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

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1665

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

I am writing as the parent of a child with autism to provide a submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

This submission addresses specific provisions of the Bill and outlines how they affect children with lifelong neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism.

I recognise the importance of protecting the long-term sustainability and integrity of the NDIS. However, I oppose the Bill in its current form because several proposed changes are not suited to the lived reality of autism, are not supported by how disability presents in practice, and are likely to lead to poorer outcomes and greater long-term costs for the community.

Summary of key concerns  Functional capacity: the proposed definition risks assessing children in an artificial, unsupported context that does not reflect real-world functioning.  Reassessment responsiveness: tighter reassessment rules may reduce the Scheme’s ability to respond as children’s needs change over time.  Parental responsibility presumption: the expanded presumption risks reframing disability support as ordinary parenting and reducing essential supports.  Ministerial power to reduce funding: broad reductions to support groups may override individualised reasonable and necessary support needs.  Evidence hierarchy for supports: overly rigid evidentiary thresholds may exclude individualised, clinically appropriate supports for complex profiles.  Permanence: the “all appropriate treatment” requirement is not appropriate for autism and may delay access to supports for lifelong disability.  Appropriate treatment and access: the Bill risks ignoring real constraints such as provider availability, waitlists, geography and family capacity.

1. About my child with autism and why this Bill matters My child with autism has a clear gap between cognitive ability and functional capacity. In structured or low-demand contexts, my child can present as capable. In everyday life, particularly when demands increase, functional capacity often reduces significantly.

When overwhelmed, my child experiences nervous system overload and shutdown, leading to an inability to engage, process language or complete basic daily tasks. This is not defiance. It is an involuntary response to stress, demand and environmental load arising from his diagnosed disability, autism spectrum disorder.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1665

The NDIS has supported my child to build skills and capacity over time. The supports funded are not luxuries. They are the pathway to participation, safety, and a level of long-term independence.

2. Concerns with specific provisions of the Bill

2.1 Proposed section 9B – redefinition of functional capacity Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Bill proposes to insert new section 9B into the Act to define functional capacity as a person’s ability to undertake an activity without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications, and in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of environmental and personal circumstances.

For my child with autism, this approach risks misrepresenting real-world functioning. Supports and environment are not optional extras. They are the difference between functioning and non-functioning.

In practice, without appropriate support and co-regulation, my child is often unable to:

 self-initiate and complete daily routines such as dressing, eating, hygiene and getting ready for school  transition between tasks or environments without distress and shutdown  safely navigate community environments without close adult supervision  participate in age-appropriate community and social activities without a trusted adult actively present

Assessing functional capacity “without assistance” risks overestimating ability and underestimating support needs. It creates a real risk of reduced supports based on an artificial standard that does not reflect daily life.

2.2 Amendment to section 48A – restricted plan reassessment on request Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Bill proposes to amend section 48A to restrict participant-initiated plan reassessments to circumstances involving a significant and ongoing change in support needs arising from eligible impairments, linked to significant changes in functional capacity or unanticipated changes in personal or environmental circumstances.

For children, needs evolve as they grow, change school years, face increasing demands, and respond to therapy. A less responsive reassessment pathway risks freezing supports at a point in time and can mean families must wait for crisis-level change before adjustments are made.

2.3 Proposed subsections 34(1G) to 34(1J) – parental responsibility presumption for child participants Schedule 1, Part 3 of the Bill proposes to insert new subsections 34(1G) to 34(1J), which strengthen the presumption that parents are responsible for providing substantial care and support, including supervision, personal care, transport, emotional support and behavioural support, and restrict supports whose primary purpose is seen as reducing parental burden or improving household efficiency.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1665

I am concerned this would reframe essential disability supports as ordinary parenting. The level of daily support required for my child with autism is constant and intensive. It goes beyond what would reasonably be expected of parents of a child of the same age without disability.

Without appropriate funded supports that build capacity over time, the burden does not reduce. It increases as my child grows older and expectations increase. Funded therapies and supports do not replace parenting. They build the child’s skills and reduce the likelihood of lifelong dependence.

2.4 Proposed section 34A – ministerial power to reduce funding for groups of supports Schedule 1, Part 4 of the Bill proposes to insert new section 34A, enabling the Minister to determine a percentage reduction for specified groups of supports, with effect even if the reduced funding is less than the total cost of reasonable and necessary supports.

