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

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 2 02*. Public information shows it proposes significant changes regarding eligibility planning reassessment level-of-supports through-NDIS. For us this is not an abstract policy debate These changes have potential affect son can continue access supports make ordinary life possible — luxuries extras but support he needs learn participate real chance at-future Our son has Level Autism He requires worker community attend TAFE also fortnightly speech pathology occupational therapy these are fundamental his communication regulation independence participation Without them world shrinks very quickly I understand Government trying respond serious problems scheme There longstanding concerns fraud overcharging exploitation parts NDLS market recent reform packages explicitly framed around strengthening fraud controls provider regulation governance But from perspective families like ours feels pendulum now swung too far other way After years some providers allowed exploit weaknesses system answer seems sweeping changes risk taking support away people Scheme created protect One greatest concerns move diagnosis-based towards functional capacity assessment model. Public material on-Bill states that increasingly based substantially reduced using standardised framework assessments may reflect disability affects-person-real-life especially if focus what they can do isolation rather than manage day-to-day-world That exactly worries me our son If you looked briefly supported environment might think coping better reality ability to attend-TAFE,access-community communicate effectively regulate himself depends being there assess “capacity” without properly recognising role of support workers therapy structure fundamentally misunderstanding needs Also concerned Bill proposes tighter rules regarding-reassessments and determinations Health Department’s own fact sheet unscheduled plan reassessment limited must arise directly eligible impairments Minister able determine reduce funding groups supports including social civic-and-communities-participation-capacity-building-daily-activities Office Impact Analysis likewise preferred reform option includes both eligibility volume-of-supports-funded-by-the-NDIS For-families means constant uncertainty whether the children rely-on-now will still be-there-in future.

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

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 alternativesare demonstrably working simply displaces risk onto people with disability,families anda lready strainedsystems.That reflectsour experience as well.Other funding streams aresubstantially inadequate forpeoplewith lifelongdisability.Theyarepatchy,limited,hardtoaccess,andnowhere nearenough toreplacindividuallisedNDISsupportforsomeoneewithenduringandsignificantneeds.Inpractice,wengovernmentsaysupportwillsitsomewhereelse,familiessoftenhearthattheburden willsimplybeshiftedbackontous.I also note thatearlier reform evaluation found participants were already experiencing confusion, certaintyanda nxietyunderrecentlegislativechanges.Familie slikeoursared ealingw ith complicatedpaperwork,changingrules(providershortages)constantadvocacyjusttomaintain basicsupports.More reassessmentfewersafeguardsandreducedflexibilitydonotmakethescheme fairerfromwherewe stand.Theymakelifemoreprecarious. I understand theneedforthenDSIs to besustainable.Butsustainabilitycannotcomeatth expenseofpeop leitwasdesignedtosuppor t.Ayoungpersonwit hLevel2Autismwho needssupp ortt o attendTAFE,particip atein thecommunityandcontinue regularspeech andoccupationaltherapyis exactlyther kind of person ther NDIS should continuestostandbeh ind.Thosesupports arereasonable,necessaryandr actical. Theyarethedifferencebetweenprogressandi solation I ask them Committeeto considerlivedimpacto fthese reforms on families like ours,and in particular toe nsure that:

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

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1984

• Existing participants are not subjected to destabilizing reassessment and funding cuts that undermines continuity of care.
• Community participation, education-related supports eandcapacity-buildingsupportsareprotected.
• Access to Allied Health ,includingspeechpathologyandoccupationaltherapy,ismaintainedinawaythatisrealisticandsustainable.
• no-onenispushedintomainstreamorfoundationalsystemsunlessthosesystemsarefullyfundedaccessiblesendemonstrablyworkingforpeoplewithlifelongdisability . Thankyouforconsideringthissubmission.IurgetheCommitteetoensurethatarreformtontheNDISdoesnotpunishthereoplewhohavedonenothingwrongandonotmakelifeharderforautisticyoungpeopleshalfacesubstantialbarrierstoindependenceeducationandenployment.Yoursincerely,