Submission 669
Submission to the Senate Community
Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by:
Real Life Community Group
29 May 2026
Introduction
This submission is provided in response to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
While there is broad acknowledgement that the NDIS requires long-term sustainability and stronger safeguards, the current proposed reforms are being progressed at an alarming pace without sufficient consultation, transparency, modelling, or operational detail.
The disability sector, participants, families, allied health professionals, and providers are being asked to support legislation that still references systems and supports that do not yet exist, including foundational supports that remain undefined, unfunded, and unavailable in many communities.
The speed of these reforms creates significant risk not only to participants, but also to the broader Australian economy, workforce participation, healthcare systems, and community infrastructure.
This submission raises concerns regarding:
participant impacts; reduction of social and community participation funding; workforce impacts; intermediary supports; commissioning and market reforms; functional capacity assessments; treatment requirements; sustainability of local disability markets; and the long-term consequences of reducing supports for people with disability.
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
Real Life Impact of Appropriate NDIS
Funding
Public discussion around the NDIS has increasingly focused on cost, sustainability, and reducing expenditure. Lost in this discussion are the real-life outcomes that appropriate supports create — not just for participants, but for families, communities, workplaces, healthcare systems, and the broader economy.
The following examples demonstrate what occurs when participants receive the right supports at the right time — and what happens when those supports are removed.
Case Study – Matt
Matt lives with bipolar disorder and spent approximately 20 years cycling in and out of psychiatric hospitals several times per year.
Prior to the NDIS:
housing instability was a major issue; employment was not achievable; repeated hospital admissions were common; community participation was extremely limited; long-term reliance on crisis systems was effectively normalised.
After accessing the NDIS, Matt was connected with a Psychosocial Recovery Coach who was able to coordinate appropriate supports and services.
Through consistent support:
Matt secured stable accommodation through a DCJ Housing property; he began engaging in social and community participation supports; these supports led to supported employment opportunities; supported employment eventually transitioned into mainstream employment.
Matt has now not been hospitalised for over two years.
He currently works approximately seven hours per week, with his Recovery Coach and psychologist gradually working with him to safely increase those hours over time.
Importantly:
Matt now pays tax;
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
contributes to his community; participates socially; and is actively supporting others.
With assistance from Real Life Assistants, Matt established a local bipolar support group which he now voluntarily facilitates for others experiencing similar challenges.
Matt has also progressed to becoming a Recovery Coach himself and is now supporting another participant living with bipolar disorder.
This is exactly what recovery-oriented practice is intended to achieve:
reduced hospitalisation; increased independence; workforce participation; peer leadership; and long-term reduction in crisis system reliance.
Matt remains on the Disability Support Pension, however his long-term goal is to gradually reduce that reliance through sustainable employment participation.
Even at seven hours per week, Matt is contributing economically through taxation and community participation.
Any significant reduction in his supports would place all of this progress at risk.
Matt is succeeding specifically because he has the correct level of support in place.
Case Study – Koray
Koray has an intellectual disability, severe anxiety, and significant literacy challenges.
When Koray first engaged with Support Coordination, he rarely left his home.
His anxiety around reading, writing, communication, and social interaction severely limited his independence and community participation.
Through the NDIS:
Koray was connected to appropriate supports; commenced supported employment; gradually built confidence and social capacity; and developed routines, skills, and independence.
Today:
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
Koray works every day; rents and lives in a unit outside of his parents’ home; receives tenancy supports and daily living assistance; actively socialises within his community; and has entered into a meaningful relationship.
These outcomes were not immediate and were not linear.
At one stage Koray relocated to Sydney away from his established supports. The move was unsuccessful and resulted in significant regression in functioning and stability.
However, because appropriate supports remained in place, Koray was able to stabilise again without returning to the level of isolation and dysfunction he previously experienced.
Today, Koray:
works; pays taxes; contributes to the economy; maintains housing; and participates meaningfully in society.
Without appropriate supports, these outcomes would not exist.
Koray now lives in constant fear that changes to the Scheme may remove his funding and undo years of progress.
Case Study – Ben
Ben lives with an acquired brain injury.
Prior to stable supports, Ben experienced significant drug use and eventually became incarcerated.
Following his release from custody, intensive work by his Support Coordinator and support network resulted in major positive changes:
Ben was moved from inappropriate housing associated with drug activity into more suitable DCJ housing; he was connected with supported employment; importantly, this employer paid award wages rather than ADE rates; Ben began avoiding drug use; his decision-making improved; and he began rebuilding stability and purpose within his life.
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
After years of consistent work and gradual progress, Ben finally reached a point where he was functioning safely within the community.
However, during a recent plan review, the majority of Ben’s supports were removed — particularly the supports directly linked to maintaining his employment and stability.
The impact was immediate and severe.
Since the reduction:
the NDIA Critical Incident Team has become involved; police and mental health services have conducted multiple welfare checks; Ben has experienced significant suicidal ideation; his functioning has deteriorated rapidly; and a Review of a Reviewable Decision (RORD) remains unresolved while his condition worsens.
