Submission 1984

To: Community Affairs Legislation Committee Re: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Dear Committee Members,

I am writing as the parent and family member of a young autistic person to express my deep concern about the proposed changes in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. Public information about the Bill shows that it proposes significant changes to eligibility, planning, reassessment and the level of supports that may be funded through the NDIS.

For our family, this is not an abstract policy debate. These changes have the potential to affect whether our son can continue to access the supports that make ordinary life possible — not luxuries, not extras, but the support he needs to learn, to participate, and to have a real chance at a future.

Our son has Level 2 Autism. He requires a support worker to access the community and attend TAFE, and he also needs fortnightly speech pathology and occupational therapy. These supports are fundamental to his communication, regulation, independence and participation. Without them, his world shrinks very quickly.

I understand that the Government is trying to respond to serious problems in the Scheme. There have been longstanding concerns about fraud, overcharging and exploitation within parts of the NDIS market, and recent reform packages have been explicitly framed around strengthening fraud controls, provider regulation and governance. But from the perspective of families like ours, it feels as though the pendulum has now swung too far the other way. After years in which some providers were allowed to exploit weaknesses in the system, the answer now seems to be sweeping changes that risk taking support away from the very people the Scheme was created to protect.

One of my greatest concerns is the proposed move away from diagnosis-based access towards a functional capacity assessment model. Public material on the Bill states that access would increasingly be based on substantially reduced functional capacity using a more standardised assessment framework. These assessments may not reflect how disability affects a person in real life, especially if they focus on what a person can do in isolation rather than what they can actually manage day to day in the real world.

That is exactly what worries me for our son. If you looked at him briefly, or in a supported environment, you might think he is coping better than he really is. But the reality is that his ability to attend TAFE, access the community, communicate effectively and regulate himself depends on support being there. If you assess “capacity” without properly recognising the role of support workers, therapy and structure, you risk fundamentally misunderstanding his needs.

I am also very concerned that the Bill proposes tighter rules around reassessments and support determinations. The Health Department’s own fact sheet states that unscheduled plan reassessments would be limited, supports must arise directly from eligible impairments, and the Minister would be able to make determinations to reduce funding for groups of supports, including social, civic and community participation and capacity-building daily activities. The Office of Impact Analysis likewise states that the preferred reform option includes changes both to eligibility and to the volume of supports funded by the NDIS. For families, that means constant uncertainty about whether the supports our children rely on now will still be there in the future.

Submission 1984

That uncertainty is especially harmful for autistic people. Autistic Australians already face very serious barriers to employment, including disproportionately high unemployment and underemployment, and public reporting shows that AI is already reshaping some entry-level roles and causing at least some employers to reduce junior hiring patterns. In that context, sweeping reductions to support for education, community access and capacity building will be to the detriment of autistic people who are already facing an insecure future. If we strip away the supports that help autistic young people study, travel, build confidence and participate, we are making it even harder for them to have any chance of employment and independence later on.

I also want to state very clearly that our son’s current funding is already inadequate. Even now, we supplement his supports ourselves. We take him to appointments, we take him to activities, and we fill the gaps because otherwise he would simply miss out. We do this because we are his family and we love him, but it should not be assumed that families can endlessly absorb what the system does not fund. Many families are already stretched beyond capacity.

I am deeply worried about the impact these reforms could have on access to speech pathology and occupational therapy. For our son, fortnightly speech pathology and occupational therapy are not optional. They are what support his communication, daily living skills, sensory regulation and ability to engage with study and community life. If access to therapy is reduced, delayed or made harder to sustain, the likely result is not less need — it is regression, distress and greater dependence in the long term.

Another issue I want the Committee to consider is the assumption that support can simply be shifted elsewhere. Public information about NDIS reforms makes clear that governments are developing “foundational supports” and relying more heavily on other service systems outside the NDIS. But many disability advocates have warned that removing support before alternatives are demonstrably working simply displaces risk onto people with disability, families and already strained systems. That reflects our experience as well. Other funding streams are substantially inadequate for people with lifelong disability. They are patchy, limited, hard to access, and nowhere near enough to replace individualised NDIS support for someone with enduring and significant needs. In practice, when governments say support will sit somewhere else, families often hear that the burden will simply be shifted back onto us.

I also note that previous reform evaluation found participants were already experiencing confusion, uncertainty and anxiety under recent legislative changes. Families like ours are already dealing with complicated paperwork, changing rules, provider shortages and constant advocacy just to maintain basic supports. More reassessment, fewer safeguards and reduced flexibility do not make the Scheme fairer from where we stand. They make life more precarious.

I understand the need for the NDIS to be sustainable. But sustainability cannot come at the expense of the people it was designed to support. A young person with Level 2 Autism who needs support to attend TAFE, participate in the community and continue regular speech and occupational therapy is exactly the kind of person the NDIS should continue to stand behind. Those supports are reasonable, necessary and practical. They are the difference between progress and isolation.

I ask the Committee to consider the lived impact of these reforms on families like ours, and in particular to ensure that:

• eligibility assessments reflect real-world functioning, including the role of support and environment, not just unsupported performance in an artificial setting;

Submission 1984

• existing participants are not subjected to destabilising reassessment and funding cuts that undermine continuity of care

• community participation, education-related supports and capacity-building supports are protected

• access to allied health, including speech pathology and occupational therapy, is maintained in a way that is realistic and sustainable

• no-one is pushed into mainstream or foundational systems unless those systems are fully funded, accessible and demonstrably working for people with lifelong disability.

Thank you for considering this submission. I urge the Committee to ensure that any reform to the NDIS does not punish the people who have done nothing wrong and does not make life harder for autistic young people who already face substantial barriers to independence, education and employment.

Yours sincerely,