Submission 2195

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

To:

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Date:

29 May 2026

POSITION: I ask the Committee to recommend that the Bill not be passed in its current form. Measures aimed at fraud, and integrity should be separated from provisions that alter access, planning, funding and review rights. I ask the Committee to recommend amendments that preserve individual assessment, review rights, practical consideration of service availability, and specific safeguards for children, families and participants in regional areas.

1. Introduction

I make this submission as a Queensland parent and carer of a young child with level 3 autism, and as someone who has experienced the practical consequences of service gaps, provider turnover and long waitlists in regional Queensland. This submission addresses concerns relating to - Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

I do believe the NDIS needs reform, however the NDIS also needs to have integrity, safety, quality and sustainability. My concern is that sustainability should not be achieved by narrowing access, reducing supports, increasing reliance on families, or creating broad powers that allow support to be reduced without individual assessment, safeguards and review rights.

My main concern is that families should not lose NDIS supports based on a promise that other services may become available in the future. Supports should not be reduced unless there is a real, accessible and suitable alternatives already available to the participant.

2. Summary of Recommendations

• Recommendation 1: Do not pass the Bill in its current form. Separate fraud, integrity and provider-safety measures from provisions that alter access, planning, funding reductions, plan suspensions and participant rights.
• Recommendation 2: Amend Schedule 1 so that decisions about permanence, treatment, functional capacity and reasonable and necessary supports must consider real-world accessibility barriers, including regional waitlists, workforce shortages, affordability, travel, provider turnover, developmental needs and whether a child can actually engage with the proposed mode of support. Decisions affecting children should also be required to consider family capacity, early intervention evidence and the risk of harm caused by delay.
• Recommendation 3: Remove or limit Ministerial powers to reduce or cap funding for groups of supports unless there is individual assessment, public evidence, parliamentary scrutiny, clear exceptions, safeguards, written reasons and merits review.
• Recommendation 4: Preserve access to review for decisions that materially affect a participant’s plan, including renewed plans, funding reductions, plan suspensions and decisions that narrow supports through Hdirectly arisesH or similar tests.
• Recommendation 5: Co-design functional capacity assessments and framework planning with people with disability, families, carers, clinicians and advocates before implementation. Assessment tools must not be a ‘one size fits all’ - for example they need to be suitable for children, people with autism, people with communication disabilities and people in regional areas.

Submission 2195

Recommendation 6:

Strengthen safeguards before plan suspension or revocation, including multiple accessible contact attempts, plain-English notices/ letters, reasonable extensions, supported decision-making, advocacy referral and urgent review rights.

Recommendation 7:

Do not narrow, cap or redirect NDIS supports on the assumption that foundational supports or mainstream services are available unless the Government can demonstrate that those supports are funded, accessible, timely, suitable for the individual, and available in regional communities.

Why this matters in practice: A regional family example

My daughter is four, has Level 3 autism and is non-verbal. We have had three speech therapists in three years. We recently went several months without speech therapy and are only now due to start with a new therapist. In Hervey Bay, waitlists for some services can be up to 12 – 18 months. Since December 2025 we have fallen behind in speech therapy for our daughter including not being able to start learning and embedding AAC communication and trialing devices (incl. applications) for our daughter. Some will argue that there is telehealth available. However in practice, telehealth is not a meaningful substitute for every child. A young child with Level 3 autism and complex communication needs may not engage with a person on a computer screen, particularly for this type of therapy. A service may technically exist, but that does not mean it is accessible, appropriate, effective or available in a way that meets the child’s or family’s needs. We also investigated a fly-in/fly-out service that quoted $436 per session. We did not proceed because the cost appeared excessive. As a taxpayer and as a parent relying on the NDIS, I believe families should not be forced into unreasonable costs simply because local services are unavailable. This is why I am concerned about provisions that may narrow how permanence, treatment, functional capacity, reasonable and necessary supports, plan renewal and funding caps are applied. If the law or future administrative rules treat supports as available when families cannot actually access them, or treats a therapy mode as equivalent when a child cannot engage with it, the result will not be sustainability. It will be children missing critical services and support that may affect their development.

