Submission 1979

Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

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

I am a 35-year-old autistic adult and an NDIS participant of about 18 months. I currently receive social support and occupational therapy which have been essential to my wellbeing and ability to participate in daily life and work after a long period of burnout.

How supports help me With NDIS-funded social support and allied health I regained basic stability and could rebuild a social life, engage with work and the people around me, and become a more effective and independent person. These funded supports provide the foundations for my mental health, community connection, and capacity to contribute economically and socially in ways that would be impossible or severely limited without them.

Concerns about specific provisions

e s 25A(2) — Access test change The provision that counts “appropriate treatment” as available to a person even when their individual circumstances (including financial or geographic barriers) prevent access directly risks excluding people like me. If treatments or services located far away or unaffordable to me are treated as “available,” my impairment can be deemed not permanent and access to the NDIS denied or removed. This is effectively a stripping of the practical meaning of “available” and will punish people for circumstances outside their control.

e s 25B(4) — Alternative supports Allowing supports to be declared “alternative” and thereby excluding impairments from the NDIS creates a pathway to funnel participants to services that may be incomplete, unqualified, or not yet operational. Many people — including me — rely on supports tailored to individual needs; being redirected to generic or partial alternatives risks leaving critical gaps in care.

e s 34(1G)-(1J) — Parental presumption The legal presumption that parents provide “substantial care and support” is deeply harmful to people whose parents do not, cannot, or will not provide that support. My parents do not support me in the ways the Bill assumes; if funding is reduced because the NDIS presumes parental care, I would face a significant, practical care gap. This presumption does not reflect diverse family situations and unfairly shifts responsibility onto unpaid family members while ignoring those who have no access to such supports.

s 34A — Funding below total cost Permitting the NDIS to fund less than the total cost when a cheaper “reasonable and necessary” alternative exists risks substituting inadequate services that do not meet my needs. Cheaper options may not address the full scope of required supports, leaving people with unmet needs and worse outcomes.

s 59B(4) — Automated decisions Authorising automated systems to make discretionary and evaluative decisions about plans risks dehumanising decisions that affect people’s health and safety. I have already experienced the NDIS

Submission 1979

making assumptions about my supports; automated decision-making could entrench such errors and reduce opportunities for individual context to be considered.

Schedule 5 — Transitional protections not guaranteed

Placing transitional protections in temporary, ministerial rule-making rather than in the Bill leaves vulnerable people exposed. Protections that can be repealed within 12 months or left unmade are not adequate safeguards for a population that depends on continuity of care.

Observed practice already reflecting the Bill’s approach

I have already experienced the NDIS assuming I have household or family support despite informing them otherwise. I have seen attempts to identify or push “alternative” supports in ways that reduce funded assistance. Decisions sometimes cherry-pick information to minimise funding and shift responsibility to other systems. These patterns indicate how the Bill’s changes could be used in practice to reduce supports.

Human impact if changes proceed

If these changes go ahead, the practical effects would include loss of supports I rely on, greater instability in daily life, reduced capacity to work, worsening mental health and increased risk of crisis. Expecting parental care where it does not exist would create dangerous gaps. Redirecting people to inadequate alternatives will increase long-term costs (crisis services, hospitalisations, lost employment) and cause real harm to dignity, safety, and lives.

What I ask the Committee to do

  1. Reject the Bill in its current form.
  2. If not rejected, require the following mandatory amendments before any passage:

• Remove or amend s 25A(2) so “availability” of treatment is assessed practically and includes a person’s financial, geographic and personal access barriers.
• Limit or remove s 25B(4) powers to declare “alternative supports” that can exclude impairments; require demonstrated parity of service, operational readiness, and individual suitability before any exclusion can occur.
• Delete the parental presumption (s 34(1G)-(1J)) or require an individualised assessment that cannot assume family support; explicitly protect participants who lack family or household support.
• Restrict s 34A so funding must meet the total reasonable and necessary cost unless a participant explicitly agrees to a reduced plan after informed consent.
• Prohibit automated decision-making (s 59B(4)) for determinations involving evaluative judgement, discretion, or that affect safety; require human oversight and clear review pathways.
• Put transitional protections in primary legislation rather than temporary ministerial rules (Schedule 5), ensuring durable safeguards and community consultation.
• Require an independent review of any amended Bill, including meaningful consultation with disabled people, representative organisations, and lived-experience experts, and delay passage until those safeguards are in place.

Final note

This is a Bill about disabled people’s lives and safety. It must be written with, not just about, people with disability. The changes proposed risk making the NDIS less responsive, less humane, and ultimately more costly and damaging to the people it exists to support. I urge the Committee to

Submission 1979

protect participants by rejecting or substantially amending this Bill and insisting on meaningful, lived-experience led consultation and binding safeguards.

May 29, 2026

(Submitted by an autistic adult and NDIS participant)