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

Submission 2062

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

I am writing as the parent and full-time carer of an 11-year-old disabled child with Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 3 and high support needs. I am deeply concerned about the impact the proposed NDIS Future Generations Bill may have on children with significant disabilities and on families already carrying very high daily care responsibilities. While I understand the importance of ensuring the NDIS remains sustainable, it is concerning that the proposed changes place too much emphasis on cost reduction without properly considering long-term consequences to those who need complex disability services most severely. The issue at hand concerns a potential cut in social participation aids which are essential not just recreational but necessary supports allowing our son safe access to community programs due his sensory dysregulation issues requiring constant supervision from trained staff or parents alike during outings, transitions etc., otherwise he would be unable safely attend autism-specific classes or join everyday activities; as well as emotional regulation and skill development opportunities now only available through carefully supported specific disability-related activities under parental guidance. The Royal Commission has warned isolation, segregation & lack thereof can increase risk harm abuse exclusion; thus it’s alarming how legislation might reduce such critical safety measures before broader safeguards established.

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

Submission 2062

supports ultimately secured remained modest compared with the level of daily supervision, regulation and care required. Those supports were not excessive. They were clinically recommended and necessary to maintain safety, emotional regulation, community participation and family sustainability. Our child’s treating occupational therapist, psychologist and medical specialists consistently report that:

• gains remain fragile and dependent on consistent supports
• reductions in support would likely lead to regression
• community participation is essential for regulation and wellbeing
• continuity of supports is critical to maintain emerging independence and functioning Importantly, our family does not rely on NDIS supports to avoid parental responsibility. I am the primary full-time carer and, after a three-year career break for caring responsibilities for our disabled child, I am now only able to work limited part-time hours, fewer than 23 hours per week, around our child’s support needs. My husband is in full-time work and provides significant care and support outside work hours, including evenings, weekends and community outings. This level of care and supervision is beyond what would reasonably be expected for a non-disabled child of the same age. as a family we provide overwhelming majority ourselves:supervision co-regulation Distance Education support therapy integration personal care sensory management community safety managing dysregulation across environments The additional support worker hours allow our child safely participate Community practise skills real-world settings gradually build independent ways otherwise possible impact Family has been significant Both parents established professional careers before caring responsibilities reshaped working lives reduced incomes significantly lifestyle choice reflects real level Supervision Support required These are about convenience They help us continue caring safely sustainably home reducing risk complete carer burnout concerned reforms expand reliance “family” informal supports neutral their real world impact In family both parents provide However many households assumption families absorb more unpaid falls most heavily mothers grandmothers women Carers affects workforce participation income superannuation health long term security broader also there workforce impact workers allied professionals small providers part Care infrastructure keeps children ours connected safe developing Cuts not only affect participants destabilise workforce rely on I am also concerned proposed mechanisms may broad reductions categories funding levels maximum intensity ratios Information shared at forum disability legal advocates explained that could still assessed reasonable necessary but Funding

Submission 2062

Submission text: Available may be reduced through broader category-based decisions. That creates real concern for families who rely on individualized planning, particularly where safety and community access depend on one-to-one support. I am also concerned about significant powers proposed for the Minister to set funding limits or intensity limits across whole categories of support.A category-level reduction might look administratively simple but it cannot adequately reflect an child’s circumstances whose ability fluctuates depending upon sensory load environment familiarity regulation sleep distress and consistency of care provided. We have particular concerns regarding requirements that a functional assessment must use if they are heavily reliant too much so in single off-the-cuff evaluations or unfamiliar assessors Our children don’t reliably engage with strangers Capacity can appear very different based whether familiar surroundings exist, whether our kids’ behavior is regulated, whether evaluators understand autism, as well as observations made during good versus bad periods A singular evaluation could overlook actual day to-day level supervision needed. The needs we face require us to evaluate using evidence gathered over time from doctors parents people close enough to know them intimately not just brief interactions with strangers. Many high-needs autistic children aren’t represented sufficiently within broad research groups. Families fear that generalized data could lead NDIA to impose hard caps therapy even when specific clinical information shows ongoing need. NDIA internal materials released under Freedom Information processes acknowledge risks associated burnout sensory overload regression among those operating without adequate supports accommodations These issues directly relate ours who already experience heightened levels of these challenges at baseline. at same time reforms focused mainly on reducing participant supports risk overlooking broader contributors Scheme cost pressures including fraud price inflation poor provider practices Families like ourselves do NOT cause unsustainable growth NDIS We strive keep our children safe connected community emotionally regulate build skills over time through recommended evidence-based support systems by treating professionals I ask the Committee ensure legislation: preserves individualized planning maintains meaningful review and appeal rights properly considers participant-specific clinical evidence ensures functional capacity assessments do not override longitudinal evidence provided by treating professionals families

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

Submission 2062

• recognizes the sustainability of informal care
• considers the gendered impact of shifting more unpaid disability-related care onto tamilies

protects the disability support workforce that families rely on

does not reduce supports for people with significant disability through broad category-based cuts disconnected from individual need This is not about luxury or convenience. it is about whether children with significant disability remain connected, supported and safewithintheircommunities.ThelongtermsustainabilityoftheNDISshouldnotcomeatthecostofgreaterisolation,reduced safetycarerburnoulandpoorerlifeoutcomeforchildrenwithsignificantdisabilitywhorelyonthesesupportstoparticipateintheircommunitysthankyouforsconsideringthissubmission.Wentworhelectorate