoing parliamentary reconsideration.

These provisions would enable the Minister to reduce supports that are fundamental to maintaining stability, inclusion, health and safety for people with an intellectual disability and their families, while providing no clear mechanism to determine what level of reduction is safe, appropriate or evidence based. Right now, supports outside the NDIS – what the NDIS Review called Foundational Supports – do not exist, and there is deep uncertainty about how these will be developed and when they will be available for people who may lose access to supports or eligibility to the NDIS, and for those who would never have been eligible for the Scheme.

Impacts on people with an intellectual disability and their families The proposed reductions to SCCP supports are of particular concern for people with an intellectual disability and their families. It is well-evidenced in research literature and through the findings of the Disability Royal Commission that supports that promote and sustain community access on an equal basis with others are preventative safeguards. They reduce social isolation, maintain wellbeing, strengthen informal and community relationships, and prevent escalation into crisis, restrictive practices, and contact with acute and costly systems such as hospitals or justice settings.

It was also established by the Disability Royal Commission that experiences of violence, abuse, neglect, and exploitation are frequently and disproportionately experienced by people with disability – meaning that people with an intellectual disability are already more likely to experience violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. There is also evidence that those experiences are more likely to (though do not solely) take place in segregated settings, separate from the community.iii

We also know that people with certain disability types are more likely than others to experience life in such settings. That cohort is predominately people with cognitive impairment,iv including people with an intellectual disability. This is even more likely for people with complex needs, including those with high communication support needs.v These outcomes are illustrated in the below infographic.

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 10

Submission 401

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 11

Submission 401

SCCP supports are often cumulative and relational in nature, meaning their value cannot be adequately measured solely through immediate functional outcomes or short-term budget impacts. For example, many people with an intellectual disability use SCCP supports as part of their pathway to economic participation. Many supported employment providers, social enterprises, and NDIS providers delivering employment-related supports outside the Inclusive Employment Australia program rely, in practice, on SCCP funding within people’s plans to support participation in employment pathways, including discovery, work experience, volunteering, transport, community-based skill development and other forms of vocational engagement. Reductions to SCCP funding will therefore have consequential impacts on employment participation and economic inclusion for people with an intellectual disability.

Disproportionate impacts on people living in Supported Independent Living (SIL) and concerns with the Government’s plan utilisation assumptions The Government’s own Impact Analysis explicitly acknowledges that these proposed reductions would disproportionately affect people with an intellectual disability, Down syndrome and psychosocial disability, as well as people living in Supported Independent Living (SIL), 99 per cent of whom currently receive SCCP funding.

The Government’s assertion that a 50% reduction in SCCP budgets would not result in a corresponding reduction in supports because many participants do not fully utilise their budgets, in our view, significantly understates the practical impact these reductions would have. The utilisation figures cited by Government are comparatively high – particularly for people living in SIL, where average utilisation is reportedly 80%.5 This indicates that SCCP supports are already being used at substantial levels and are closely connected to people’s day-to-day routines and support needs.

Importantly, underutilisation within the NDIS does not necessarily indicate that supports are unnecessary or excess to need. Utilisation rates may be affected by workforce shortages, provider availability, cancellations, service gaps, participant illness, transport barriers, difficulties sourcing culturally appropriate or disability-specific supports, and broader market failure – issues that have been widely documented across the Scheme, most recently by the NDIS Review.6 For many people on the Scheme, particularly people with an intellectual disability and people living in SIL, SCCP funding represents capacity that is needed even where it cannot always be consistently accessed – through no fault of individual NDIS participants.

Further, even on the Government’s own figures, an 80% utilisation rate means that a person using the large majority of their SCCP funding would still experience a very substantial reduction in practical support following a 50% cut to their budget allocation. For example, based on the Government’s stated average annual SCCP budget for people living in SIL ($84,030) and the reported utilisation rate of 80%, the average person living in SIL is currently using approximately $67,224 worth of SCCP supports annually. A 50% reduction would reduce the available SCCP budget to approximately $42,015, which is a reduction of more than $25,000 in supports currently being used each year.

Further, the Government’s analysis does not appear to consider the effect of inflation and increasing support costs on the purchasing power of participant budgets. A budget that was sufficient to meet a participant’s needs several years ago may now purchase substantially fewer hours of support. This means that even participants who have not fully utilised their allocated funding may nevertheless require their existing budget to maintain current levels of support. Against this backdrop, a 50% reduction in SCCP funding would represent not only a nominal reduction in funding, but a substantial reduction in the actual supports and community participation opportunities available to participants.

For many people in SIL, SCCP funding is the primary mechanism through which they access community life outside the home, maintain social relationships, attend activities, participate in employment or volunteering, and avoid extended periods of isolation within congregate living environments. As a result, reductions to SCCP funding are likely to have a more concentrated and disproportionate effect on people living in SIL than on many other groups.

