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

Submission 1994

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

NDIS provider & parent of NDIS participant, South Australia.

Date:

May 26, 2026

I am writing to express serious concerns about the proposed NDIS Amendment Bill and its impact on disability service delivery, workforce sustainability, access to evidence-based supports, together with protection of those individuals requiring high levels or complexity in their support needs.

CONTEXT: PROFESSIONAL ROLE AND EXPERTISE

As a professional operating within this field since my practice began over two decades ago delivering specialised therapeutic interventions tailored towards clients suffering from developmental delays as well neurological conditions such autism spectrum disorder ADHD along associated care requirements I have had extensive experience working alongside some most vulnerable members society particularly non-verbal autistic children adults profound intellectual disability severe behavioral issues necessitating intensive intervention often unresponsive mainstream treatments available.

My expertise is based both professionally gained through years dedicated work private sector also personally lived experiences directly impacting families navigating these challenges daily.

SPECIFIC CONCERNS

The **

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

Submission 1994

no meaningful life to be home bound which also increases pressure and stress on our family. Her being able to leave the house to be part of society is a goal and one she may never achieve without support.

For my non-verbal clients and those with profound support needs, group-based community activities are often impossible. A 50% budget cut forces a false choice: close services or reduce quality. I have spent 20 years building trust-based relationships with clients and families who have often been failed or rejected by mainstream services. I cannot absorb a 50% revenue reduction while maintaining the supervision, training, and quality that makes my services safe and effective. Clients who need support to attend therapy are at risk of not being able to attend.

MAXIMUM THERAPY INTENSITY CAPS: RISK OF HARM FROM INSUFFICIENT INTERVENTION

The Explanatory Memorandum states the Bill may “specify a maximum intensity for a particular therapy support if research shows that any more than that intensity does not add any benefit for an individual.” The example given is “12 hours per year of a particular kind of therapy support.” For a non-speaking autistic child or a person with severe intellectual disability requiring intensive speech, motor, and nervous system support, 12 hours per year is not intervention—it is abandonment. This approach provides no protection for participants at risk of harm due to insufficient intensity. Our clients with severe behaviours of concern, self-injurious behaviours, or profound speech and motor delays require sustained, intensive therapeutic intervention. Arbitrary caps based on generic research will not reflect their actual needs. The Bill provides no mechanism to protect people who require more intensive support to prevent harm.

WORKFORCE VIABILITY AND JOB LOSSES

The combined impact of 50% support cuts and maximum intensity caps will force the closure of specialist services. A 50% cut to social and community supports, combined with evidence-based caps that exclude high-need populations, means we cannot maintain our workforce. Support workers will lose jobs. The expertise and training they represent will be lost. The disability sector is already struggling with workforce recruitment and retention; this bill makes it worse.

ACCESS AND ELIGIBILITY: EXCLUDING PEOPLE WHO MOST NEED SUPPORT

I have lived experience of the gatekeeping that this bill will formalise and worsen. More critically, it will exclude precisely the people I serve: non-speaking autistic individuals, people with severe intellectual disability, and those with complex behavioural needs. The bill claims to clarify eligibility. In practice, it narrows access for people with genuine, significant support needs.

SYSTEMIC RISK: CASCADE EFFECTS

When specialist disability services close, the burden shifts to emergency services, mental health systems, and hospitals. When people lose access to the therapeutic supports they depend on, their capacity decreases. Crisis presentations increase. For my non-verbal clients and those with severe behaviours, loss of intensive therapeutic support will lead to increased self-injury, aggression, and hospitalisation. The costs will shift to emergency departments, not disappear. This is not sustainability. It is cost-shifting.

LOSS OF CHOICE AND CONTROL: RISK OF RETURN TO INSTITUTIONAL MODELS

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill

Submission 1994

Background:

• The NDIS was established in response to decades of systemic failure within institutional and welfare-based disability systems.
• Australia has a documented history of abuse, neglect, segregation, restraint, overmedication, loss of autonomy within government-run settings,
• This risk undermines one foundational principle: disabled choice control supports lives lead.

Funding Reductions:

When funding reduced therapeutic capped below safe levels specialised community-based become financially unviable support needs lose real choices families not choosing between alternatives corner crisis. For non-speaking autistic profound intellectually severely need collapse person-centred leads increased hospitalisation mental health admissions restrictive practices family breakdown homelessness placement institutions congregate settings particularly concerning because affected least able advocate themselves. The intended move away from controlled segregated deprived conditions force into pathways recreate form. Choice must exist practice participants denied access home communities relationships education workplaces practical outcome coercion lack alternaties reform assessed financial human rights lens including obligations Convention Rights Persons with Disabilities.

Lack Consultation Evidence:

disability sector—particularly therapists services supporting high-need populations—was meaningfully consulted Advocates service providers expressing serious concerns remain addressed evidence generalisable standards improve outcomes for non-speaking children severe intellectual disability modelling workforce impact cost accounting showing shifting costs emergency saves money bill rushed through Parliament without adequate scrutiny.

What Needs Happen:

I am asking the Senate Committee to remove or substantially revise “generalisable evidence” standard protect underrepresented populations (non-speaking autistic people those with severe intellectual disability, individuals) individualised and participant-specific given equal weight.

Submission 1994