Submission 1564

Submission to the Senate Inquiry

Executive Summary

I am a Speech Pathologist and small business owner delivering NDIS-funded capacity building supports to school-aged children in home and school environments. I am deeply concerned that the proposed amendments to the NDIS will reduce access to essential supports, increase eligibility barriers, and shift costs onto already overstretched systems such as Medicare and public allied health services, which are not resourced to absorb additional demand. In practice, these changes would significantly impact my clients through reduced therapy access, functional regression, and increased behavioural and educational difficulties, while also placing greater strain on families and carers who are already carrying substantial unpaid care responsibilities. They would also make my current service model financially unviable, threatening the sustainability of my small business and reducing access to highly specialised, evidence-based disability support. I urge the Committee to ensure that any reforms strengthen — rather than restrict — access to timely, specialised, and equitable supports for people with disability.

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

I am a Speech Pathologist and small business owner providing evidence-based therapy and assessment to school-aged children under the NDIS capacity building supports. I deliver services in the environments that matter most to my clients, including schools and homes, supporting communication, social relationships, daily living skills, and participation in education and community life.

The NDIS is what allows me to provide this work in a sustainable and flexible way while also supporting my family. As a full-time mother working part-time alongside my business, the Scheme enables me to balance caring responsibilities with providing consistent, meaningful therapeutic support to clients. It also allows me to operate a small business that focuses on long-term functional outcomes rather than short-term, crisis-driven intervention. Without the NDIS, this model of care would not be financially viable, and both my income and my business would be placed at serious risk.

Through the NDIS, I am able to support participants not only with speech and language development, but with broader functional goals such as social participation, classroom engagement, feeding and cooking skills, and communication across key life transitions — including starting school, moving into high school, and transitioning toward employment pathways. These supports are not optional extras; they are foundational to participation, safety, independence, and quality of life.

I am deeply concerned about the proposed changes to the NDIS legislation.

My clear view is that these reforms appear to have been developed without meaningful consultation with the people who understand the system in practice — participants, families,

Submission 1564

and frontline providers. The result is policy that does not reflect the reality of service delivery or the existing pressures across the health and disability sectors.

There is already significant strain on the broader health system, particularly Medicare-funded allied health services, which are not resourced or structured to absorb the demand currently supported through the NDIS. Many of these services already have waitlists exceeding 12–18 months, with limited capacity for complex, long-term disability support. If participants are pushed back into this system, the result will not be efficiency — it will be further system collapse, longer delays, reduced intervention frequency, and poorer outcomes for vulnerable people.

This shift would also have direct consequences for specialised NDIS providers. Providers such as myself have undertaken additional training and professional development specific to neurodivergence and disability practice, including syndrome-specific and functional capacity approaches. This level of expertise is not consistently available in generalist community services. Reducing access to NDIS-funded supports therefore risks replacing specialised, preventative and capacity-building intervention with fragmented or inappropriate care delivered by already overburdened systems.

The impact on clients would be immediate and significant. If funding were reduced or supports removed, many of my clients would be unable to access ongoing therapy privately due to cost. This would lead to reduced participation in education, regression in functional communication and daily living skills, and behavioural escalation directly linked to loss of structured support and regulation. For many of my clients, therapy is not only skill development — it is also a safe, trusted relationship and a regulated space that supports their ability to cope with the demands of school and community environments.

These impacts do not sit in isolation. They flow outward into families, schools, and health systems. Families and carers are already carrying an enormous and largely invisible load — emotional, financial, and practical. They are balancing constant advocacy, coordination of care, and long-term uncertainty about their child’s future. Expecting them to absorb further reductions in formal support is not realistic and would significantly increase stress, burnout, and inequality.

The proposed changes to eligibility and the concept of “permanence”, including requirements for participants to exhaust all available treatments before being considered eligible, also raise serious concerns. Many disabilities are lifelong, including Autism, ADHD, and cerebral palsy, and may be genetic, developmental, or acquired at birth or through a traumatic event. Requiring people to “prove” permanence through exhausting treatments that may be inaccessible, unaffordable, or unavailable locally does not reflect clinical reality. Instead, it risks delaying support during critical developmental periods where early intervention is essential.

It is also important to recognise that shifting participants out of the NDIS does not reduce cost — it transfers it. It shifts demand onto already stretched systems such as Medicare and public allied health services, while simultaneously increasing pressure on families and reducing workforce participation for carers who must fill the gap left by reduced formal supports.

Submission 1564

The NDIS is not an optional program. It is a foundational system that enables participation, dignity, and equity for people with disability across Australia. Any reform must strengthen access to appropriate supports, not create additional barriers that push costs and responsibility elsewhere.