Risks associated with congregated and group-based supports Despite this, the Impact Analysis asserts that participants may instead access supports “at a lower frequency” or through “shared/group supports which are charged at lower rates and provide greater opportunities for connection.”7

While group-based supports may be valuable and important where they are genuinely chosen by the person out of a range of

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 12

Submission 401

viable options with access to supported decision-making, we are deeply concerned that funding reductions of this scale would push many people toward congregated or shared models of support out of financial necessity rather than genuine choice. This is particularly concerning given the extensive evidence before the Disability Royal Commission regarding the heighted risks of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation experienced by people with disability in segregated, congregated or social isolated settings.

Inconsistency with findings and recommendations of the Disability Royal

Commission

Through the thousands of testimonies of evidence given at public hearings, private sessions, community engagements, in submissions, and through its robust research program, the Disability Royal Commission showed that inclusion is most evident where:

Anindividualismadewelcome,wheretheyfeelwelcome,wheretheyknowtheybelong,wherethey

knowtheyaresafe,andwheretheirvoiceisheardandactedupon…itiswherepeopleliveinclose personalrelationshipswithothers,wheretheyhavefriendsandadvocatesandwheretheyarefree toexpresstheirphilosophical/religiousbeliefs,sexualandculturalidentities,thatpeoplecanlivea qualitylifefreefromviolence,abuse,neglectandexploitation.8

A significant research report commissioned by the Disability Royal Commission addressing outcomes associated with ‘inclusive’, ‘segregated’ and ‘integrated’ settings for people with disability notes that access to inclusive settings alongside people with and without disability in the context of freely entered, unpaid relationships “… situate people with disability in authentic and meaningful reciprocal relationships with others. These significant others may extend to people with disability relationships that provide safeguards to counter the risk of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation and, where instances occur, to provide advocacy to seek redress.”9

The Disability Royal Commission repeatedly identified social isolation, segregation and exclusion from community life as key drivers of vulnerability to violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. Commissioners described social isolation and exclusion from the wider community as “forms of abuse and neglect”10 in and of themselves, and emphasised the critical importance of inclusion, community connection and independent relationships as safeguards against harm.

Considering this, it is deeply concerning that the proposed reforms would create a mechanism for broad reductions to the very supports that enable people with intellectual disability to remain connected, visible and included in their communities. There is a stark policy contradiction between Government’s stated commitment to implementing the vision and findings of the Disability Royal Commission, and legislative proposals that may increase reliance on congregated supports, reduce community participation, and weaken critical safeguards against abuse and neglect.

We are also concerned by the Impact Analysis’ assertion that reductions to SCCP supports “do not impact health and safety” in the same way as personal care or daily living supports. This framing fundamentally fails to recognise the protective role that social connection, community participation, trusted relationships and informal support networks play in maintaining safety, mental health, physical wellbeing and quality of life for people with intellectual disability.

It is also inconsistent with contemporary understandings of the social determinants of health, which recognise that health outcomes are profoundly shaped by the social and environmental conditions in which people live, including social inclusion, community participation, relationships, employment, housing stability and access to support.11 The World Health Organisation describes the social determinants of health as “the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live and age”12 and recognises that social exclusion and limited participation can contribute to poorer health outcomes and widening health inequities. Supports that enable people with an intellectual disability to remain connected to community life, maintain relationships, take part in ordinary community life, increase visibility and avoid isolation are therefore closely connected to both health and safety outcomes, even where they are not classified as clinical or personal care supports.

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 13

Submission 401

limits on any order, a thorough process of independent auditing and consultation before orders are made, or without duties on the minister to assess the very significant impact such powers will have on human rights makes the risk of harm extremely high.

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 14

Submission 401

Case studies demonstrating impact of cuts to SCCP

1 - Peter Peter1 is a 60-year-old man who lived a large part of his life in a state-run institutional setting. He has spent the last 20 years in a four-bedroom group home in a regional area. He had no influence in choosing the group home and many people have moved in and out over the last 20 years. Peter has an intellectual disability, communication support needs and mobility issues. He has a few family members who live several hours away but they are not involved in his life.

Before the NDIS, Peter attended a local day centre, along with his housemates, that had 30 – 40 people attending, mostly older people with early stages of dementia. Staff struggled to understand him, and he was generally left alone as they were busy with supporting people with dementia. As a result, he became very frustrated, socially isolated and disengaged, spending most of his time waiting to go home and eating. He put on a great deal of weight and his mobility reduced significantly. His mental health declined, and he often refused to go to the day center, choosing to remain at home, in his room.

His current situation is much more positive. Peter still lives in the group home with 3 other people, but he has 1:1 Social, Civic and Community Participation (SCCP) funding several days per week. He uses this time to access his local community and with support and encouragement from his skilled support workers, he has developed meaningful and reciprocal friendships. He attends the local men’s shed and has learnt many new skills and regained a real sense of purpose. He also engages with the local community house – joining in various activities like cooking with friends, gardening and music. He has taken part in fundraising activities and is a valued member of this community. These activities are only possible with 1:1 support via SCCP in his plan. Support workers play an essential safeguarding role by facilitating communication and relationship building and supporting his mobility ensuring he can fully participate safely, be understood and maintain his dignity and autonomy.

