To whom it may concern,
I am writing as a Specialist Support Coordinator who has worked within the NDIS for many years, supporting participants with highly complex and often intersecting disabilities, including psychosocial disability, intellectual disability, autism, acquired brain injury, forensic involvement, homelessness, and significant behavioural and support needs.
I request that this submission be treated as confidential and that my personal details not be published. I am providing this submission in my professional capacity and ask that it be considered anonymously due to the nature of my work and my ongoing professional relationships within the disability sector.
Throughout my career I have seen the NDIS significantly improve people’s quality of life. I have supported participants to move from homelessness into stable accommodation, reduce involvement with emergency and justice systems, access therapy for the first time, build independence, develop meaningful relationships, and participate in their communities. I have also seen participants avoid hospital admissions, maintain housing, and achieve goals that would not have been possible without appropriately funded and individualised supports.
Based on my experience supporting participants with complex disabilities and support needs, I oppose the Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill in its current form. I believe several of the proposed changes will have significant unintended consequences for participants, families, providers, and the broader disability sector.
I am deeply concerned about several aspects of the proposed legislation and the impact these changes may have on the participants I support every day.
Automated Decision-Making and Planning
Many of the participants I work with have complex presentations that cannot be adequately captured through standardised assessments or automated planning processes. Their support needs are often influenced by a range of factors, including mental health, housing instability, family breakdown, involvement with the justice system, trauma histories, and behavioural challenges.
Automated planning decisions may appear efficient; however, they risk overlooking the complexity of individual circumstances. Participants with the greatest support needs are often those least able to advocate for themselves. Decisions based on algorithms, averages, or comparisons with other participants will inevitably result in plans that do not accurately reflect individual functional impairment and support requirements.
In my role, I regularly support participants whose needs have changed significantly due to crisis events, deteriorating mental health, housing breakdown, hospital admissions,
incarceration, family violence, or escalating behaviours of concern. These circumstances cannot be appropriately assessed through automated systems.
The likely outcome will be increased underfunding, greater reliance on crisis services, higher rates of hospitalisation, homelessness, justice involvement, and increased pressure on already stretched mainstream services.
Changes to Plan Reviews and Funding Reductions
I am particularly concerned by the proposed changes that would allow funding decisions to be altered without meaningful participant consultation.
Even under the current system, participants often face significant barriers when requesting a Change of Situation or seeking a review of decisions. Many wait months for outcomes while continuing to live with plans that no longer reflect their needs.
As a Support Coordinator, I frequently work with participants whose plans are already insufficient to meet their current needs. The review process can be lengthy, complex, and difficult to navigate, particularly for people with cognitive impairments, psychosocial disabilities, communication barriers, or limited informal supports.
The ability for funding to be reduced without consultation creates considerable risk for participants whose supports are critical to maintaining safety, independence, community participation, and wellbeing.
When supports are reduced, the consequences are rarely financial savings. Instead, we see increased presentations to emergency departments, mental health services, homelessness services, child protection, and the justice system. The cost is simply shifted elsewhere, often with poorer outcomes for the individual.
Impact on the Disability Workforce and Broader Economy
The disability sector is already experiencing workforce shortages, increasing complexity, and growing demand.
Significant reductions in participant funding will inevitably lead to reduced service delivery, provider closures, and job losses across the sector. This will affect not only participants but also the thousands of skilled professionals who provide essential supports across Australia.
In regional and rural communities, disability services are often a major source of employment. Funding reductions risk destabilising local services and reducing access to supports for participants who are already disadvantaged by geography and limited service availability.
The proposed changes may also discourage experienced professionals from remaining in the sector at a time when participant needs are becoming increasingly complex. This
loss of knowledge and expertise will have long-term consequences for service quality and participant outcomes.
Concerns Regarding Participants with Complex Needs
A significant proportion of the participants I support have highly complex needs that require intensive coordination, collaboration, and flexibility from their support networks.
Many have multiple diagnoses, co-occurring mental health conditions, behavioural challenges, forensic involvement, unstable housing, or limited natural supports. Their circumstances can change rapidly, requiring timely adjustments to funding and support arrangements.
Any move towards automated decision-making, reduced opportunities for review, or broad funding cuts will disproportionately impact these participants. They are often the least able to advocate for themselves and the most vulnerable to service gaps, exploitation, homelessness, institutionalisation, and involvement with the justice system.
As someone working directly with participants every day, I am concerned that these reforms prioritise administrative efficiency and financial sustainability over individual need and human outcomes. The people most affected by these changes are unlikely to have the capacity, resources, or support networks required to navigate increasingly restrictive systems.
Conclusion
The NDIS was established to provide people with disability the opportunity to live meaningful lives, exercise choice and control, and participate fully in their communities.
While I acknowledge the importance of ensuring the Scheme remains sustainable, sustainability should not come at the expense of the people it was designed to support. Any reforms must continue to recognise the individuality, complexity, and humanity of participants and ensure decisions are made with them, not for them.
From my experience on the ground, the participants most likely to be affected by these proposed changes are also those least equipped to navigate the resulting barriers. I fear these reforms will increase disadvantage, reduce access to essential supports, and ultimately create greater costs across health, housing, justice, and community systems.
For the reasons outlined above, I believe the Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill in its current form is harmful and should not be passed by Parliament. I urge the Committee to recommend substantial amendments that
preserve participant choice, individualised planning, procedural fairness, access to timely reviews, and access to necessary supports for people with disability.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.
Please note that I request this submission be treated as confidential and published anonymously.