The case for continuing supports.
The evidence of what happens when they stop.
Two bodies of evidence sit side by side. The first is the established case for early, sustained, individualised disability support. The second is what is already happening - right now, in 2025 and 2026 - to disabled Australians whose supports have already been cut. The Harm Tracker is collecting it in real time.
Evidence of harm - What is already happening
This is not a forecast.
It is a tally.
The Nobody Worse Off (NWO) Harm Tracker is a grassroots, public-interest reporting tool, co-designed with disabled people and allied health workers, that records what has happened to participants since the October 2024 changes to how NDIS funds may be used. As at 17 April 2026:
- Responses logged
- 547
- NDIS participants impacted
- 6,924
- States and territories
- 8/8
- Snapshot date
- 17 Apr 2026
Source: ANPA, Visible Harm: NWO Harm Tracker Data, April 2026. Each respondent reports on behalf of themselves or known participants; totals below are response counts, not percentages.
Harm Tracker - Impact on participants
What participants reported, in their own count.
- Mental health negatively affected (anxiety, depression)240
- No longer have enough of a specific support they need (e.g. physio)210
- No longer have access to one or more supports they need208
- More socially isolated181
- Funding has been cut159
- Forced to fund essential disability supports themselves98
Counts of respondents reporting each impact since the October 2024 changes to NDIS fund-use rules. Respondents could select more than one.
Harm Tracker - Impact on families and carers
When supports fall away, the work moves home.
- Mental health negatively affected218
- Need to financially support the participant180
- Reduced paid work hours to provide care165
- Relationship and family stress140
- Increased physical exhaustion120
- Other impacts reported in free text57
Family and carer impacts reported in the Harm Tracker. Categories with approximate values are marked in the source infographic; counts here reflect that source.
Harm Tracker - When a provider is lost
Replacing a provider is rarely possible. In rural and regional areas it is often impossible.
- Have not been able to find a suitable replacement provider86
- There are no alternative providers in their area66
- The new provider does not meet their needs42
- Replacement provider less effective than the previous one41
- Other provider-loss impacts29
- Can now only access telehealth services13
Harm Tracker - Impact on allied health and providers
The workforce that delivers the supports is itself being eroded.
- Increased risk of provider burnout160
- Increased financial strain on the provider business155
- Loss of revenue140
- Reduced capacity to take on new clients130
- Funding cuts in plans are interrupting therapy120
Values approximate from source infographic. Loss of disability workforce capacity compounds participant harm: it cannot be reversed quickly even if funding is later restored.
Harm Tracker - In their own words
Behind each tally mark is a sentence like one of these.
“Overnight, without warning my son lost funding. I had to reduce my work hours as it is not safe to leave him home alone.”
“My plan has been cut drastically. My OT and Physio are cut down to nearly nothing. I'm socially isolated. I'm confused and overwhelmed, I can't sleep and my anxiety has shifted from 8-10 to about a 15/10. I'm afraid.”
“We are stressed enough already as a family caring for two autistic kids and now we have to fight the NDIS to get funding for a support that is essential to my kid. Until somebody kills themselves they will continue to treat our disabled kids and families like we don't matter.”
“Son lost $100k, no funding for weekends. I had to give up a day a week of work as he cannot be left at home by himself. My husband's mother died, we could not assist or spend time together with her.”
Why protect the NDIS - The case for continued supports
Six lines of evidence. All point the same way.
- 01
Early, sustained intervention works.
Decades of longitudinal research - including the Productivity Commission's 2011 Inquiry into Disability Care and Support (the foundational evidence base for the NDIS itself) - establish that early, individualised, multi-disciplinary supports produce better lifetime outcomes and lower aggregate cost than crisis-driven care.
Productivity Commission, Disability Care and Support, Report no. 54 (2011), Vol 1, pp. 2-12.
- 02
Support continuity is the active ingredient.
Disability supports work because they are continuous. Allied health, AAC, behavioural and developmental supports rely on consistent relationships built across months and years. Withdrawing or interrupting them does not simply pause progress - it actively erodes it.
AIHW, People with disability in Australia 2024, ch. 7; Disability Royal Commission Final Report (2023), Vol 6, Pt B.
- 03
Australia is bound by international law.