On the days Peter does not have 1:1 funding, he and his fellow house mates either stay home or with some creative rostering and budgeting, go out with support workers for a drive, attend medical appointments or run errands. As mentioned above, he has had no choice in who he lives with and currently does not have positive relationships with his fellow housemates. This means that the only time he gets a break from the people he lives with are his 1:1 days. If his funding for SCCP is reduced by 50%, along with any SCCP funding his housemates get, he will only have 1 day where he can be supported on his own to go out into his local community and the impact will be devasting to him. It will be impossible to maintain the friendships and connections he has made. It will also mean he will be spending more time at home – most likely in his room, watching TV and eating. It is likely he will put on weight, his mobility will reduce further, and his mental health will be impacted. The outcomes represent not only a loss of quality of life but a heightened risk of neglect, regression and long-term harm. This is also likely to mean greater reliance on healthcare systems, and therefore a greater cost to those more acute systems. When this occurred in the past, as his mental health declines, his decision making around healthy and safe food choices is negatively impacted and his risk around swallowing increases.

It is also highly likely he will experience unauthorised restrictive practices, often implemented by well intentioned staff attempting to limit his food intake, prevent him from eating unsafe foods that may increase his risk of swallowing difficulties or reduce his engagement of passive activities such as watching TV. These types of interventions are likely to trigger distressed or aggressive responses from Peter, which may then lead to the development of a behaviour support plan for him. This plan is very likely to contain authorised restrictive practices, which will become part of his everyday life.

Maintaining his current level of SCCP funding is essential from a quality of life and safeguarding perspective. It ensures Peter is protected from social isolation, supports his physical and mental health and enables him to remain an active, valued member of his community. Without this level of support, the risk of significant and preventable decline is immediate and substantial.

2 - James James is a 35-year-old man who loves music and his local beach. He lives on his own and is supported by a small team of support workers who have worked with James for several years. His parents have advocated strongly for him over the course of his life, and they feel they can finally step back from a hands on carer role into the role of ‘parent of an adult’, now that he has a good life. James lives in a small robust SDA unit in a regional town and receives supported independent living (SIL) funding & Social Community &

Civic Participation

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 15

Submission 401

(SCCP) to assist him with all aspects of his life. James has an intellectual disability, autism and communication support needs. He lives his best life when his routines are followed and can experience self-harm and harm to others when they are not.

James’ routine involves walking along his local beach, interacting with several local fishermen, getting a drink and a snack from the local café, volunteering at an animal shelter and delivering sales catalogs in his neighborhood.

Before James moved into his current unit, he lived with two housemates who had similar support needs. They shared support and usually there was always two support workers available. James had a comprehensive behaviour support plan that included a raft of authorised restrictive practices including medication (chemical restraint) and a heavy-duty harness that he was required to wear when outside of his home due to risk of leaving support and road safety, self-harm or harm to others. James experiences further restrictive practices (looked doors, cupboards, fridge etc.) due to his housemates’ behaviour support plans.

James did not like the harness and associated leaving his house with it, so he was reluctant to leave his house. He also did not enjoy spending time with his housemates and so retreated to the safety and isolation of his small bedroom. Through continual advocacy from his parents and a funded advocacy service, he was able to move into his own robust SDA and had 1:1 funded SIL support and 2:1 SCCP when he was out in the community.

James and his support team worked closely with his behaviour support practitioner to eliminate the use of the harness and to introduce a second staff member. This proved very effective, and the provider reported there had been a significant reduction in incidents involving leaving support, self-harm and harm to others.

A reduction of his SCCP funding would ultimately lead to the use of the harness again as there would not be enough funding to have two support workers and it would be unsafe for James and the community if this was to occur. This would lead to James retreating to the safety of his unit and he would be very reluctant to leave. He would most likely be exposed to further restrictive practices including chemical restraint for those times when he would need to access the community.

Life would get smaller for James, and he would disappear quietly out of his local community and the hard fought relationships would also dwindle. These relationships are one of the few safeguards in his life and aside from his elderly parents, the only people left in his life would be paid to be there.

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 16

Submission 401

Functional capacity

We have concerns about the proposed definition in section 9B(1), which defines functional capacity as a person’s ability to undertake an activity “in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.”13

We acknowledge there is a policy intent from Government to assess environmental and personal circumstances separately through the support needs assessment process under New Framework Planning. However, functional capacity assessments will determine Scheme eligibility before a person reaches that process, creating a significant risk that important contextual factors relevant to access decisions are excluded at the outset.

