Submission 762
I make this submission in response to the Senate Inquiry into the proposed amendments contained within the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I do so as the owner of a small independent Support Coordination business, an experienced Support Coordinator, and, most importantly, as someone deeply committed to the wellbeing and inclusion of people with disability and their families. While I am not an academic, I bring more than 25 years of frontline experience across the disability sector, working within a broad range of services and funding systems, including state-based programs that pre-dated the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).
Throughout this submission, I refer to the experiences of participants I have supported. These accounts are true and reflect my professional experience. Names and identifying details have been changed where necessary to protect privacy.
Over the course of my career, I have worked in disability support, group homes, disability employment services, day programs, large residential facilities, and community-based services. This experience has given me a unique perspective on the evolution of disability policy and practice in Australia. I have witnessed firsthand the transition from segregation and institutionalisation to community inclusion and individualised support.
My introduction to the sector came at the age of 17, when I began supporting two young girls with disability in an after-school care program. At that time, opportunities for inclusion were limited. The girls arrived separately from other children, attended a separate school, participated in separate activities, and rarely interacted with their peers. They did not join excursions, playground activities, or many of the experiences that other children took for granted.
Looking back, those experiences reflected a system that often prioritised separation over participation. While this was common practice at the time, it highlighted the significant barriers people with disability faced in being recognised as equal and valued members of their communities.
As my career progressed, I came to understand that disability support is about far more than meeting practical needs. It is about relationships, dignity, choice, belonging, and opportunity. I learned not only about disability and human behaviour, but also about the profound impact that systems and policy decisions have on individuals and families.
I later worked within large residential facilities during the final stages of Australia’s deinstitutionalisation efforts. Through that work, I learned about the history of disability policy and the reforms that emerged from decades of advocacy, inquiry, and scrutiny. The move away from institutional care represented a commitment to recognising the
Submission 762
rights of people with disability to live, participate, and contribute within their communities.
The introduction of the NDIS in 2013 was a continuation of that commitment. It represented a significant shift toward individualised funding and person-centred supports, allowing people with disability greater choice and control over the services they received. Importantly, it enabled many individuals who had spent decades in institutional settings to transition into homes and communities of their choosing.
I was privileged to be part of teams supporting the closure of some of New South Wales’ last large residential facilities, including Metro Residences Rydalmere and the Stockton Centre near Newcastle. The flexibility and individualised funding provided through the NDIS made these transitions possible, enabling participants to establish homes, support networks, and meaningful lives within their communities.
Reflecting on this period, I believe people with disability became more visible, more connected, and more included than at any previous point in my career. The NDIS was not perfect, but it created opportunities for choice, participation, and accountability that had previously been unimaginable for many Australians with disability.
Community Participation Funding and the Risk of Exclusion
The proposed amendments introduce provisions relating to support determination. Specifically, for the purpose of ensuring the financial sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine reductions to funding components for specified groups of supports.
Public statements made by the Minister have indicated an intention to reduce funding for social, community and economic participation support by at least 30 per cent. While the objective of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Scheme is understandable, such reductions carry significant risks for participants whose inclusion, independence and wellbeing rely upon these supports.
In my experience, community participation funding is not discretionary or supplementary. For many participants, it is the mechanism through which they access their communities, develop relationships, contribute economically, and maintain their quality of life.
The experience of one participant, Rohan, illustrates this point.
Rohan is a 23-year-old man with Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 3 and a moderate intellectual disability. He is non-speaking and requires support across all aspects of daily living, including community access. He lives with his family in Western Sydney.
Following his transition from school, Rohan trialled several traditional day programs. These services reported that they were unable to adequately support his needs. The
Submission 762
programs were largely centre-based and offered limited opportunities for meaningful engagement. As a result, Rohan became disengaged and frustrated. Unable to communicate these feelings verbally, he frequently exhibited behaviours that services characterised as “behaviours of concern”, including refusing activities and leaving program environments.
Rohan’s interests, however, provided a pathway to meaningful community participation. He enjoys bushwalking and has a long-standing fascination with collecting pieces of discarded glass. Through individualised supports funded by the NDIS, Rohan and his support team developed a microenterprise in which collected glass is transformed into jewellery and artwork for sale at local markets and online.
