Removal of Support in Open Employment: The proposed elimination of funding for support workers to assist with personal care in open employment is discriminatory and short-sighted. This policy places an unreasonable burden on employers, who are unlikely to take on these additional responsibilities. As a result, participants will face increased segregation and exclusion, exacerbating the stigmatisation of people with disabilities. Moreover, this approach contravenes the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Employment Discrimination Act, leading to:

Harmful impacts on both participants and potential employers.

• A reduction in the dignity and autonomy of participants, stripping them of the right to choose their place of work.
• Significant financial disadvantages due to barriers in securing employment.
• A deterrent effect on employers, who may be reluctant to hire participants due to the added obligations and costs.

Exclusion of Therapists/Therapies in Schools or Workplaces: The refusal to fund occupational therapy (OT) and other support services in work or school environments is restrictive and counterproductive. This policy limits participants to clinical remediation rather than capacity-building therapies that are crucial for enhancing their abilities and enabling meaningful participation in the community.

Intimacy Coaches/Sex Workers: The proposed prohibition on NDIS funding for sex work services ignores the critical support these services provide for some participants. This move overrides established Federal Court precedent and disregards the importance of intimacy to people with disability. Having someone in the sex industry assist a couple with physical disabilities get into manageable intimate positions is exponentially more appropriate than requesting a support worker to assist in this manner. This will maintain the dignity and well-being of individuals and couples with disabilities.

Elimination of Technology Funding: Discontinuing funding for essential assistive technologies, such as smartwatches for people with significant disability related health issues, is short-sighted and detrimental. These devices provide critical monitoring functions—such as tracking falls, heart rate, blood pressure, and stress levels—that can alert caregivers and prevent medical emergencies. Investing in this technology promotes self-management, reduces reliance on the healthcare system, and enhances the independence and safety of participants.

Restricting Short-Term Accommodation (STA) to Disability-Only Providers: Restricting STA funding to disability-only providers is not only more costly but also counteracts the principles of inclusion and choice. Participants achieve much better outcomes when they are supported in mainstream accommodation by their familiar team of workers. This approach fosters greater independence and integration into the community, rather than isolating participants in specialised settings.

Removal of Community Transport Funding: Eliminating funding for community transport will force participants to rely on public transport, which is often inaccessible for those with physical or intellectual disabilities or people with complex support needs. This policy will lead to isolation, significantly limiting their ability to engage with and contribute to their communities. The lack of accessible transportation options is a major barrier to social inclusion and participation for people with disabilities.

Limiting Funding for Housing Modifications: Reducing access to funding for home modifications directly undermines participants’ independence, dignity, and self-determination. For example, providing kitchen modifications for someone in a wheelchair enables them to cook and clean independently, thereby reducing reliance on costly support workers and promoting autonomy.

Temperature Controls: People who have difficulty regulating their body temperature due to their disability are at risk of severe health consequences without proper support. Failure to fund temperature control systems will not only increase personal expenses but also lead to preventable hospitalisations, placing additional strain on the healthcare system.

Alternative Therapies: There is a critical need for continued support for alternative therapies that focus on both improvement and maintenance, as well as preventing the degradation of disability-related conditions. For example, therapies such as music therapy or equine therapy can be life-changing for some participants, even if they are not applicable to the majority.

Working with a Nutritionist instead of a Dietician instead of a GP can have life-changing effects for some participants with disability related health conditions. The NDIS must recognise the value of these therapies in improving quality of life and long-term outcomes. One size certainly does not fit many with therapy.

If the criteria for funding remains as ‘reasonable and necessary’ and ‘demonstration of value for money‘, then;

• Funding a washing machine now prevents ten years of ongoing laundry service costs, which would otherwise be borne by the NDIS.
• Providing a sex aid or intimacy coach for someone with physical disabilities upholds their dignity, reduces the need for costly support worker interventions, prevents property damage and personal harm, and minimises the risk of entering the health and/or justice system.
• Paying for a hairdresser to wash a participant’s hair when they are physically unable to do so preserves their dignity, reduces the need for additional support workers, and ensures they maintain control over who sees their body.
• Investing in a smartwatch today yields long-term savings in support worker costs, reduces healthcare expenses, and promotes greater independence. It also acts as a preventative tool, monitoring health to prevent avoidable emergencies and hospitalisations.

These examples are just a small fraction of the thousands of unique cases where individualised support is essential. While these supports may not be necessary for the majority of NDIS participants, they are absolutely critical for some, with the potential to be life-changing and / or life-saving.

Further to the points raised above, we also have a number of other concerns about the potential impacts of implementing these lists of ‘NDIS supports’.