Contemporary disability assessment frameworks, including the World Health Organisation International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (WHO ICF), recognise that functioning is shaped by the interaction between impairment, supports and environmental factors. This was also explicitly recognised in the NDIA’s 2020 Independent Assessments Framework proposal.14

For example, a person with an intellectual disability – including people who do not have a formal diagnosis but have significant support needs – may communicate, self-regulate, travel safely, or participate in the community in ways that vary significantly depending on a range of environmental factors, including support relationships, sensory input or unpredictable changes to routine. Assessing functional capacity in a context that excludes these factors risks producing an inaccurate measure of functioning that may not accurately reflect a person’s day-to-day capacity or support needs for the purpose of determining Scheme eligibility.

We are concerned that the proposed definition appears inconsistent with the WHO ICF’s underlying conceptualisation of functioning and disability. The AIHW’s ICF Australian User Guide states that “a person’s functioning or disability is conceived as a dynamic interaction between health conditions and environmental and personal factors”15 and identifies the recognition of environmental factors as “fundamental to functioning and disability.”16 The ICF further recognises that environmental factors may operate as either barriers or facilitators to functioning, including through social relationships, services, supports, routines, attitudes and the broader physical and social environment.

The ICF does not conceptualise functioning as something that can be meaningfully separated from environmental context “as far as possible”. Rather, it conceptualises functioning and disability as inherently relational and context-dependent. The AIHW materials repeatedly describe participation and functioning as occurring within “the actual context in which people live”, including the physical, social and attitudinal environment.

We are concerned that the proposed definition may create a higher threshold for entry to the Scheme for some people with an intellectual disability. People may appear to demonstrate greater functional capacity within a controlled or assessment-based context than they are able to sustain safely and consistently in everyday life. This creates a risk that people with substantial support needs may be found ineligible for the NDIS because the assessment framework does not adequately capture how disability is experienced in real-world settings. For people with an intellectual disability, whose support needs are often highly dependent on routine, familiarity and access to supported decision-making, excluding environmental and personal circumstances from the assessment of functional capacity may result in assessments that do not accurately reflect the level of support required to live an ordinary life.

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 17

Submission 401

Permanence test Another change to accessing the NDIS proposed by this Bill is an increase to the threshold required to show a disability is permanent. The Bill overturns a Federal Court case from 2022 in which the Court held that permanence had to incorporate the reasonableness of obtaining treatment, including whether any treatment is accessible or affordable for the person applying.17 We are concerned that the removal of this principle will make it unduly difficult for people to access support at all when they cannot afford treatment or live in a rural or remote area.

In overturning this precedent, however, the Bill goes also goes a step further. At section 24(5) it says that a person must demonstrate that there are no treatments that could ‘materially improve, reverse, or alleviate the impact’ of their impairment.

This is a very low bar. While not further defined in the legislation we believe the use of ‘materially’ is likely to include any treatment that produces a noticeable impact, even if restrictive or otherwise harmful, to their functional capacity.

This would require people applying to the scheme to attempt all treatments that could produce even a small ’gain’ in functional capacity. There are no restrictions on the type of treatments that could be asked of someone – the Bill asks for the assessment of ‘all other treatments’. We are concerned that this wide window for potential ‘treatment’ will cause the increased use of psychotropic medication – chemical restraint – and other restrictive practices for people with intellectual disability. By establishing such a low bar for treatment it is entirely compatible with the Bill that people and families are first asked to for example, use of chemical restraint in response to behaviors of concern as a ‘treatment’ to reduce the occurrence of these behaviors instead of providing a more comprehensive support approach to help build appropriate responses through the NDIS.

From the perspective of this Bill, if the use of chemical restraint reduced the frequency of behaviors significantly enough (despite causing immense harm in the process) that person could be screened from accessing the NDIS and receiving support at all.

We know that people with intellectual disability are prescribed chemical restraints at distressingly high levels. The wide use of these and other restrictive practices strip people with disability of dignity and are at odds with Australia’s human rights obligations through the UNCRPD and the Optional Protocol on the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degreading treatment or punishment (OPCAT).18 The use of restrictive practice was the subject of a dedicated hearing at the Disability Royal Commission. Evidence from the Commission showed that people with an intellectual disability, especially people with complex support needs, are among the most likely to experience restrictive practices, especially chemical restraint.19

Research indicates that restrictive practices are routinely used in group homes, 20 and the Disability Royal Commission heard that their use in group homes is increasing.21 Restrictive practices may also be used in the community, such as in day programs or other disability service settings.

In an extensive research report commissioned by the Disability Royal Commission, it was found that:

Theresearchliteratureisunequivocal:peoplewithdisabilityaresubjecttothegreatestuseof

restrictivepracticeinsegregatedandcongregatedcontextswherepeoplewithdisabilityare clusteredtogether.22

The report suggested that the lack of choice and autonomy that people with disability have within these settings is a distinguishing factor that contributes to the increased use of restrictive practices. We also know that people with an intellectual disability are more likely than other people to experience such settings.23 While there was a dearth of recommendations or discussion related to behaviour support in the Disability Royal Commission’s Final Report, there was significant evidence about the need and prerequisites of good quality behaviour support heard across a range of the Disability Royal Commission’s hearings, submissions and research program, including:

Public hearing 6—psychotropic medication, behaviour support and behaviours of concern
Safeguards and Quality Issues Paper
Restrictive Practices Issues Paper policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 18

Submission 401

The University of Melbourne, University of Technology Sydney, and the University of Sydney: Restrictive practices: a pathway to elimination, a research report commissioned by the Disability Royal Commission.