Foundational Supports must exist before NDIS supports are narrowed

I am concerned that changes to access, planning or what is defined as ‘reasonable and necessary supports’ may assume that other systems or future foundational supports will be available to families. In many regional communities, those supports do not yet exist in a practical, accessible or timely way. Reform should not create a gap where a child is no longer supported through the NDIS but cannot access an appropriate alternative through health, education, early childhood or community systems. Foundational supports must not be used as a promise of future help while current NDIS supports are narrowed. Before any supports are narrowed, capped or redirected away from the NDIS, the Government should be required to demonstrate what alternative supports are available, who funds them, how families access them, what waitlists apply, and whether those supports are suitable for children with complex communication, behavioural, sensory and developmental needs. The NDIS Review supported reform and the development of broader foundational supports, but reform must be sequenced safely. If foundational supports, mainstream services and regional providers are not ready, narrowing NDIS access or supports will not meet need. Reducing NDIS supports does not remove disability-related need. It shifts that need onto families, schools, hospitals, child development services, mental health services, child protection systems and state-funded services that are already under pressure. This is not true sustainability; it is cost-shifting, and it risks creating higher long-term costs through crisis, carer burnout, developmental delay and family breakdown.

Submission 2195

Schedule 1 - Access, Planning and ‘Reasonable and Necessary’ Supports

I am concerned that Schedule 1 may make it easier for decision-makers to treat supports, treatment options or other service systems as ‘available’ even when they are not practically available to the participant. For regional families, the gap between “available on paper” and “available in reality” can be significant. It can include long waitlists, therapist turnover, limited provider choice, travel burdens, cost barriers and a child’s inability to engage through telehealth. The Bill should be amended so that decisions about treatment, functional capacity or supports should consider practical availability and suitability for the individual participant. This should include location, waitlists, cost, provider availability, participant needs and whether the support can actually be delivered in a way the person can use. Regional participants should not have their access to suitable services impacted further. A person should not be disadvantaged because they have not accessed treatment or supports that are unavailable, unaffordable, clinically inappropriate, developmentally unsuitable or inaccessible. This is also important when considering unspent funds. In regional areas, underspending may reflect service shortages, long waitlists, provider turnover, lack of suitable therapists, travel barriers, or a child’s inability to engage with available service modes. Unspent funding should not automatically be treated as evidence that supports were unnecessary. Participants and families should retain genuine ‘choice and control’ over the providers they use. For a non-speaking child or person with complex communication needs, a therapist or provider is not interchangeable. Trust, rapport, communication style and suitability matter. Families should not be forced to accept a provider who cannot meet the person’s needs safely and effectively. This is why choice and control matters. For parents, it is not an indulgence. It is the ability to choose who supports your child, who enters your home, and who you trust to help your child communicate, learn, regulate and participate. Any parent would understand the importance of that choice. For children, decisions about access, planning and reasonable and necessary supports must consider developmental timing. A delay in therapies (i.e occupational therapy and speech therapy) or early intervention is not neutral. These supports are not simply therapy choices. They are the means by which a child can express needs, make choices, participate, support regulation and behaviour, build independence and be understood. Investment in communication and early intervention support may reduce future support needs. I am also concerned that changes to ‘reasonable and necessary supports’ may increase expectations on families, especially parents of children with significant disability. All parents support, teach and care for their children. However, supporting a child with Level 3 autism, complex communication needs, sensory needs and significant developmental support needs involves a level of care, coordination, supervision, advocacy and therapeutic implementation far beyond ordinary parenting. Parents already provide extensive unpaid support. The law should not assume families can safely or sustainably replace funded disability supports without considering carer burnout, parent workforce participation, family wellbeing, sibling impacts and the child’s long-term development. Over the past nine days, I have averaged around four hours of sleep a night — some nights more, some nights less. Due to my daughter’s needs, this is a regular occurrence for us. This is not ordinary parenting; it is full-time disability-related care. The Committee should also recommend amendments to ensure supports are not refused because of an overly narrow reading of whether they “directly arise” from an eligible impairment. Children do not experience needs in neat legislative categories. Autism, communication, sensory needs, developmental delay, anxiety, behaviour, environment and family context interact. The legislation must allow decision-makers to consider the whole

Submission 2195

person and uphold the rights of people with disability. We all have a right to autonomy, choice, safety, dignity, respect, accessibility and inclusion.

