National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1099
Subject: Urgent Objection to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 — Impact on
Dear Minister / Senator / Member of Parliament,
Please accept this correspondence as my submission regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I am writing to strongly oppose the Bill in its current form because of the serious and direct impact these proposed changes may have on my son, , who is an NDIS participant with complex disability-related support needs.
is not simply a name in a system or a line item in a budget. He is a young person with significant support needs who requires consistent, safe, person-centred, trauma-informed and disability-informed support to live safely, maintain relationships, access the community, regulate emotions, build capacity, and reduce crisis escalation.
’s circumstances are complex. He has required coordinated involvement from the NDIS, DFFH, disability support providers, family, school/community supports and other services. He has also been involved in a voluntary out-of-home care arrangement, with ongoing planning around safety, stability, reunification, community access and appropriate provider support.
For a young person like , NDIS supports are not optional extras. They are essential safeguards that help prevent crisis, family breakdown, behavioural escalation, social isolation, carer burnout, and unnecessary involvement with emergency, hospital, child protection, police or justice systems.
I support the need for the NDIS to remain sustainable and protected for future generations. However, sustainability must not be achieved by cutting essential supports from children and young people with complex disability needs, narrowing eligibility, reducing community access, or making families fight even harder for support that is already clearly needed.
I am particularly concerned about the following proposed provisions and how they may affect Hayes.
- Proposed Section 34A — 50% reduction to social, civic and community participation supports
I strongly oppose any proposed 50% reduction to social, civic and community participation supports.
For , community participation is not a luxury. It is a core disability support.
Community access assists to build social skills, practise safe relationships, maintain routine, participate in ordinary community life, reduce isolation, regulate emotions, and engage in activities outside the home or care environment. These supports are particularly important for
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1099
young people with disability who may struggle with emotional regulation, social communication, impulsivity, behavioural escalation, trauma responses, anxiety, or difficulty understanding relationships and boundaries.
A blanket reduction of 50% does not reflect individual need. It does not consider the reality of children and young people with complex disability presentations. It does not consider the pressure placed on families, carers and support systems when community access is reduced.
For , reducing community participation funding could mean:
fewer safe and structured opportunities to access the community; increased isolation; increased emotional distress; increased behavioural escalation; greater pressure on family and carers; reduced ability to build independence and capacity; reduced ability to maintain positive routines; increased risk of crisis presentations; increased pressure on DFFH, school, mental health, police, emergency services and family systems.
If ’s community access is reduced without individual assessment, this could destabilise his care arrangements and place unreasonable pressure on his family and support network.
I ask that Section 34A be removed or amended so that no participant, including , has social, civic or community participation supports reduced through a blanket percentage cut without individual assessment, written reasons and full review rights.
- Proposed Sections 33(2EA) and 32K — Ministerial caps on supports
I strongly oppose any provision that allows the Minister to impose broad caps on NDIS supports, including dollar caps, hour caps, staffing caps, ratio limits, or other restrictions that are not transparent, individualised and reviewable.
’s support needs cannot be safely determined by a hidden or generalised cap. His needs must be assessed according to his disability, functional capacity, risk, family circumstances, care arrangements, behavioural needs, trauma-informed needs, developmental stage and safety requirements.
Young people with complex disability needs may require higher levels of support at particular times, especially during transitions, placement changes, family contact, school changes, behaviour escalation, provider changes, reunification planning, or when informal supports are under pressure.
If Ministerial caps are applied without proper scrutiny, could lose essential support simply because his needs exceed a general limit. This would not make his needs disappear. It would
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1099
simply shift the risk onto his family, carers, DFFH, hospitals, police, schools and emergency services.
Any caps or limits must be:
publicly available; transparent; evidence-based; subject to parliamentary scrutiny; compatible with human rights; based on individual functional need; explained in writing; reviewable by the participant or nominee.
must not be placed at risk because a general cap overrides his individual disability-related needs.
- Proposed Section 341AA — Removal of the whole-of-person approach
I strongly oppose any change that removes or weakens the whole-of-person approach.
’s needs cannot be properly understood by looking at one impairment in isolation. His support needs arise from the interaction between disability, development, emotional regulation, behaviour, communication, family stress, care arrangements, trauma-informed needs, social functioning, safety risks and environmental factors.
Children and young people with complex presentations often do not fit neatly into one category. Their needs may cross disability, behaviour support, psychosocial wellbeing, family functioning, trauma, education, community access and child safety systems.