Articles 19, 23, 25 and 26 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (ratified by Australia 2008) require habilitation and rehabilitation services that are 'available, accessible, sustainable and continuous'. Cutting funded supports without an evidence-based methodology is inconsistent with these obligations.
UNCRPD arts. 19, 23, 25, 26; CRPD Committee Concluding Observations on Australia (2019), [CRPD/C/AUS/CO/2-3].
- 04
Disability supports return economic value.
The 2011 Productivity Commission modelling found the NDIS would add ~1% to GDP at maturity through workforce participation by participants and family carers, reduced reliance on acute health and crisis services, and improved educational and employment trajectories.
Productivity Commission, Disability Care and Support (2011), Vol 2, ch. 18.
- 05
Where supports stop, harm starts immediately.
International literature on austerity-era welfare reform (UK Work Capability Assessment, US Medicaid waiver caps) consistently shows that reductions to disability support correlate with measurable increases in psychological distress, hospital admission, family breakdown and suicide risk - within months of the change.
Barr et al., BMJ Open (2016) 6:e011336; Kerr et al., Lancet Public Health (2021) 6: e817-e825.
- 06
The community said this directly.
In ANPA's own May 2026 survey, 97.9% of 478 respondents are concerned that changes to how support needs are assessed could make it harder for neurodivergent families to qualify, and 94.8% foresee parent burnout if the Bill proceeds. This is not a fringe view. It is consensus.
ANPA community survey, May 2026, n=478.
Why protect the NDIS - What it already delivers
The Scheme is not just a cost. It is national social infrastructure.
Every anticipated harm from cutting supports is the direct inverse of a benefit families currently experience. The question is not what the NDIS costs - it is what Australia loses without it.
- 01
Family sustainability.
Individualised supports reduce caregiver exhaustion and keep families functioning. 94.8% of ANPA respondents anticipate parent burnout if these supports are cut.
Inverse harm if cut: parent burnout, family breakdown.
ANPA community survey, May 2026, n=478.
- 02
Wellbeing and mental health.
Participants report reduced anxiety, fewer meltdowns, and improved self-understanding. NDIA outcomes data shows gains in confidence, independence and life satisfaction.
Inverse harm if cut: psychological distress, crisis presentations.
NDIA Participant Outcomes Reports, 2023-2024.
- 03
Educational participation.
For many children, funded supports are what makes school attendance and meaningful learning possible. Early intervention produces age-appropriate developmental outcomes.
Inverse harm if cut: school refusal, lost developmental windows.
Productivity Commission (2011) Vol 2, ch. 15; AIHW (2024) ch. 7.
- 04
Independence and capacity building.
Supports build practical life skills, communication and self-care - the original investment logic of the Scheme. Participants progress toward adult independence and employment.
Inverse harm if cut: regression, lifelong dependency.
NDIS Act 2013 (Cth) s.3; NDIS Review Final Report (2023) ch. 4.
- 05
Community participation.
Support workers enable access to sport, recreation, friendships and family events - the ordinary community life Article 19 of the UNCRPD requires Australia to make possible.
Inverse harm if cut: social isolation, exclusion.
UNCRPD art. 19; NDIA Outcomes Framework, social/community participation domain.
- 06
Economic participation.
The Scheme employs ~325,000 workers and lifts household labour force participation by reducing unpaid care burdens. Modelled to add ~1% to GDP at maturity.
Inverse harm if cut: workforce withdrawal, lost GDP, lost tax revenue.
NDIS Review Final Report (2023); Productivity Commission (2011) Vol 2, ch. 18.
“It helped me regulate my emotions better, understand what's happening in my body and brain, tell people what I need, and feel like my brain isn't bad, it's just different.”
“Participants are provided with necessary supports that burnt out parents can't. Increases everyone's capacity to have quality of life and independence.”
“He is on track to becoming independent and I see he would be able to work and gain meaningful employment.”
Sources: ANPA community survey, May 2026 (n=478); NDIA Participant Outcomes Reports; Productivity Commission, Disability Care and Support (2011); NDIS Review Final Report (2023); UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Putting the two halves together
The evidence for continuing supports is decades old and international. The evidence of what happens when they stop is two years old and Australian. Parliament has both sets in front of it.
Citation: Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association, 2026, Visible Harm: NWO Harm Tracker Data, [Infographic series, images 1-19], snapshot 17 April 2026.