Submission 1814

Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Inquiry into the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS) Bill 2026

Submitted by: A disabled parent and community member Date: 29 May 2026

Introduction

I am submitting this as a disabled member of the Brisbane community living with severe treatment-resistant depression, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). I am also the parent of two neurodivergent children who rely on the NDIS.

My son is nine years old and has a global developmental delay, Level 2 ASD, and ADHD combined type. He has been on the NDIS since he was five and receives occupational therapy, speech pathology, exercise physiology, and psychology. My daughter is six, has a global developmental delay and ADHD combined type, and is currently being assessed for ASD. She has been supported by the NDIS since she was five and receives similar supports to her brother.

My wife, who is undiagnosed but has her own neurodivergent support needs, is effectively my carer. We are a family at capacity. This Bill is deeply concerning for our family.

What the NDIS Makes Possible

The supports my children receive through the NDIS have made a real difference to their daily lives. My son has developed significantly in his ability to regulate his emotions, adapt to the demands of school, and manage basic tasks. His confidence in communication has grown, and his fine and gross motor skills — things like jumping, dressing himself, and feeding himself — have all improved. He is more independent than he would otherwise be.

My daughter is still early in her support journey, but she is already building self-regulation techniques and has made progress in managing bedwetting. These might sound like small things, but for my children they make a big difference every day.

Without these supports, my children would not have made this progress. The world is already hard for neurodivergent children to navigate, and the NDIS is one of the few supports that helps bridge that gap.

Concerns About Specific Provisions in the Bill

Section 25B (4) — Alternative Supports and Excluded Impairments

This provision allows the NDIS rules to declare a support an “alternative” for an impairment, which can then be treated as an “excluded impairment,” effectively redirecting people away from the NDIS to an alternative program — even one that is not yet operational or does not meet individual needs.

Submission 1814

What worries me most is this: autism is already poorly understood and frequently stigmatised. I am worried that the government may decide my children’s disability can be adequately managed through an alternative program outside the NDIS, and that we will lose access to the specialist, evidence-based supports they currently receive. Even if an alternative program exists, I do not believe it would provide the same individual support that has helped my son and daughter so much.

Section 34(1G)–(1J) — Parental Presumption

This provision creates a legal presumption that parents of children with disability provide substantial care and support as a matter of course, allowing the NDIS to reduce funding on the basis that parents are assumed to be covering the gap.

This is one of the parts of the Bill that worries me the most. My wife and I are both neurodivergent. I live with severe treatment-resistant depression, and she is my informal carer as well as the primary carer for two children with high support needs. We cannot absorb more. The idea that the NDIS can reduce my children’s funded supports because parents are presumed to fill the gap is not just unrealistic in our situation – it is dangerous. In practice, this assumes families can somehow make up the difference, even when many of us are already at breaking point.

Section 59B (4) — Automated Decision-Making

This provision authorises automated systems and algorithms to make decisions involving discretion, evaluative judgement, and forming a “state of mind” about a participant’s plan. For a family like mine, this is frightening because no automated system can properly understand how complex each child’s needs really are. No algorithm can understand the intersection of my son’s ASD, ADHD, and developmental delay, or how my own disability shapes our family’s capacity to support him.

The Human Cost of the Bill Changes

If my children’s supports were reduced or removed, the effects on them would be immediate and long-term. They would go backwards – in their education, in their ability to build friendships, in performing basic daily tasks like brushing their teeth or eating, and in managing their emotions. They could lose skills they have worked hard to build.

That cost would fall on a family with no capacity to absorb it. I am struggling with severe treatment-resistant depression. My wife is undiagnosed but has her own significant support needs. We are already carrying more than most families could. These supports are not extras. They are part of what keeps our family going.

Recommendations

I ask the Committee to:

Submission 1814

• Reject the Bill in its current form. The provisions as drafted create too much risk for existing participants, particularly children with neurodevelopmental conditions and their families.
• Engage meaningfully with the disability community before pursuing any reform. Any changes to the NDIS must be developed with — not imposed on — people with disability and their families.
• Remove or substantially amend sections 25B (4) and 34(1G)-(1J), which risk stripping supports from children with ASD and other neurodevelopmental conditions, and from families who cannot absorb the gap.
• Prohibit automated decision-making for any determination about a participant’s plan or access to the scheme.

Conclusion

The NDIS was created because too many people with disability were not getting the support they needed. I am worried this Bill takes us backwards. I urge the Committee to protect the scheme’s integrity and the people who depend on it.

This submission is made in a personal capacity. I consent to it being published and cited in the Committee’s report. However, I wish to remain anonymous because I am concerned that disclosing my neurodivergence and treatment-resistant depression could be used against me in the future.