If the NDIS only funds supports that arise directly from one eligible impairment, may lose supports that are clearly necessary in real life, even if they are difficult to attribute to one single diagnosis or impairment.
This is especially dangerous for children and young people with complex needs because support gaps can quickly escalate into crisis.
A whole-of-person approach is essential because it allows the NDIS to consider:
’s overall functional capacity; his disability-related behaviour and regulation needs; his safety and supervision needs; his social and communication needs; his family and carer context; the risk of placement breakdown; the need for trauma-informed support;
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1099
the interaction between multiple support systems; his need for consistent, predictable and skilled support.
I ask that Section 341AA be removed or amended to ensure that participants like continue to be assessed as whole people, not as isolated impairments.
- Proposed Section 58 — Automatic plan renewal, 12-month rollover and loss of unspent one-off or capital funding
I am concerned about proposed changes to automatic plan renewal and the loss of unspent one- off or capital funding at the end of a plan period.
For , delays in using funding may occur for reasons outside his or his family’s control. These may include delays in provider availability, support coordination, behaviour support planning, therapy reports, assessments, quotes, DFFH coordination, NDIA decision-making, school or placement changes, or finding a suitable provider who can safely meet his needs.
Participants and families should not be punished because systems move slowly.
If unspent funding for assessments, behaviour support, therapy, assistive technology, capacity building, or other approved supports disappears at rollover, could lose supports that were already accepted as necessary.
This is particularly unfair for children and young people in complex care arrangements, where approvals, quotes, reports and provider engagement often take longer because multiple systems are involved.
I ask that Section 58 be amended so that approved funding can be carried forward where the support remains necessary and delays were outside the participant’s control.
- Proposed Section 48A — Harder unscheduled reassessments and extended decision timeframes
I oppose any change that makes it harder for participants to request an unscheduled reassessment when their circumstances change.
’s circumstances can change quickly. A young person with complex disability needs may experience sudden changes in behaviour, emotional regulation, family capacity, placement stability, school engagement, provider suitability, safety risks, or support availability.
A 90 or 91-day timeframe for the NDIA to decide whether to reassess or vary a plan is too long where a child or young person is in crisis or at risk of crisis.
For , waiting three months for a decision could mean:
increased risk of behavioural escalation;
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1099
increased pressure on carers and family; increased risk of placement breakdown; increased risk of unsafe family contact or unsafe transitions; increased reliance on DFFH or emergency systems; increased trauma and instability; reduced ability to implement early intervention and prevention.
Families should not have to wait until everything collapses before support is increased.
I ask that Section 48A be amended to include urgent reassessment pathways where there is risk to the participant, family, carers, placement stability, school engagement, safety or wellbeing.
There must also be written reasons, clear timeframes and review rights when reassessment requests are refused or delayed.
- Proposed Sections 40A and 31A — Plan suspension, information requests and civil penalties
I am deeply concerned about any provision that allows a participant’s plan to be suspended due to alleged failure to respond to information requests or after undefined “reasonable attempts” to contact them.
This is especially concerning for children and young people with disability, families in crisis, and participants who rely on parents, nominees, carers, providers or government systems to manage communication.
should not lose essential supports because of communication difficulties, administrative delays, family stress, provider confusion, nominee issues, DFFH involvement, or inaccessible communication from the NDIA.
Suspending a plan could remove the very supports that keep safe and stable.
I am also concerned about civil penalties of up to $20,000. This is an extreme penalty for families and participants who may already be under significant emotional, financial and caring pressure.
Before any suspension or penalty is considered, there must be strong safeguards, including:
clear written notice; accessible communication; reasonable adjustments for disability; contact with parents, nominees, guardians or authorised representatives; support from advocates where needed; clear explanation of what information is required; reasonable time to respond; protection where suspension would create risk of harm;
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1099
full review and appeal rights.
For a young person like , support should never be suspended in a way that increases risk, destabilises care arrangements, or places greater pressure on already stretched family and service systems.
- Proposed Section 9B — New functional capacity / “naked person” eligibility test
I am concerned about any new eligibility or functional capacity test that is too narrow, artificial or disconnected from real life.
Functional capacity should not be assessed by asking what a person can do in a perfect environment or on their best day. It must consider whether the person can perform tasks safely, repeatedly, reliably and sustainably in everyday life.
For , this is extremely important.
A young person may appear able to do something once, but still require significant support to do it safely and consistently. He may require prompting, supervision, emotional regulation support, behavioural support, communication support, structured routine, transport support, community access support, or skilled workers who understand his disability and triggers.
