Submission 1941
Submission against the proposed NDIS Bill: “National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026.” Date: 28th May 2026
To whom this may concern,
My name is . I live in , New South Wales, on Tharawal land, and I work as a sessional academic tutor at Macquarie University. I am also a member of the National Tertiary Education Union. I am writing to you because I care about the role of the NDIS in supporting my family and community (including my cousin, diagnosed with autism), and, as such, I am writing in opposition to the bill: “National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026.”
There are many concerns that have been raised by the community over damaging changes to the NDIS scheme proposed by this bill that will have a direct and negative impact on people’s lives; but to clearly address some of the terms of the bill, I will keep my focus to two specific sections in my letter today.
The first section that I am deeply concerned about relates to definitional changes around eligibility and “reasonable and necessary supports” as mentioned in Schedule 1, Part 6 of the proposed bill.
The NDIS has so far been an indispensable system in supporting my cousin, , who has autism, with the possibility of interdependence; allowing him to socialise, facilitate various support networks and engagement with support workers, develop his skills and interests, and ensure that he is able to live a dignified life in community.
According to sources at the ABC, people with autism make up “nearly four in five of all new entrants to the [NDIS] scheme, and nearly half of all current participants.“1 I am concerned about the vague language around assessments on eligibility and particularly what might be classified as “necessary” support for those with an autism diagnosis where support needs are materially di[erent, individualised, and require active and continued negotiation. I am concerned that necessary and essential support for those with autism diagnoses could be eliminated as a direct result of this bill and due to a lack of consultation with families a[ected.
1 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-22/ndis-participant-removal-autism-focus/106593430
Submission 1941
I quote from a recent petition titled “Petition EN9864 - Protect access to reasonable and necessary supports under the NDIS”2 which echoes my concerns around these changes: “Reducing growth by restricting eligibility, capping plans, or limiting access to reasonable and necessary supports will reduce access to essential assistance and directly impact people with disability’s ability to live ordinary lives…The NDIS was established to provide individualised supports based on need. Moving away from this approach undermines the purpose of the Scheme.”
In relation to my concern around the evaluation of participant’s needs, I concur with the petition’s conclusion that “decisions a[ecting NDIS participants” must be “transparent, evidence-based, co-designed and include appropriate safeguards and avenues for review.”
This is particularly crucial when, for instance, a person with autism such as my cousin is communicative and mobile but cannot independently travel, work, or maintain his own agency without support. How will he be assessed under the new changes? What kinds of safeguards will be in place to ensure that these new changes to the evaluations around “necessary supports” will be transparent and co-designed with consultation with families of people like ? These and other questions remain unresolved and not in keeping with the prior missions of the NDIS.
Transparency, co-design, and collaboration is crucial. The NDIS, as has been argued by many of its designers, by people in my family, including those who will be directly a[ected by these changes, was originally shaped with the aim of giving voice and control to those in the disabled community over their own lives, and to live those lives with recognition and respect.
In relation to transparency, I am also deeply concerned by sections under Schedule 3—Governance Arrangements, which outline the addition of “Division 5—Automation of administrative action, 16 59B Automation of administrative action.” I believe this will absolutely contravene those tenets of voice, recognition and respect. It is wrong and disgraceful to allow for “computer programs” to be involved in an administrative and decision-making capacity around eligibility and determinations that will a[ect people’s lives. Even if a computer program is used solely “to assist a decision-maker to make a decision,” there is no mention of transparency (as stated in the language of petition EN9864) about the data
Submission 1941
gathered or architecture of the system/program that will be used in generating recommendations, nor the weight of that “assistance” in deciding.
As it stands, this bill will cut o[ essential supports and services to those who need it. This is a statement echoed by many in the community and among specialists and analysts who have written about the proposal in The Guardian and the ABC. The language around “reasonable supports” and the use of “computer programs” lacks clarity and a clear enough vision for how these changes will nurture and provide safety for the community, rather than harm them. This will, of course, not only a[ect those on an NDIS plan with a diagnosis of autism but everyone with the NDIS whose access to the Scheme makes their everyday life possible.
I believe the bill in its current form is harmful and should not be passed in parliament.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,