Submission 220

To: Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission from a carer and parent of NDIS participants, South Australia

Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Who I Am

I am a parent and full-time carer living in South Australia. I care for two autistic teenagers — aged 13 and 19 — and my partner, who is also autistic with ADHD. All three are NDIS participants. My children have diagnoses of Level 2 Autism Spectrum Disorder and Generalised Anxiety Disorder. My youngest also has a learning disorder in written expression and mathematics. My partner has multiple diagnoses of Level 3 Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, Severe Depressive Disorder, Social Anxiety Disorder, and Spatial Processing Disorder.

Our family has been on the NDIS since 2020. The supports we receive — psychology, developmental education, and occupational therapy fortnightly — are not a luxury. They are what stands between my family and crisis.

What These Supports Make Possible

These supports have helped my family manage and overcome burnout. They help my children and partner feel safe and regulated, both at home and in the community. They have reduced self-harming behaviours and other dangerous behaviours of concern. They have created a space where my children can talk about what is happening at school so that appropriate support can be put in place and harm is reduced to themselves as well as staff.

Without these supports, I do not believe my family can function. I am not speaking in generalities. I am telling you what I know from living it every day.

My Concerns About the Bill

Automated decision-making (s 59B(4))

My deepest concern is the provision that allows automated systems and algorithms to make decisions that involve “discretion,” “evaluative judgement,” and forming a “state of mind” about a participant’s plan. A computer cannot understand the nuance of a human being. My partner can be articulate, well-presented, and composed in an assessment, and yet be barely holding on. He will not be able to remember a single word of lengthy, detailed conversations and will not be able to process the information asked of him quickly or clearly. A skilled clinician or support planner can hear it in his voice, or see the exhaustion beneath the surface whereas an algorithm simply cannot. My children’s needs change week to week depending on what is happening at school, in their bodies, and in the world around them. Decisions about

Submission 220

the level of support real people receive must be made by real people who are accountable for those decisions. This provision frightens me more than any other in the Bill.

Funding below the total cost of support (s 34A) The Bill allows the NDIS to fund a cheaper alternative to a support even if that alternative does not fully address the participant’s needs. People with disability deserve supports that are built for purpose, not just whatever costs the least. My family’s needs are complex and specific. A cheaper, generic substitute is not the same as what works and substituting cheaper alternatives in the past has led to significant mental health issues for them. Funding a lesser support that does not do the job is not a saving - it is a slow withdrawal of care.

Parental presumption (s 34(1G)-(1J)) The Bill creates a legal presumption that parents automatically provide substantial care and support, and allows the NDIS to reduce funding on that basis. I want to be honest with the Committee: I am already stretched beyond my limits. I barely sleep. I struggle to leave the house most days. I am deeply depressed. I am doing everything I can for my children and my partner, including researching therapy techniques and staying on top of the most up-to-date relevant information, but I am not a trained psychologist, developmental educator, or occupational therapist. Assuming that my presence fills those gaps is not just wrong - it is dangerous. Carers should not be treated as free labour that substitutes for professional support.

Transitional protections not guaranteed (Schedule 5) I am also concerned that the transitional protections for people affected by access changes are not written into the Bill itself - they sit in a ministerial rule-making window that expires within 12 months and cannot be renewed. Protections that can disappear are not protections at all. Families like mine need certainty, not a 12- month grace period that closes without recourse.

What Reduction or Removal Would Mean for My Family I need the Committee to understand what I am telling you here, plainly and without softening it.

If my partner’s psychology supports are reduced or removed, I believe he will attempt to take his own life. He has been suicidal in the past. Regular, ongoing access to psychology is what is holding him together right now. Without it, I do not think he survives.

If my children’s supports are reduced or removed, they will shut down. They will not be able to leave their bedrooms or manage basic daily living tasks like eating or showering. They will self-harm. I have watched this happen before and I know what it looks like.

I am also already noticing changes in how the NDIS operates, even before this Bill has passed. My Local Area Coordinator no longer contacts me to check in on how the household is going. My plan manager will not process invoices for low-cost assistive technology without letters from allied health professionals - letters that

Submission 220

cost money and take time to obtain, even for small items that were previously funded without question. The system is already pulling back. This Bill will accelerate that.

The Broader Context

I want the Committee to know that I am writing this submission while managing my own declining mental health, significant isolation and the daily weight of caring for three people with complex needs. I do not connect with friends regularly. I am rarely able to leave the house except for necessities. I am worried about the future.

I am also deeply concerned about the growing hostility directed towards people with disability in Australia. This community is already treated poorly. Legislation that makes it harder to access support, that replaces human judgement with algorithms, and that assumes families can simply absorb the gap, will cause serious harm to real people who are already vulnerable. I say this not as hyperbole but as a statement of what I see every day in my own home.

What I Am Asking the Committee to Do

I am asking the Committee to reject this Bill in its entirety.

If the Committee does not reject the Bill, I ask that at minimum the following changes be made:

• Section 59B(4) should be removed entirely. Automated systems must not be permitted to make decisions involving evaluative judgement about a person’s support needs.
• Section 34A should be amended to ensure that funding cannot be reduced below what is required to actually meet the participant’s needs.
• Sections 34(1G)-(1J) should be removed. Carers must not be presumed to be filling professional support roles.
• Schedule 5 transitional protections should be written into the primary legislation, not left to ministerial rules that expire and cannot be renewed.
• An independent review with meaningful consultation with people with disability and their carers should be required before any part of this Bill proceeds.

This Bill will harm people. In some cases, it will kill people. I am asking you, as Senators, to take that seriously.

Submitted by a parent, carer, and NDIS family member, South Australia May 2026