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

Submission 1993

NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026

Senate Community Affairs Committee Submission

Introduction

I am the parent of a young child with significant neurodevelopmental disability. My child experiences substantial functional impairment across executive functioning, emotional regulation, sensory processing, social communication, learning, personal independence and community participation. Like many families, we rely on the NDIS to access supports that help our child develop skills, participate in daily life and reduce future dependence on government-funded services.

Position on the Bill

I oppose the NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026 in its current form. While the stated intention is to improve sustainability of the Scheme, I am concerned several proposed changes will have the opposite effect. By restricting access to support, increasing reassessment requirements and creating additional barriers for participants with lifelong disabilities, the Bill risks shifting costs into other government systems rather than reducing them.

Key Concern 1: Functional Capacity Testing and Reassessments

Children with Autism, ADHD and related neurodevelopmental disabilities often present with uneven skill profiles. They may demonstrate competence in a structured assessment environment while still requiring substantial support in everyday life. Funding decisions based on assessment snapshots rather than real-world functioning risk significantly underestimating support needs. Many developmental disabilities are lifelong. Support requirements may change over time, but the underlying disability remains. Requiring repeated reassessment creates administrative burden, uncertainty and distress for families without improving outcomes.

Key Concern 2: Permanence and Treatment Requirements

I am concerned about proposals that make it harder to establish permanence of disability by requiring participants to demonstrate they have undertaken all appropriate treatments. Neurodevelopmental disabilities such as Autism and ADHD are not illnesses that can be cured. Families should not be required to continually prove that they have exhausted every possible intervention before accessing support.

Key Concern 3: Social and Community Participation Supports

The proposed reductions to social and community participation supports are another significant concern. These supports are often misunderstood as optional or recreational. In reality, they are where many children develop the practical life skills that reduce future dependence. Supported participation teaches communication, emotional regulation, social understanding, problem solving, self-advocacy and community safety.

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

Submission 1993

Why These Changes Represent a False Economy

The long-term economic consequences of reducing early support should not be underestimated. Children who lose access to community participation supports are at greater risk of social isolation, anxiety and disengagement from education. Children who lose access to therapy and capacity-building supports may remain dependent on family members for longer and require more intensive supports as adults. Reduced access to emotional regulation supports increases the likelihood of crisis intervention, school exclusions and mental health admissions. Many neurodevelopmental disabilities are invisible disabilities. Children may appear capable while still requiring substantial support to function safely and effectively in everyday life. A child who receives support to remain engaged in school today is far less likely to require lifelong income support, intensive mental health services, crisis interventions, supported accommodation or high-cost disability services as an adult. This is why I believe the proposed changes represent a false economy. Any short-term savings achieved by restricting access to supports are likely to be outweighed by significantly higher costs borne by health, mental health, education, housing, justice, welfare and aged care systems in the future.

Review Rights and Accountability

I am concerned about proposals that reduce review rights or increase the ability for funding decisions to be made without meaningful independent appeal. Participants and families must retain confidence that decisions affecting essential supports can be reviewed fairly and transparently.

Recommendations

• Reject provisions that increase barriers to support.
• Protect participants with lifelong disabilities from unnecessary reassessments.
• Maintain independent review and appeal rights.
• Preserve access to social and community participation supports.
• Ensure reforms support long-term independence rather than short-term cost shifting.

Conclusion

Children with lifelong disabilities deserve certainty, stability and the opportunity to reach their full potential. Reforms that reduce access to support may create the appearance of savings in the short term, but they risk creating a generation of Australians with greater support needs, poorer outcomes and increased dependence on government systems. The true measure of sustainability is not how much support can be removed today. It is whether today’s children are given the opportunity to become tomorrow’s most independent, capable and engaged adults. I do not believe this Bill, in its current form, achieves that objective.

Yours sincerely,