The outcomes have been transformative. Rohan is now a recognised and valued member of his local community. Weekly visits to the post office have led to genuine social connections with local staff and community members. Market attendance has created opportunities for economic participation, social engagement and increased visibility within his community. Importantly, these activities are aligned with his interests, strengths and goals.
Without funding for social, community and economic participation, these opportunities would cease to exist. The likely consequence would be increased reliance on family supports, with his mother potentially required to reduce or leave employment in order to provide care. Rohan would face greater social isolation, reduced stimulation and an increased likelihood of behaviours associated with frustration and disengagement. This, in turn, may increase reliance on restrictive practices and more intensive forms of support.
Today, Rohan lives a meaningful and connected life. A good life. The supports that make this possible should not be viewed as optional expenditures. They are investments that enable inclusion, participation and contribution.
Functional Capacity Assessments and Psychosocial Disability
Schedule 1 of the proposed amendments broadens the considerations that may be applied when determining what constitutes reasonable and necessary supports, including greater emphasis on the availability of other service systems.
While coordination between systems is important, I am concerned that these changes may result in participants being directed towards services that are unavailable, inaccessible or unable to meet their needs.
Functional Capacity Assessments (FCAs) are commonly used to inform planning decisions. These assessments are typically completed by allied health professionals, most often occupational therapists, and can cost several thousand dollars. They
Submission 762
provide detailed evidence regarding a participant’s ability to undertake everyday activities and participate safely within their community.
However, FCAs have limitations, particularly in relation to psychosocial disability. They often capture an individual’s presentation at a particular point in time and may not adequately reflect fluctuating capacity, episodic illness or the cumulative impact of multiple mental health conditions.
The experience of a participant I will refer to as Dot demonstrates these challenges.
Dot is a 40-year-old woman living independently in a small rural community beyond the Blue Mountains. She lives with her assistance dog and has diagnoses including borderline personality disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety and ADHD.
Her NDIS funding currently provides limited daily support during weekdays, alongside psychosocial recovery coaching and behaviour support. In addition, she accesses a private psychologist, a psychiatrist, general practitioner services and clinical nursing supports. Despite these interventions, Dot experiences significant periods of distress, including self-harm, suicidal ideation, dissociation and prolonged social withdrawal. On average, she requires hospitalisation at least twice each year.
During a recent plan review, a decision-maker who had not met or spoken with Dot reduced her support funding despite evidence contained within her Functional Capacity Assessment indicating an ongoing need for support. Following this reduction, Dot experienced a significant deterioration in her mental health and required a six-week hospital admission.
Importantly, the assumption that alternative services could meet her needs was not supported by the reality of service availability within her region. Community mental health supports are limited and often only available during periods of acute crisis. Many of the services that participants are directed towards simply do not exist in regional and rural communities.
Ultimately, Dot’s plan was reviewed through the Section 100 process. However, due to her mental health condition, she was unable to navigate this process independently and relied heavily on the assistance of her Recovery Coach to completed the tasks.
The proposed amendments raise concerns that participants such as Dot may face further reductions in support while simultaneously being directed towards services that are unavailable or inaccessible. These risks increasing hospital admissions, reducing community participation and placing additional pressure on already stretched health systems.
Submission 762
The Need for Reform Without Reducing Support
I support the need for reform within the disability sector. The rapid expansion of the NDIS created opportunities for innovation and participant choice, but it also created opportunities for exploitation.
Throughout my career, I have reported numerous concerns to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission relating to provider misconduct and potential fraud. In one matter, a participant was coerced by a provider into claiming almost $80,000 in fraudulent support hours. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the matter remained unresolved for an extended period, highlighting shortcomings in regulatory oversight and enforcement.
The existence of fraud and poor practice within the sector should be addressed through stronger regulation, improved compliance activities and more effective safeguarding mechanisms. However, these challenges should not be used to justify reductions in supports for people with disability.
The overwhelming majority of participants are not responsible for the Scheme’s financial pressures. They should not bear the consequences of failures in regulation, oversight or market stewardship.
Any reform of the NDIS must preserve the fundamental principle that people with disability have the right to participate in, contribute to and belong within their communities. Financial sustainability is important, but it cannot come at the expense of inclusion, dignity and human rights.
The NDIS is not merely a funding scheme. It is the mechanism through which many Australians with disability are able to participate in community life, exercise choice and control, and avoid the exclusion and segregation that previous generations experienced.