NDIA Accountability Project

Concerns regarding access to supports for an Autistic girl with ADHD

‹ PrevPage 1 of 5 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 216

Committee Secretary Community Affairs Legislation Committee Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

22 May 2026

Dear Committee Secretary,

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

Introduction

My name is . My husband, , and I are parents and carers of an amazing, bright and friendly 8-year-old Autistic girl with ADHD. She has a Level 3 Autism diagnosis and requires very substantial support for communication, emotional regulation, sensory processing, and daily functioning.

We are writing to share our experience of the wonderful benefits she has received from her NDIS supports as well as to express serious concerns regarding the proposed NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, particularly its implications for eligibility, access to reasonable and necessary supports, and the practical impacts on children with disability and their families.

Executive Summary

We support a sustainable and well-functioning NDIS. However, we are deeply concerned that the proposed reforms risk narrowing access to essential supports through:

  • tighter eligibility criteria,
  • revised definitions of ‘reasonable and necessary supports,’
  • changes to functional assessment processes, and
  • an expanded interpretation of parental responsibility, without clear and fully funded alternative systems in place.

The NDIS is designed to fund the supports people with disability rely on to live ordinary lives, including getting out of bed, attending school or work, communicating, and participating in the community.

Measures intended to slow Scheme growth through tighter eligibility thresholds, reclassification of supports, or shifting responsibility into parental care will not reduce underlying need.

Submission 216

Instead, they risk shifting costs and responsibility onto already stretched families and mainstream systems, including education and health services, or, more concerningly, leaving people with disability without the essential supports required to build capacity and lead ordinary lives.

We are asking Government to:

  • Protect access to reasonable and necessary supports under the amended framework.

  • Rule out reductions in eligibility through the proposed functional capacity-based access model that would exclude people with genuine disability-related support needs.

  • Ensure no participant is transitioned off the NDIS until fully funded and operational alternative supports are available.

  • Provide clear communication and transition pathways to reduce distress and uncertainty for participants.

Full Details

Our lived experience:

We are deeply grateful for the NDIS supports our daughter has received over the past five years. These supports have been transformative.

Through intensive early intervention and ongoing support, she has progressed from a toddler with substantial delays in language, gross motor skills, daily living skills, and social interaction, and severe difficulty regulating emotions, to a child who has transitioned from a specialist Autistic school into a supportive mainstream primary school environment. She now enjoys quality friendships, participates in activities such as gymnastics, dancing and swimming, and is steadily building independence.

We therefore have direct lived experience of the critical importance of sustained access to tailored NDIS-funded supports. We are deeply concerned at the prospect of our daughter’s supports being reduced or denied, given the clear impact this would have in slowing her development and limiting her progress toward independence.

Key Concerns:

  1. Risk of reduced access through tightened eligibility and revised definition of supports

The proposed reforms introduce a shift toward more tightly-defined eligibility based on functional capacity thresholds, alongside a narrower interpretation of reasonable and necessary supports.

There is a real risk that this will reduce access to supports for people who continue to experience significant functional impairment and disability-related need.

Submission 216

If eligibility is narrowed or supports are reclassified, people with disability may lose access to essential supports required for safe participation in daily life. This will not reduce need; it will shift costs and responsibility to families and mainstream systems that are already under strain.

Functional capacity assessments and the I CAN tool

The move toward standardised functional capacity assessment tools, including the proposed I CAN framework, raises serious concerns regarding validity, consistency, and suitability for complex disability presentations.

Standardised tools risk failing to capture fluctuating, hidden, or context-dependent disabilities, particularly for Autistic children, where communication, sensory processing, and regulation needs vary significantly across environments.

It is also concerning that assessors may not be required to have specialist qualifications in allied health, disability, or child development, and may receive limited training. This creates a risk of inconsistent assessment outcomes with significant consequences for access to supports under the new eligibility framework.

supports

The Bill’s approach to defining supports in relation to parental responsibility raises concerns that disability-specific supports may be reclassified as ordinary parenting responsibility.

Parents of children with disability already provide extensive additional care, including continuous supervision, co-regulation, communication support, and management of sensory and behavioural needs. These supports are disability-specific and not comparable to typical parenting responsibilities, and are accompanied by a significant ongoing burden of advocacy and care coordination.

Reclassification in this way risks placing unsustainable pressure on families and reducing children’s access to essential supports required for safety, development, and participation.

Risk of participants being excluded from the Scheme without equivalent

alternatives

There is concern that changes to eligibility and functional assessment criteria could result in a significant number of participants being deemed ineligible for the NDIS.

If participants are removed from the Scheme without fully-funded and operational alternative supports in place, this will result in unmet need, increased family

Submission 216

burden, and increased pressure on mainstream systems that are not designed or resourced to provide equivalent disability supports.

  1. Erosion of early intervention and child development outcomes

Early intervention supports are particularly at risk under a more tightly defined functional capacity-based eligibility model.

For Autistic children, early intervention is time-sensitive and critical to long-term developmental outcomes, including communication, independence, education participation, and future support needs.

Any delay, reduction, or restriction in access to early intervention supports will likely increase long-term support requirements and reduce lifetime independence outcomes.

Requests:

We respectfully ask that Government:

  • Protect access to reasonable and necessary supports under the amended Act.

  • Rule out eligibility changes that exclude individuals with genuine functional disability-related needs.

  • Avoid blanket funding caps or benchmark reductions that do not reflect individualised support requirements.

  • Clearly define parental responsibility as care consistent with a child without disability.

  • Ensure no participant is transitioned off the NDIS until equivalent, fully-funded alternative supports are operational.

  • Protect critical early intervention pathways for children with developmental disability and Autism.

  • Independently review the I CAN functional assessment tool, including its validity, consistency, and assessor qualification requirements.

  • Improve communication and transition planning to reduce uncertainty and system instability.

  • Prioritise system improvement and efficiency without reducing access to essential supports.

Conclusion

The success of the NDIS should be measured not only in financial sustainability, but in whether it enables Australians with disability to live safe, dignified, and ordinary lives.

Submission 216

People with disability already invest significant time and energy advocating for the supports and adjustments required to participate in society on equal terms. These reforms must not increase that burden or reduce access to essential supports.

We urge the Committee to reject the Bill in its current form and ensure that any future reform is developed through genuine, structured co-design with people with disability, families, and representative organisations.

Any reform must preserve equitable access to the supports people rely on to build their capacity, participate in their communities, and live meaningful lives.

Thank you for considering our experience and requests.

Yours sincerely,

  • BSc / BA (Hons), Master of Social Health (Health Ethics), Grad. Cert. of Science (Applied Statistics)
  • Parent and carer of an NDIS participant
  • Neurodivergent person
  • Active member of the Disability Community, including volunteer roles with a disability advocacy organisation and my local council’s Disability Advisory Committee.

Consent Statement:

I consent to this submission being published with my contact details withheld and my name included.