Ministerial Powers to reduce or cap supports

I am particularly concerned about powers that would allow funding reductions or caps for groups or categories of supports. Across-the-board reductions may appear administratively simple, but they do not reflect individual need or accessibility of local services. A funding cap or intensity limit that is adequate for one participant could be harmful for another. For children with autism, capacity-building supports such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, psychology, behaviour support, parent coaching and communication supports can be foundational. Reducing supports without individual assessment risks delaying communication, independence, safety, regulation and participation. It may also increase long-term (and in some cases life-long) reliance on more intensive services. Any power to reduce or cap supports should require published evidence, consultation with people with disability and families, a human rights and child impact assessment, parliamentary scrutiny, clear exceptions, individual safety assessment, written reasons and access to merits review.

Functional Capacity Assessments and Framework Planning

I support the principle of understanding a person’s functional needs, but I am concerned that standardised functional capacity assessment may become a blunt instrument if it does not capture how disability presents in real life. For autistic children, functional capacity can vary across settings, people, sensory environments, communication demands, fatigue and regulation. An assessment that excludes context may misunderstand the child’s actual support needs. Functional capacity assessments must be co-designed, developmentally appropriate, trauma-informed, culturally safe and suitable for people with communication disability. They must consider assistive technology, communication access, sensory needs, behaviour as communication, intermittent/ irregular needs, family context and the practical availability of supports. No participant should lose access or funding because an assessment tool has not been validated for their disability, age group or circumstances.

Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 - Integrity, Provider Regulation, Pricing and Automated decision-

making

I support targeted action against fraud, exploitation and unsafe providers. However, fraud and integrity measures must be directed at wrongdoing and should not make participants and families feel presumed guilty or make regional providers withdraw because administrative burden and risk become too high. Provider regulation should not accidentally reduce choice and access in regional areas. As someone who has accessed services from local, regional and national providers – in my experience the smaller providers are more ethical and provide better services. I am also concerned about automated administrative decision-making and pricing powers and how they will affect access to supports, claims, plan management or funding without transparency and review. Any automated decision-making should be transparent, explainable, auditable and subject to human review. Participants should be able to understand why a decision was made and how to challenge it. The experience of Robodebt demonstrates the serious risks of relying on automated processes in complex human service systems without transparency, accountability and meaningful human review. Automation may have an administrative role, but it should not replace human judgement where a decision affects a person’s disability supports, rights or access to essential services.

Plan Suspension, Information Requests and Safeguards

I understand and support that the NDIA and Government need information to make decisions. However, plan suspension or revocation is a severe consequence for missing an email or administrative deadline. Families

Submission 2195

caring for children with a disability are often overwhelmed and may miss correspondence because of crisis, cares load, illness, housing instability, digital access barriers or administrative confusion. Before suspension or revocation, the law should require multiple accessible contact attempts, plain-English communication, reasonable extensions, supported decision-making, referral to advocacy or nominee support, and access to urgent review. A plan should not be suspended where the consequence would risk harm, loss of therapy continuity, loss of supports or family breakdown.

10. Schedule 5 - Transitional Rules and Future rule-making

I am concerned about broad future rule-making powers and transitional arrangements where key details may be left to rules, instruments or administrative decisions made after the Bill is passed. For a Scheme as significant as the NDIS, Parliament should not pass broad enabling powers without knowing how they will affect access, planning, children, regional participants and review rights. Any transitional arrangements should be time-limited, subject to consultation and accompanied by accessible information/ explanation. Rules that materially affect access, funding, review rights or support categories should not proceed without co-design with people with disability and families.