A narrow “naked person” style test risks ignoring the real-world support needs of participants whose disability affects behaviour, judgement, emotional regulation, social understanding, relationships, impulse control, communication, safety awareness and capacity to cope with change.
For , eligibility and support needs must be assessed in context, including:
his developmental stage; his disability-related behaviour; his need for supervision and structure; his emotional regulation needs; his family and care arrangements; his ability to safely access the community; his ability to maintain relationships; his need for skilled and consistent support; his risk of escalation when supports are reduced; the sustainability of informal care.
Eligibility must reflect real functional impact, not a narrow or unrealistic test.
- Schedule 5 — Transitional rules and Ministerial power to modify operation of the Act
I am concerned that Schedule 5 may allow transitional rules to be made in a way that creates uncertainty for participants and families.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1099
Families like mine need clarity. We need to know what supports will remain available, what rights has, how decisions will be made, and whether there will be review options if supports are reduced.
Transitional arrangements must not be used to remove supports, bypass consultation, reduce review rights, or create confusion about what participants are entitled to.
For , sudden or unclear rule changes could directly affect planning, provider engagement, placement stability, family contact, community access and safety planning.
Any transitional rules must be:
publicly available; written in plain English; subject to parliamentary scrutiny; consistent with human rights; developed with genuine consultation; accompanied by clear participant information; reviewable where they affect individual supports; designed to prevent harm during transition.
Participants and families should not be forced to navigate complex hidden rules while trying to keep a young person safe.
- Claim timeframes, record keeping and administrative burden
I am also concerned about changes that reduce claim timeframes and increase administrative burdens on participants, families and providers.
Families caring for children and young people with complex disability needs are already carrying enormous responsibility. We are managing appointments, providers, school issues, behaviour, safety, family stress, DFFH involvement, NDIS communication, plan reviews, reports, complaints and daily care needs.
Administrative reform must not punish honest families who are already overwhelmed.
For , delays in claims or documentation may occur because multiple systems and providers are involved. These delays should not lead to loss of support, repayment stress, reduced services, or family punishment.
Integrity measures should target fraud and exploitation, not create fear and pressure for families who are trying to do the right thing.
- Broader impact on , family safety and crisis systems
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1099
The greatest concern is that these proposed changes may increase risk for and for families like ours.
If supports are reduced, capped, delayed or made harder to access, the need will not disappear. It will show up somewhere else: in family crisis, carer burnout, emergency services, hospital presentations, school breakdown, DFFH involvement, police contact, mental health crisis or placement instability.
For , the right supports at the right time are preventative. They help reduce escalation and support safety, routine, connection and stability.
Cutting or delaying these supports is not prevention. It is cost-shifting.
The NDIS should support children and young people with disability before crisis occurs, not after families and placements break down.
I ask that you:
- Oppose the Bill in its current form.
- Remove or amend proposed Section 34A so that and other participants do not face blanket cuts to social, civic and community participation supports.
- Ensure any support limits under proposed Sections 33(2EA) and 32K are transparent, public, evidence-based, individualised and reviewable.
- Retain a whole-of-person approach and amend proposed Section 341AA so participants with complex and intersecting needs are not disadvantaged.
- Amend proposed Section 58 so that approved but unspent funding can be carried forward where supports remain necessary and delays are outside the participant’s control.
- Amend proposed Section 48A to include urgent reassessment pathways for children and young people at risk of crisis, placement breakdown, family breakdown or safety concerns.
- Amend proposed Sections 40A and 31A to prevent plan suspension or civil penalties without accessible communication, reasonable adjustments, advocacy support, nominee involvement and strong safeguards.
- Ensure any proposed Section 9B eligibility or functional capacity test considers real- world functioning, safety, sustainability, fluctuating capacity, behavioural needs and support needs beyond basic physical tasks.
- Ensure Schedule 5 transitional rules cannot be used to bypass consultation, parliamentary scrutiny, human rights safeguards or participant review rights.
- Extend the Senate inquiry and consultation period so families, carers, people with disability, advocates and frontline workers have a genuine opportunity to respond.
- Ensure children and young people with complex disability needs are specifically considered in the human rights and safety impact of this Bill.
- Protect current NDIS participants, including , from sudden funding reductions, support gaps, administrative penalties and unsafe transitions.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1099
deserves support that reflects his real life, his real needs, and his right to safety, dignity, development, connection and inclusion.
The NDIS should not become a system where children and families must reach crisis point before support is provided.
Please provide a written response outlining your position on this Bill and what action you will take to protect and other current NDIS participants with complex disability-related support needs.
Yours sincerely,