National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1609
To the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee,
I am writing as a parent, carer, and concerned Australian regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
My sons J and B have been on the NDIS since 2018 and 2020 respectively. J has Autism Level 2 and B has Autism Level 3. B■ is non-verbal, incontinent, and has seriousabsconding•behavioursIthat create constant safety risks. The support funded through the NDIS -has not been a luxury for our family. It funds support worker hours that allow my children to participate in daily life and access education, and therapies that have helped develop communication and important skills over time. These supports have created real progress over many years.
I am deeply concerned that under the proposed changes, at least one of my sons could lose access to the scheme entirely. If that happened, the impact would not simply be reduced services. It would mean the loss of years of progress and would place the responsibility entirely back onto our family. I would be unable to pursue employment because I would need to provide full-time care myself. The consequences would extend well beyond our household.
The 2023 Independent Review produced a roadmap of 26 recommendations and 139 actions with one clear instruction: they were to be implemented together. Foundational supports were described as a non-negotiable requirement before changing eligibility or participant funding. Those foundational supports do not yet exist, yet these changes are moving ahead anyway. I do not understand how families are being asked to accept major changes without the supports that were considered essential being put in place first.
I am also concerned by the wider justification for these changes. Nearly four in five entrants and approximately half of all NDIS participants are autistic people. The Productivity Commission identified autistic people as exactly the population the scheme was designed to support. My children are not examples of people who somehow entered a system they were never intended to use. They are examples of the people the system was built for.
I also understand that the NDIS returns approximately $2.25 to the Australian economy for every dollar spent. Reducing support does not remove need. It simply moves the burden somewhere else: onto hospitals, crisis systems, mental health services, and families. Families like mine will absorb those impacts through unpaid care, reduced workforce participation, and increased strain.
I ask the committee to consider the following questions. The foundational supports the review prescribed as non-negotiable preconditions do not exist. On what basis has the government proceeded with eligibility changes? What does Treasury project hospitals, mental health services, housing systems, and families will spend absorbing what the NDIS no longer covers? Has that modelling been done and, if so, why has it not been released? What gender impact assessment has been conducted on the workforce participation and lifetime economic impact on women who will absorb the care these changes displace?
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1609
I ask the committee to reject this bill until foundational supports are in place, require the government to release downstream cost modelling, and require an independent human rights assessment before any changes of this scale proceed.
Yours sincerely,