However, the NDIS Review recommended government should “reinvigorate efforts to urgently drive reduction and elimination in the use of restrictive practices”, including that:

All Australian governments should agree a joint action plan for meaningful collaboration and a stronger focus on corrective actions against providers to reduce and eliminate restrictive practices, and review interventions and practices that may be harmful;
The new National Disability Supports Quality and Safeguards Commission (the Commission) should work with practitioners and providers to improve the quality of behaviour support plans, enhance quality of life for participants and eliminate poor provider practices; and
The Commission should work with states and territories to better support providers to deliver on their role in reducing and eliminating restrictive practices.24

Noting this, as well as the evidence from the Disability Royal Commission, we are deeply concerned that this legislation may act as a further funnel towards the use of restrictive practice (and particularly psychotropic chemical restraint) instead of providing the support necessary to abolish its use entirely.

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 19

Submission 401

Plan renewal The proposed plan renewal framework would change how plans continue over time under the current legislative framework, ensuring people automatically receive a new 12-month plan at the expiry of their existing plan through a new section: section 50A. The removal of rollover funding represents a significant shift for people with an intellectual disability and families who manage supports flexibly across fluctuating periods of need, workforce shortages, hospitalisation, periods of dysregulation, transitions in housing or service disruption.

The interaction between plan renewals and support determinations is particularly significant. The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that renewed plans may automatically incorporate funding reductions imposed through Ministerial determinations under Part 4. This would create a mechanism through which Scheme-wide funding reductions could progressively flow into individual plans across successive renewals without an individual reassessment process and without review rights attached to the renewal itself.

The Bill would also restrict how people can make Change of Circumstances requests and when they will be accepted by the Agency, through the addition of section 48A. The Bill states that only participants and their direct nominees will be able to make a change of circumstances request, which excludes the current practice for many where these applications are made by Support Co-ordinators.

The circumstances in which a plan reassessment will be accepted are detailed in section 48A. They are limited to circumstances in which there is a significant change in someone’s functional capacity or an unanticipated change in their personal or environmental circumstances, like a carer falling ill. It does not permit re-assessments where a person wishes to make a change in their lives with the support of the Scheme, such as moving out of home or getting a job for the first time, as the Bill requires that such an event already have occurred. With the shift to longer-length plans this could mean a person could be waiting years to undertake a change in their life. Despite limiting these requests to times of crisis or emergency, this bill inexplicably extends the timeframe for the Agency to respond to such requests. The current act mandates that the NDIA respond to these requests in 21 days, but this Bill would change that to 90 days. This is hard to justify given we expect the initial changes to reduce the number of applications made in the first place – it follows the Agency should therefore have more resources to process those applications quickly.

The Agency notes in the Explanatory Memorandum that the plan variation power could still be used to provide emergency funding in emergency circumstances. However, this relies on the Agency being equipped and resourced to assess and respond to these emergencies as they arise. With a statutory timeframe effectively equivalent to 3 months this does not seem likely.

We are concerned that these changes will lock people with intellectual disability to plans that do not suit their needs and will make the NDIS less responsive to genuine emergencies.

Recommendation 5 Include a provision in section 48A allowing the ability to trigger plan reassessments when a person wishes to undertake a signficant life event.

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 20

Submission 401

Reasonable and necessary supports The proposed amendments to the reasonable and necessary framework embed Scheme sustainability considerations directly within individual funding decisions by expressly requiring decision-makers to consider sustainability alongside existing statutory principles.

A key concern is that the amendments increasingly separate recognition of need from the funding of that need. The proposed framework suggests that what is “reasonable” to fund may be less than the actual cost of the support assessed as necessary for the participant. This distinction is reinforced throughout the amendments, including through new powers allowing the Minister to set maximum funding amounts, support intensities or funding ratios for particular supports or classes of participants through legislative instrument.

The breadth of these powers raises significant transparency and accountability concerns. Proposed subsection 33(2EA) would allow future legislative instruments to impose support caps across particular support types or participant cohorts, with these instruments again exempt from ordinary sunsetting requirements. These can operate as specific numerical limits, or by limiting the frequency and duration of particular supports (e.g. the government could place a limit that a group of participants could only access a therapy for an hour fortnightly).

Proposed subsections 34(1A)–(1D) would require the CEO to consider whether comparable supports are available at lower cost and whether those alternatives represent better value for money. We are very concerned this would push people by necessity toward shared service models where they are available, regardless of whether they are the person’s preferred or most appropriate form of support.

