Submission 143

Submission to the Senate Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Role: Parent and primary carer Location: Victoria Date: 20 May 2026

1. Introduction

I am the parent and primary carer of a 9-year-old child diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (Level 2), who requires substantial support. My child is also highly masking, meaning that her impairments are not always visible in structured or clinical settings, despite significant functional challenges in daily life.

I am deeply concerned that the proposed amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Act will disproportionately disadvantage children like my daughter, particularly those with autism who mask or compensate for their impairments.

This submission outlines concerns regarding:

• The definition and measurement of functional capacity
• The lack of clarity around “substantially reduced functional capacity”
• The impact of masking on assessment outcomes
• Changes to access, timeframes, and reassessment rules
• Expanded Ministerial powers
• Risks for children at the boundary between NDIS and foundational supports

2. Lack of Clarity About “Substantially Reduced Functional Capacity”

The Bill introduces a formal definition of functional capacity but does not define what constitutes “substantially reduced” functional capacity in practice. Instead, this is deferred to future rules.

While the aim is to improve consistency, the absence of a clear legislative definition creates:

• Significant uncertainty for families
• A lack of transparency in access decisions
• The risk of inconsistent application during the transition period

For parents, this creates a situation where eligibility thresholds are unclear at the point of application, making it difficult to plan or understand future entitlement.

3. Risks of a Functional Capacity Model for Autistic Children

Submission 143

The proposed model shifts from diagnosis-based access to an assessment of functional capacity, defined as a person’s ability to perform activities independently without supports.

While this framework aims for objectivity, it raises serious concerns for autistic children.

3.1 Masking Leads to Under-Assessment

Children who mask:

• May appear more capable than they are in structured environments
• Can perform well in short assessments
• Often conceal distress, fatigue, and effort

As a result, they risk being assessed as having only moderate impairment, despite requiring substantial support.

The Bill does not provide safeguards for recognising or accounting for masking.

3.2 Assessments May Not Reflect Real-World Functioning

Although assessments are intended to focus on intrinsic ability, in practice they often rely on limited observations.

This creates a risk that:

• Post-school exhaustion (shutdowns, meltdowns)
• Emotional dysregulation
• Reliance on structured supports

are not adequately captured.

Children may therefore be assessed as more independent than they actually are.

4. Changes to Timeframes and Planning Reduce Flexibility

4.1 Restricted Access to Plan Reassessment

Reassessment is limited to situations involving a significant and ongoing change in needs.

This reduces flexibility where needs increase gradually, which is common in developmental conditions like autism.

4.2 Longer Decision Timeframes

Reassessment decisions may take up to 90 days, reducing responsiveness and delaying access to supports.

4.3 Automatic Plan Renewals

Submission 143

Plans may be renewed without reassessment, limiting opportunities to update supports and reducing oversight.

4.4 Annual Funding Reset

Unused funding does not carry over, reducing flexibility where services are delayed or unavailable.

5. Ministerial Powers and System Governance

The Bill substantially expands Ministerial powers, shifting the NDIS toward greater centralised control. While intended to support sustainability and consistency, these changes raise important concerns about fairness, transparency, and the ability of the system to respond to individual needs.

5.1 System-wide Funding Controls

The Minister may determine reductions to entire categories of supports and apply funding limits across all or groups of participants.

This includes the ability to:

• Reduce funding for specific support categories
• Set maximum funding levels or support intensity

These measures apply broadly and are not based on individual circumstances, meaning participants may receive less support than is assessed as necessary.

5.2 Control Over Eligibility and Assessment

Key concepts, including what constitutes “substantially reduced functional capacity,” are not defined in the Act and will instead be set through NDIS rules.

This enables eligibility thresholds and assessment methods to be altered without amending primary legislation, reducing transparency and certainty for families.

5.3 Direction to Alternative Systems

The Minister may determine that certain supports should be provided by other service systems rather than the NDIS.

This creates risks where:

• Alternative systems are under-resourced or inconsistent
• Access to equivalent supports is not guaranteed

Participants may therefore face gaps in support or be shifted between systems without adequate safeguards.

Submission 143

Limited Individual Review and Accountability

Many Ministerial powers operate through legislative instruments that:

• Apply broadly across participants
• Are not subject to individual merits review

This limits the ability of participants to challenge decisions that directly reduce or restrict their access to supports.

Overall Impact and Risks

Taken together, these powers enable the Minister to:

• Control funding levels across the Scheme
• Set eligibility thresholds outside primary legislation
• Cap supports regardless of individual need
• Shift responsibility for supports to other systems

This represents a move toward a centrally managed system where individual circumstances may be constrained by system-level decisions.

For children with autism, particularly those who mask, this raises concerns that:

• Support levels may not reflect actual needs
• Eligibility thresholds may not capture less visible disability
• Access to appropriate supports may become more limited over time

Impact on Families and Recommendations

Taken together, these changes create:

• Uncertainty about eligibility and future support
• Risk of under-assessment for children who mask
• Reduced flexibility in planning and reassessment
• Increased administrative burden on families
• Less transparency and fewer meaningful review pathways

Recommendations

I recommend that the Committee:

1. Define “substantially reduced functional capacity” in legislation
2. Require explicit consideration of masking and variability in assessments
3. Allow reassessment where supports are insufficient

Submission 143

• 4. Review extended decision timeframes
• 5. Introduce safeguards on Ministerial powers and improve transparency
• 6. Ensure alternative systems provide equivalent supports

Conclusion

The proposed reforms aim to create a more consistent and sustainable NDIS. However, without additional safeguards, they risk excluding or under-supporting children with complex but less visible disabilities.

Children with autism who mask are particularly vulnerable under a system focused on observable functional capacity.

I urge the Committee to ensure that the NDIS remains equitable, responsive, and capable of recognising the full reality of disability—including those that are not immediately visible.