11. Conclusion

I believe the NDIS needs to be sustainable; the future of people with disability depend on it. However, in becoming sustainable we must ensure the NDIS remains true to its purpose: supporting people with disability to live with autonomy, dignity, respect, safety, inclusion and choice. Sustainability cannot be measured only through reduced growth or short-term savings. It must also consider the human and long-term system costs of delayed supports, reduced early intervention, carer burnout, lost developmental opportunities, reduced independence and increased crisis demand elsewhere in the system. For my family, speech therapy and other intervention supports are not luxuries. Communication support is not an optional extra. They are the supports that help a non-speaking child communicate, participate, regulate, learn, make choices and be understood. These supports and services are reasonable and necessary to ensure my daughter and others have the opportunity to live a fulfilling life - as each of us have the right to. Early intervention is often the difference between greater future independence and lifelong support need. I encourage the Committee to speak with their local constituents and families – who will be affected by these changes. Many families are deeply concerned about what these reforms may mean for their loved ones. Foundational reform should strengthen the system without weakening the rights, stability and humanity of the people who rely on it. As families, we are only asking for what is reasonable and necessary – nothing more and nothing less. I fully support stronger safeguards in relation to fraud and integrity measures. I don’t want to see families, participants or the Scheme itself taken advantage of. I ask the Committee to recommend that the Bill not be passed in its current form, and that the Government undertake genuine, accessible, co-designed consultation before legislating changes that will shape the lives of people with disability, children and families for generations.

Submission 2195

Appendix A - Bill provisions addressed

Bill area	Relevant concern in this submission	Requested change
Schedule 1 - access and planning; functional capacity; reasonable and necessary supports	Real-world access barriers, family expectations, “directly arises” test, reassessments and underspend caused by service access issues.	Require practical availability and suitability to be considered; protect review rights; consider whole-person needs and family/carer impacts.
Schedule 2 - fraud, compliance and provider regulation	Support for fraud action, but concern about participant burden and provider withdrawal in regional areas.	Use targeted, risk-proportionate regulation that improves safety without reducing regional availability or participant choice.
Schedule 3 - governance, pricing and automated administration	Concern about pricing powers and automated decisions affecting supports without transparency.	Require transparency, human review, auditability, written reasons and merits review where rights or funding are affected.
Schedule 4 - framework planning implementation	Concern that new planning arrangements may commence before assessment tools and safeguards are co-designed and validated.	Co-design and test planning and assessment processes before implementation, especially for children and communication disability.
Schedule 5 - transitional provisions	Concern about broad future rule-making and important details being left to later instruments.	Make transitional rules time-limited, consulted on and supported by accessible information/explanation.

Appendix B - Documents and sources reviewed

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry page: h ttps://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary Business/Committees/Senate/Community Affairs/NDISFutureGenBill Parliament of Australia Bill page: bttps-//www apb QPY au/parHamentary eusjness/sms Legjs!atjon/sms search Resu!ts/Resu!t?bjd-r7487 Senate guidance: Making a submission: h ttp s:/ / www . aph . gov . au / Parliamentary Business / Committees / Senate /Making a submission Parliamentary Library Bills Digest No. 65, 2025-26: h ttps : // w ww . aph . go v . au / Parliame nt ary Busi ne ss / Bi lls Le gislat ion/b d {bd2526{26 bd065 Department of Health , Disability and Ageing fact sheet: bttps·/ /w ww hea lt h qpy au/r es our ce s/p ub Hc at jons/n dj s-am end me n t-se c11 ci og-t be-n di s-to r-f ut ure -ge ner at ions-hm-2026- fact-sheet NDIS: Securing the NDIS for future generations:h tt p://ww wn dis.gov.au/nd is-l aws/sec ur ing- nd i s-futur e-g en erati ons Queenslanders with Disabili ty Network summary:h tp s:g dn.org.a u/se cur in g-th-e-nd is-fu tur e-gen era ti on sbil/ teamdsc analysis: Legislation deep-dive - Access and planning:bttps·//teamdsccomau/resources{legislation-deep-djye-access-and-plaoio gPeople with DIsability Australia advocate discussion:h ttp s:/ pwd.or ga.u/w hat-y ou-ne ed-t o-k now-a bou t-the-ndi s-bill-ad vocat es-un packt-he-s w ee pi ng-ch an ges / NDI S Review Final Report :bttps · //www.ndjsrev;ew gov m 1 /sites {det a illl l {rnes/resource/download/wocliogtogetherndisreview-uool-ceport pdtbUN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: h ttps://social.desa.un.org/issues/disability/crp d/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-crdp WHO and UNICEF, Global report on children with developmental disabilities: h tt ps:w ww .unicef. org/media/145016/file/Glob al-report-o n-childre n-w ith-developmental-di sabilitie s-2023.pdf