The provisions related to family and other informal supports under subsection 34(1G)-(1K) are also likely to have substantial impacts for people with an intellectual disability and their families. The amendments strengthen assumptions regarding the level of care and support families are expected to provide for children. The provisions specify that substantial parental support includes supervision, behavioural support, emotional support, transport and assistance with activities of daily living that would ordinarily be expected of parents of children of a similar age. While we are pleased that subsection 34(1K) includes provisions for the consideration of whether relying on these supports would expose the person or others to a material risk of harm, abuse, or neglect, we feel these lack sufficient regard to cumulative pressures, family circumstances or long-term safeguarding considerations.

There are significant data gaps in this area. While the NDIS collects extensive information about participant funding and supports, it collects comparatively limited information about the wellbeing and sustainability of informal carers. Although the NDIS Family and Carer Outcomes reports include some indicators related to employment, confidence and social participation, they do not directly measure issues such as psychological distress, exhaustion, financial strain or carer burnout. This means policy decisions that rely heavily on unpaid care can be made without a clear understanding of the pressures many families are already experiencing

Existing national survey data nevertheless paints a concerning picture. The 2024 National Carer Wellbeing Survey, involving more than 9,000 carers across Australia, found that carers experience substantially poorer wellbeing than the general population. Nearly one third (32.5%) reported high psychological distress, almost double the rate in the general population (16.9%). More than half (52.6%) reported having more responsibilities than they could cope with, while only 31.2% felt confident they could manage the stress associated with caring.

The financial impacts were also significant. More than 60% of carers reported at least one major financial stress in the previous 12 months, and over half (51.5%) said they were working less than they wanted because of caring responsibilities. More than half (51.1%) also reported that their quality of life had worsened over the past year.

Importantly, carers of people with intellectual disability, carers of people with high support needs, and carers providing more than 40 hours of support per week were among the groups reporting the highest levels of distress.

The implications are not only for family wellbeing, but also for the sustainability and safety of the broader disability support system. If families are pushed beyond sustainable limits, the consequences are not confined to carers themselves. For people with intellectual disability and high support needs, breakdowns in informal support can lead to increased isolation, loss of community participation, heightened safeguarding risks,

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 21

Submission 401

housing instability, crisis service use, and greater exposure to restrictive or institutional responses that policy reform is supposed to prevent.

The Bill also unwinds positive changes made in the last substantive change to the planning process which implemented a ‘whole of person’ approach for supports. This change meant that people with compounding or interacting disabilities did not have to go through the process of tying particular supports to particular disabilities.

As a result of changes in this Bill, people will be asked to not only tie supports to particular conditions but also to go through the process of establishing that each disability they have meets the access criteria for the Scheme. As we discussed earlier, this is also growing substantially more complex with this legislation.

Separating out particular bits of assistance to particular disabilities is a complex, impractical and often impossible task. For example, a person with an intellectual disability may also have co-occurring psychosocial disabilities which combine to require support around managing day-to-day tasks or getting help to access the community. However, if one of those disabilities doesn’t meet the eligibility criteria, this Bill would let the NDIA argue that they shouldn’t be responsible for funding it at all because those supports ‘directly arise’ from the ineligible disability. Given the lack of services outside the scheme, this would mean that person could miss out on help completely.

This change adds undue complexity and burden to the planning process where a more straightforward approach would produce more accurate assessments of disability support and make sure people don’t miss out. Recommendation 6 Proposed subsection 33(2EA) should be replaced with an individual assessment of other available services in this area, incentivising local service delivery outside the Scheme while ensuring people still have choice about how they receive support. The government should also restore improvements made in the last substantial NDIS amendment which assessed people as a whole person, including the impact of multiple disabilities (if applicable), their environment and their living arrangements.

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 22

Submission 401

Registration

We support measures to strengthen the quality, safety and accountability of services delivered to NDIS participants, including reforms that expand provider oversight and registration. Inclusion Australia has long supported movement towards a more universal enrolment and registration approach within the NDIS, recognising the important role that registration can play in promoting consistent quality standards, safeguarding participants, and improving transparency across the market.

It is our understanding that the proposed amendments in Schedule 2 of the Bill appear intended to facilitate, in due course, the introduction of a Graduated Risk Proportionate Regulatory Model through delegated legislation and staged implementation, as recommended by the Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce.

We were engaged by the Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce throughout their activities to provide expertise from our community, especially on behalf of those who use self-directed supports, such as the service-for-one model. This cohort is likely to be significantly impacted by changes to registration.

We strongly agree with the need for legislative and policy changes to enable many of the NDIS Review’s recommendations about registration to be co-designed and implemented. We agree with the Taskforce’s Recommendations 6, 7 and 8(f), which contain strong directives for the co-design of mechanisms to support arrangements for self-directed supports.