After seven years of progress, Ben has been pushed backwards by funding reductions that removed the very supports keeping him stable.
There are now serious concerns regarding whether he will recover from this deterioration.
Ben’s story demonstrates that reducing supports does not remove disability or complexity. Instead, it transfers costs and risks into:
emergency services; police; mental health systems; hospitals; housing systems; and crisis responses.
The Reforms Are Being Rushed Without
Proper Consultation
The current legislative process is proceeding far too quickly for reforms of this magnitude.
The proposed changes will fundamentally reshape:
participant eligibility; access pathways; funding structures; intermediary supports; provider markets; workforce participation;
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
community inclusion.
Yet the sector has been given an extremely compressed consultation timeframe, with many details still unclear or entirely absent.
Of particular concern is the continued reliance throughout the reforms on “foundational supports” that do not currently exist in any meaningful or operational form.
Participants are effectively being told supports will be removed from the NDIS based on the assumption that another system will replace them, despite:
no clear implementation framework; no workforce modelling; no nationally consistent rollout plan; no confirmed funding model; no guarantee of accessibility; no evidence these supports will exist when participants lose NDIS access.
Policy reform should not remove existing supports before replacement systems are operational.
Removing Participants from the Scheme Is
Not a Cost Saving
The proposed removal of approximately 160,000 participants from the NDIS is deeply concerning.
This does not remove disability, support needs, or costs from society. It merely shifts those costs into other systems including:
Centrelink; state health systems; emergency departments; housing systems; homelessness services; carers and families; the justice system; aged care systems; community mental health systems.
The taxpayer still pays — simply from different government portfolios.
The NDIS has enabled many people with disability to:
obtain employment;
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
maintain housing; reduce hospital admissions; engage in education; contribute to local economies; reduce reliance on crisis systems.
Removing supports risks reversing these gains.
Economic Impact and Workforce Losses
The Government’s own figures indicate these reforms may result in the loss of approximately 248,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs across the disability sector and associated industries.
This figure does not account for:
part-time workers; casual workers; indirect employment impacts; flow-on effects into local businesses and regional economies.
A significant proportion of the disability workforce consists of:
people with disability; carers; women returning to the workforce; regional workers; workers in flexible employment arrangements.
Many of these workers will struggle to transition into alternative employment and may instead return to income support systems.
This creates a significant contradiction:
the Government may reduce expenditure in one portfolio, while simultaneously increasing expenditure through welfare systems and economic contraction in local communities.
The NDIS is not simply a cost. It is also a major economic contributor that supports:
local employment; small businesses; regional economies; allied health sectors; community participation; tax revenue generation.
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
These broader economic contributions appear to be significantly underestimated in current reform modelling.
Social and Community Participation
Funding Is Essential
There appears to be increasing public rhetoric suggesting social and community participation funding is non-essential or recreational in nature.
This fundamentally misunderstands how disability supports operate in practice.
Social and community participation funding is frequently used for:
transport to medical appointments; attending allied health appointments; accessing essential community services; maintaining independence; reducing isolation; attending education and employment activities; maintaining psychosocial stability; preventing deterioration and hospitalisation.
People with disability often attend significantly more medical and allied health appointments than the general population.
Removing these supports will directly reduce access to healthcare.
This is likely to result in:
worsening health outcomes; increased hospital admissions; delayed treatment; higher long-term healthcare costs; increased carer burnout; increased isolation and mental health deterioration.
Reducing social participation supports also undermines the stated objectives of the NDIS, including:
social inclusion; independence; economic participation; community engagement.
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
Intermediary Supports Remain Essential
Support Coordinators, Psychosocial Recovery Coaches, and Plan Managers remain critical to the operation of the Scheme.
Participants are already struggling to navigate:
legislative changes; reassessments; funding reductions; service shortages; increasingly complex administrative processes.
Reducing intermediary supports during a period of major reform will likely increase:
participant confusion; safeguarding risks; service disengagement; crisis presentations; hospitalisations.
Local providers with strong regional knowledge consistently deliver better participant outcomes than highly centralised, KPI-driven corporate models.
The Government should focus on strengthening quality and accountability, not destabilising intermediary supports that are already under immense pressure.
Concerns Regarding Commissioning and
Market Reform
The proposed commissioned provider panel model lacks sufficient detail and transparency.
There is significant concern that commissioning may:
reduce participant choice and control; favour large national providers over smaller local organisations; create barriers to market entry; centralise services away from local communities; unintentionally reduce innovation and responsiveness.
If commissioning proceeds:
all Plan Management and Support Coordination organisations that meet transparent criteria should be eligible for commissioning arrangements;
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
commissioning should not be restricted to a small number of preferred providers; local and regional providers must be protected; procedural fairness and review pathways must exist.
The previous Support Coordination trial demonstrated significant flaws, with numerous organisations reportedly meeting criteria but still excluded without transparency or explanation.
Registration and Ownership of
Intermediary Providers
All Support Coordination providers should be registered NDIS providers.
Support Coordinators work with highly vulnerable participants and often influence:
safeguarding responses; service access; crisis interventions; housing pathways; provider engagement; and participant wellbeing.
