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

Submission 2052

25th May 2026

Dear Secretariat,

Submission to Senate Inquiry – Proposed Changes to the NDIS Act I am writing to express deep concern regarding proposed changes to the NDIS legislation, particularly changes that may weaken access to early intervention, reduce participant choice and control, and move disability support away from individualised, person-centred practice. As someone working closely alongside autistic children, young people, and families, I see every day the profound benefit of timely, targeted, evidence-informed support delivered early and tailored to the individual child. Early intervention is not simply a service model. It is a preventative investment that changes life trajectories. Autistic children and young people benefit most when support is:

• Individualised to their strengths, needs, and goals
• Flexible and responsive over time
• Delivered by clinicians, educators, and support workers chosen by the family
• Embedded within natural environments such as home, school, and community
• Focused on capacity building rather than crisis response When children receive appropriate support early, outcomes improve across multiple domains including:
• Emotional regulation
• Communication skills
• Social participation
• Educational engagement
• Community inclusion
• Independence and daily living skills
• Family wellbeing and sustainability Early intervention does not remove disability. It reduces barriers, builds skills, strengthens protective factors, and prevents escalation into crisis-driven support systems. Importantly, early intervention also reduces long-term system costs. Children who receive timely supports are less likely to require intensive interventions later, less likely to disengage from education, less likely to develop secondary mental health concerns, and more likely to participate meaningfully within their communities. I am particularly concerned by proposed changes that may narrow eligibility criteria or delay support until impairments have become more significant. Waiting for deterioration before support becomes available contradicts evidence-based practice. For autistic children and young people, intervention is most effective when it occurs before challenges become entrenched. Delaying support creates preventable distress for children and families and ultimately increases long-term costs to government systems including health, education, disability, and mental health. I am also deeply concerned about proposals that reduce participant choice and control. Families know their children. Parents and carers understand what approaches are effective, which professionals build trust, and how supports need to be adapted to meet their child’s unique profile. The NDIS has been transformative because it recognised disability support cannot be “one size fits all.” Removing flexibility and participant direction risks moving disability support toward rigid, standardised models that do not reflect the diversity of disability experiences. Autistic children are not identical. Two children with the same diagnosis may require completely different supports. A system driven primarily by automated processes or prescriptive models risks overlooking complexity, context, and individual need.

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

Submission 2052

Participant choice and control must remain central. Families should retain the right to determine: - Who supports their child - What evidence-based interventions are most appropriate - How supports are delivered - How goals are prioritised - How funding is used to build genuine functional capacity Strong families build strong outcomes. Capacity building should not focus only on the individual participant. Supporting parents, carers, siblings, and broader support networks strengthens long-term sustainability and improves outcomes for autistic children and young people. The NDIS was established as a rights-based system designed to promote inclusion, participation, and individual agency. Any legislative reform must protect these principles. I respectfully urge the Senate Inquiry to ensure that reforms: 1. Protect access to early intervention for autistic children and young people. 2. Preserve participant choice and control. 3. Maintain individualised planning and flexible support delivery. 4. Recognise family capacity building as an essential component of disability support. 5. Ensure evidence-based early supports remain accessible before crisis or deterioration occurs. 6. Protect person-centred approaches and avoid over-standardisation or automated decision-making that reduces individual consideration. Early intervention works. Choice and control work. Individualised supports work. Protecting these principles protects children, families, and the long-term sustainability of the disability system itself. The proposed changes also create concern regarding the sustainability of small, specialised disability service providers who deliver highly individualised supports within local communities. I operate a small allied health and disability support business which currently employs seven staff members and contributes to the Australian economy through wages, superannuation, taxation, and local employment opportunities. More importantly, our organisation provides specialised neuroaffirming supports to autistic children, young people, and families who rely upon continuity, trust, and individualised therapeutic relationships. Policy settings that reduce participant choice and control, narrow access to early intervention, or move toward increasingly standardised support allocation models risk destabilising small community-based providers who deliver highly tailored care. If small specialist organisations become financially unsustainable, families may lose access to clinicians who understand their child, have built trusted relationships over time, and deliver targeted interventions that improve long-term outcomes. The long-term cost of losing local specialised services may far exceed any short-term savings achieved through restrictive funding approaches. Disability reform should strengthen community capacity and preserve specialist services, not unintentionally create conditions where experienced local providers are unable to remain viable.