In particular, we note the Government’s acknowledgement that broader implementation of the full Graduated Risk Proportionate Regulatory Model was not pursued at this stage due to concerns regarding implementation complexity, adjacent reform pressures and potential market disruption.

We agree with the need for a separate category of registration for self-directed supports, and that this group should be obliged to register and undertake the requirements recommended by the Taskforce. We support the Government’s proposal that the Graduated Risk Proportionate Regulatory Model be implemented in due course, and we strongly recommend that self-directed supports are excluded from the initial rollout of mandatory registration of high risks supports – which is the Government’s preferred policy option as noted in the Impact Analysis.

We strongly recommend that self-directed supports and services-for-one arrangements — including where restrictive practices or behaviour support plans are authorised — are not captured within the initial implementation stage of mandatory registration for high-risk supports.

Premature inclusion of these arrangements within mandatory registration requirements risks significant unintended consequences, including the viability of many bespoke models such as services-for-one, which in most cases are set up by families because there are no other safe or appropriate options for the person they are supporting. Specifically, unintended consequences may include:

Placing a significant administrative burden on families, where there are different practices and different levels of understanding around compliance requirements (for example, in services-for one).
Increasing financial burdens on families due to increased costs associated with the highest tier of registration and potentially creating situations where participants and families may inadvertently attract severe penalties for failing to comply with Advanced Registration standards that are not reflective of their unique situation or proportionate to the work they are doing.
Disincentivising the commencement or continuation of some self-directed supports, regardless of its benefits to the person receiving those supports. This would potentially force some people with very high support needs back into mainstream, group-based disability services if self-direction is no longer viable due to the registration requirements and legislative context.25 It is very likely that such supports would not be willing or able to provide the individualised support required by the person, which may then lead to an increase in restrictive practices, as we explain below.

The flow-on effects of this would be severe and disproportionately impact those at greatest risk of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.

While we acknowledge the use of restrictive practices or behaviour support presents increased risks to individuals and their families and other supporters, evidence shows26 that the risks of human rights breaches are reduced in individualised, self-directed support settings compared to mainstream group based settings.

Unfortunately, mainstream group-based disability support settings like group homes have rarely led to better outcomes for people with an intellectual disability. As shown by the Own Motion Inquiry and, more

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 23

Submission 401

recently, the Disability Royal Commission, the experiences people have had in group homes has often directly led to significant human rights breaches, ongoing harm and trauma.27

Conversely, in many self-directed support settings, such as the service-for-one model, a person’s needs are being recognised and met, often for the first time in many years. Because of the highly individualised approach to supports a service-for-one allows, there is often a demonstrated impact on the use of restrictive practices. Anecdotally, we hear there is a significant reduction or even a complete elimination of restrictive practices in many cases.

While there is a lack of formal literature on this anecdotal evidence, available research28 suggests that there is a reduction in the use of restrictive practices through adaptations (including community-based strategies, home-based supports, supported decision-making and access to advocacy) that can be made in a service-for-one. These benefits are observed when people have access to the following supports, which are foundational to an inclusive life:

Supported decision-making
Trauma-informed supports
Ongoing communication support
A sense of belonging in the community.29 While we agree the supports deemed by the Taskforce in its Advice as automatically requiring Advanced Registration are associated with increased risks to the individual and their communities, the risks posed by restrictive practices and behaviour support (which are likely to be used in self-directed settings) should be assessed in the context of the setting in which they are used.

This approach considers the ways a highly individualised support setting mitigates the risks associated with certain supports (like restrictive practices), while other group-based disability support settings (such as a group home) increase those risks. Recommendation 7

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 24

Submission 401

End notes

1 See Inclusion Australia, 2024. Lessons from the Disability Royal Commission. Available at: www.inclusionaustralia.org.au/resource/lessons-from-the-disability-royal-commission/ 2 Australian Bureau of Statistics (20 November 2025), High rates of fraud against people with disability, ABS Website, accessed 1 June 2026. 3 For example, see our previous submission on the 2022 Review of the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002, in which people with an intellectual disability spoke to us about their experiences with public transport and safety while travelling: Inclusion-Australia_Review-of-the-disability-standards for-accessible-public-transport_23-06-30.pdf 4 For example, see: www. everydayharm.org.au 5 5 Explanatory Memorandum, NDISAmendment(SecuringtheNDISforFutureGenerations)Bill2026, Parliament of Australia, 2026, parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r7487_ems_35e6531f-c440-4faf-98d6 7c7ddd8bd539/upload_pdf/JC018272.pdf 6 NDIS Review. 2023. Working Together to Deliver the NDIS. www.ndisreview.gov.au 7 Explanatory Memorandum, NDISAmendment(SecuringtheNDISforFutureGenerations)Bill2026, page 227. 8 McVilly, K., Ainsworth, S., Graham, L., Harrison, M., Sojo, V., Spivakovsky, C., Gale, L., Genat, A., Zirnsak, T. (2022). Outcomes associated with ‘inclusive’, ‘segregated’ and ‘integrated’ settings: Accommodation and community living, employment and education. A research report commissioned by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. University of Melbourne, Australia. Page 120. 9 McVilly, K et al. 2022. Outcomes associated with ‘inclusive’, ‘segregated’ and ‘integrated’ settings: Accommodation and community living, employment and education. A research report commissioned by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. University of Melbourne, Australia. 10 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, 2023. Final