Mandatory registration would improve:
accountability; participant protections; complaints oversight; and quality safeguards.
In addition:
Support Coordination and Plan Management businesses should be Australian owned and operated; overseas parent company ownership structures should not control intermediary services within the NDIS.
The NDIS is a publicly funded Australian system and intermediary services should remain accountable to Australian communities and regulatory systems.
Conflict of Interest Concerns
Plan Managers should remain entirely independent from direct NDIS service delivery.
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
Allowing Plan Management providers to also provide funded supports creates significant conflict-of-interest risks including:
provider steering; reduced participant choice; financial conflicts; and compromised neutrality.
Support Coordination presents a more nuanced issue.
Many regional and local providers successfully provide both Support Coordination and direct supports in ways that improve continuity and responsiveness, particularly in thin markets.
Where this occurs:
conflicts must be transparently managed; participant choice documented; and safeguards strengthened.
Functional Capacity Assessment Concerns
There are serious concerns regarding proposed changes involving Functional Capacity Assessments (FCAs).
At present, the NDIA already applies inconsistent recognition standards regarding allied health professionals qualified to conduct assessments.
Many appropriately qualified professionals — including:
social workers; clinical psychologists; exercise physiologists; physiotherapists — are routinely disregarded or given significantly less evidentiary weight compared to occupational therapists.
Yet under the proposed reforms, the Government appears to be moving toward centrally controlled assessment processes without clearly identifying:
who will conduct assessments; what qualifications will be required; what professional standards will apply; how conflicts of interest will be managed; or how independence will be ensured.
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
Functional Capacity Assessments must only be conducted by appropriately qualified allied health professionals operating within their scope of practice.
Concerns Regarding Treatment
Requirements and Eligibility
The proposed changes around treatment and permanency raise major ethical, clinical, and practical concerns.
There appears to be an emerging position that individuals may be deemed ineligible if they have not pursued all possible treatment options — regardless of:
affordability; accessibility; medical appropriateness; clinical risk; or geographical availability.
If the Government expects people to access treatments before becoming eligible for support, then accessible Medicare-funded pathways must first exist.
There are also serious concerns regarding who determines what constitutes “reasonable treatment.”
Examples already occurring within the system include:
people being told to pursue weight loss surgery to demonstrate permanence; people with cystic fibrosis being told they could pursue double lung transplants despite this not curing the underlying condition; individuals with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome being required to prove fatigue is not related to calorie intake through dietetic review processes.
These examples demonstrate a concerning disconnect between administrative decision making and clinical reality.
NDIS eligibility should never become contingent upon pursuing dangerous, inaccessible, unrealistic, or medically inappropriate interventions.
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
Existing Participants Are Already
Experiencing Significant Funding
Reductions
Across the sector, providers, participants, and families are already reporting:
substantial funding reductions; reduced therapy access; decreased support hours; increased administrative barriers; plan reassessment instability; escalating participant distress.
Many participants are already experiencing plan reductions exceeding 50%.
Providers are witnessing daily situations where individuals are:
going without supports; losing access to therapies; becoming socially isolated; experiencing worsening mental health; facing housing instability; struggling to attend medical appointments; reaching crisis point.
These impacts are occurring before many of the proposed reforms have even been fully implemented.
Further cuts without robust safeguards and transition planning risk creating widespread harm.
Conclusion
The disability community understands the importance of sustainability and accountability within the NDIS.
However, sustainability cannot be achieved through rushed reform, reduced supports, workforce contraction, and the transfer of costs into other systems.
Disability does not disappear because funding is removed.
Participants still require support. Families still require assistance. Communities still absorb the impacts.
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
The proposed reforms risk:
increasing poverty; increasing unemployment; worsening health outcomes; increasing pressure on hospitals and welfare systems; reducing participant independence; destabilising local economies and workforces.
The stories of Matt, Koray, and Ben demonstrate the real-world consequences of both appropriate support and support removal.
When funded properly:
people work; people pay taxes; people avoid hospitalisation; people maintain housing; people contribute to their communities; and people support others.
When supports are removed:
crisis systems become overwhelmed; mental health deteriorates; hospitalisations increase; police become involved; employment is lost; and years of progress can disappear rapidly.
The Senate Committee is urged to carefully consider the long-term human, economic, and social consequences of these reforms before proceeding further.
A sustainable NDIS must remain grounded in:
evidence-based policy; genuine consultation; participant safety; clinical integrity; social inclusion; economic participation; and the fundamental principle that people with disability deserve the opportunity to live meaningful lives within their communities.
Justine Leonard
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920
Submission 669
Justine Leonard JP, M Mgt, Grad Dip Psychology, Grad Cert Mental Health, Dip Counselling
Chief Operations Officer
Specialist Support Coordinator, Psychosocial Recovery Coach, Behaviour Support Practitioner, and
disabled woman
Real Life Assistants ABN: 70 617 339 161 A: 9 Old Springhill Road Coniston NSW 2500Real Life Community Group ABN: 89 681 298 920