This risks undermining individualised supports for children like my child with autism. If broad, budget- driven reductions override clinically justified and individually appropriate supports, the impact is immediate and compounding: reduced capacity building, increased distress, and higher reliance on family and other systems.

2.5 Proposed subsection 34(1E) – effective and beneficial considerations Schedule 1, Part 6 of the Bill proposes to insert subsection 34(1E), setting out effective and beneficial considerations relevant to the reasonable and necessary support test. In practice, the provision places significant emphasis on published, peer-reviewed and generalisable research evidence, and allows decision-makers to reject supports where this evidence is limited even if individual evidence exists.

Autism presentations are diverse and supports are often individualised. Rigid evidentiary hierarchies risk excluding supports that are clinically appropriate, evidence-informed and effective for the individual child. The NDIS should allow clinical judgement and participant-specific evidence to carry appropriate weight.

2.6 Schedule 1, Part 8, including proposed section 25A – permanence of impairment and “all appropriate treatment” Schedule 1, Part 8 of the Bill, including proposed section 25A, introduces a requirement that an impairment is not permanent, or likely to be permanent, unless the person has undertaken all appropriate treatment (if any), and any other treatment is unlikely to materially improve, reverse or alleviate the impact of the impairment.

Autism is a lifelong neurodevelopmental condition. Supports and therapy can build capacity, but they do not eliminate autism. Permanence should be assessed based on reasonable clinical expectation and the lifelong nature of the condition, not on a treatment exhaustion threshold.

This approach also creates a perverse incentive in practice. If a child makes progress through therapy, that progress could be used to argue the impairment is not permanent. This discourages honest reporting of improvements and undermines the purpose of capacity building.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1665

2.7 Schedule 1, Part 8 – proposed definition of “appropriate treatment” and real-world access constraints Schedule 1, Part 8 of the Bill also defines “appropriate treatment” for the purpose of the proposed permanence framework. It describes appropriate treatment as evidence-based treatment that can reliably be expected to materially improve, reverse or alleviate impact, and that is regularly undertaken in Australia. It also provides that treatment may still be considered appropriate regardless of whether a person’s individual circumstances restrict access.

In practice, access to suitable therapy can be limited by provider availability, waitlists, geography, costs and family capacity. A child should not be disadvantaged because the system cannot provide timely access to services. Treatment should only be considered “appropriate” where it is reasonably accessible in the participant’s circumstances.

3. Broader impacts and long-term cost Reducing access to appropriate disability supports does not remove disability or support needs. It shifts costs to families, schools, hospitals and mental health services. It also increases reliance on unpaid caring, often reducing parents’ workforce participation and increasing stress.

ABS data highlights the scale of disability in Australia and the ongoing gaps in participation and employment for people with disability, as well as the prevalence of caring responsibilities. Reforms that reduce access to capacity-building supports risk widening those gaps and creating a false economy over time.

4. Recommendations and suggested amendments For the reasons set out above, I oppose the Bill in its current form and recommend that it be substantially amended to:

5. Assess functional capacity in real-world conditions, recognising supported functioning and the impact of environment and appropriate accommodations, rather than assuming functioning without assistance.

6. Maintain timely and responsive reassessment pathways for children where needs evolve with age, development and changing circumstances.

7. Clarify that disability-related supports for children are not excluded simply because they overlap with areas of parental care, where those supports address needs that go beyond what would reasonably be expected for a child of the same age without disability.

8. Clarify that sustainability mechanisms, caps or broad funding reductions cannot operate in a way that prevents access to reasonable and necessary supports based on assessed needs.

9. Ensure the effective and beneficial test allows clinical judgement and individual evidence of effectiveness to be sufficient, especially where broad research evidence is limited for complex presentations.

10. Determine permanence based on reasonable clinical expectation that an impairment will persist for life, rather than requiring exhaustion of “all appropriate treatment”, particularly for lifelong conditions such as autism.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1665

7. Require decision-makers to consider whether “appropriate treatment” is reasonably accessible in the participant’s circumstances, including provider availability, waitlists, geography, cost and family capacity.

Amendments of this nature would result in a more appropriate and sustainable approach to the Scheme, while also supporting greater confidence within the disability community.

5. Conclusion I respectfully ask the Committee not to proceed with the Bill in its current form. The provisions identified in this submission should be reconsidered and substantially amended to ensure any reforms remain aligned with the purpose of the NDIS, are grounded in evidence and lived experience, and support long-term outcomes for children like my child with autism and the broader community.