Report–Volume3:NatureandExtentofViolence,Abuse,NeglectandExploitation

https://.disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report-volume-3-nature-and-extent violence-abuse-neglect-and-exploitation, page 6. 11 AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) (2024) Socialdeterminantsofhealth, AIHW, Australian Government, accessed 1 June 2026. 12 www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health#tab=tab_1 13 Explanatory Memorandum, NDISAmendment(SecuringtheNDISforFutureGenerations)Bill2026, Parliament of Australia, 2026, parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r7487_ems_35e6531f-c440-4faf-98d6 7c7ddd8bd539/upload_pdf/JC018272.pdf 14 NDIA, 2020. Independent Assessment Framework. Available at: https://www.ndis.gov.au/media/2640/download 15 www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/7d1563f4-4a77-4542-985e-5754f7439c0c/icfugv1.pdf.aspx?inline=true 16 www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/7d1563f4-4a77-4542-985e-5754f7439c0c/icfugv1.pdf.aspx?inline=true 17 NDIA v Davis [2022] FCA 1002 (29 August 2022) 18 Inclusion Australia, A model for Eliminating the use of Restrictge PRactices Against People with an Intellectual Disability (June 2024), https://www.inclusionaustralia.org.au/wp content/uploads/2024/06/Final_A-model-for-eliminating-restrictive-practices-updated.pdf 19 Edwards, N., King, J., Williams, K., & Hair, S. (2020). Chemical restraint of adults with intellectual disability and challenging behaviour in Queensland, Australia: Views of statutory decision makers. Journalof IntellectualDisabilities,24(2), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629518782064 20 Claire Spivakovsky, ‘Governing Freedom through Risk: Locating the Group Home in the Archipelago of Confinement and Control’ (2017) 19(3) Punishment & Society 374; Lynne Weber, Keith McVilly and

Jeffry Chan, ‘Restrictive Interventions for People with Intellectual Disability Exhibiting Challenging

Behaviours: Analyses of a Population Database’ (2011) 24(6) JournalofAppliedResearchinIntellectual Disabilities, pp 495-507. 21 Ageing and Disability Commission, Submission to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability in response to Grouphomesissuespaper, 4 March 2020, at ISS.001.00060, p 10. 22 Spivakovsky, Claire., Steele, Linda., and Wadiwel, Dinesh. 2023. Restrictive practices: a pathway to elimination. A research report commissioned by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 25

Submission 401

Exploitation of People with Disability. University of Melbourne, Australia. 23 24 NDIS Review. 2023. Recommendations and actions. Retrieved from: https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/resources/reports/working-together-deliver ndis/preface/recommendations-and-actions 25 We have also responded to the NDIS Commission in relation to the proposed amendments as part of NDIS Act (Bill No. 2) quality and safeguard amendments. Our submission is available here: https://www.inclusionaustralia.org.au/submission/ndis-commission-regulatory-reform-consultation/ 26 Inclusion Australia recently developed a model demonstrating how these factors may lead to a reduction and elimination of restrictive practices, based on a review of the available literature on the topic, which can be found here. 27 Disability Royal Commission. 2023. Final Report – Volume 7: Inclusive education, employment and housing, Part C. Retrieved from: https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2023 09/Final%20Report%20 %20Volume%207%2C%20Inclusive%20education%2C%20employment%20and%20housing%20 %20Part%20C.pdf 28 Cortis, N., Smyth, C. and Katz, I. (2023). Reducing restrictive practices: A review of evidence based alternatives. Report for the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Sydney: UNSW Social Policy Research Centre. 29 In Inclusion Australia’s model and accompanying evidence review, cited above and available here, these four elements are considered essential supports that enable a holistic understanding of behavioural drivers which, when in place, can lead to a reduction of restrictive practices.

policy@inclusionaustralia.org.au     inclusionaustralia.org.au   Page 26

Submission to the Community Affairs Legislation

Committee

Contents

About Inclusion Australia

Overview

Somepeoplejustwanttomeetatthesocialeventsandjustbefriendshipsthere.”

Commission

Anindividualismadewelcome,wheretheyfeelwelcome,wheretheyknowtheybelong,wherethey

Civic Participation

Theresearchliteratureisunequivocal:peoplewithdisabilityaresubjecttothegreatestuseof

Registration

Report–Volume3:NatureandExtentofViolence,Abuse,NeglectandExploitation

Jeffry Chan, ‘Restrictive Interventions for People with Intellectual Disability Exhibiting Challenging