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

Submission 2207

Senate Submission - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations)

Bill 2026

Submitted to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Introduction

I am a mother of two young children and I am neurodivergent myself. I am writing to express my serious concerns about the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 and to urge the Committee to reject it in its current form.

My daughter is seven years old. She has diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID), and an anxiety disorder. Her NDIS funding was approved in February 2026, giving her access to allied health support. That approval — recent as it is — has already begun to change her life.

What the NDIS makes possible

The support my daughter receives through the NDIS is an absolute lifeline — for her, and for our whole family. Through her allied health funding, she is learning essential skills to help her cope with the demands of daily life and to build greater independence. These are not luxuries. For a child with her profile, the difference between receiving early, targeted support and going without it is profound. It shapes her development, her confidence, and her future.

My concerns about the Bill

Several provisions in this Bill concern me deeply when I consider my daughter’s situation.

Section 25A(2)

Changes how “permanent impairment” is assessed by allowing a treatment to be counted as available to a person even if they cannot afford it or cannot access it where they live. For families like mine - navigating complex, multi-diagnosis children in a system that is already stretched - this provision could be used to argue that my daughter’s impairments are not permanent simply because some treatment theoretically exists, regardless of whether we can realistically access or afford it. This is profoundly unjust. Our inability to access a treatment should not be weaponised against us.

Section 34(1G)-(1J)

Creates a legal presumption that parents automatically provide “substantial care and support,” which can then be used to reduce NDIS funding. This presumption bears no resemblance to the reality of our lives. My husband and I have no family in Victoria — we have no grandparents, aunts, uncles, or relatives nearby to share the load or step in when things become unmanageable. We are doing this entirely alone. I am a neurodivergent mother who is already overstretched and overwhelmed, caring for a complex seven-year-old and a three-year-old who is himself suspected to be neurodivergent. The law should not presume that we have reserves of support and capacity that simply do not exist.

Section 34A allows the NDIS to fund supports at less than the actual cost on the basis that a cheaper alternative exists. My daughter’s needs are specific.

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

Submission 2207

does not meet those needs is not a solution — it is a false economy that places the shortfall back onto an already exhausted family.

Section 59B(4) authorises automated systems to make decisions involving evaluative judgement about a person’s plan. I find it deeply troubling that a child’s needs — complex, contextual, and human — could be determined by an algorithm. No automated system can understand what it means to parent a child with ARFID, ASD, ADHD, and anxiety, without any local family network to fall back on. These decisions must remain in human hands.

Schedule 5 concerns me because the transitional protections for people affected by the access changes are not written into the Bill itself. They exist only in temporary rules that the Minister controls and that expire within twelve months. This is not a safeguard. This is a promise with no legal foundation.

The human cost

If my daughter’s supports were reduced or removed, the consequences would extend far beyond her. Her mental health would decline. My husband and I are already at our limit — isolated, without family nearby, and carrying the full weight of our children’s needs between us. Losing these supports would push us into burnout rapidly, and our own mental health would follow. Her younger brother would suffer the effects of a household under that kind of strain.

I also want the Committee to understand the position we are in with our son. He is three years old, suspected to be neurodivergent, and I am currently seeking Early Intervention funding for him on the advice of his Maternal and Child Health Nurse. Early intervention at this age can make an enormous difference to developmental outcomes. But we have no family support network here in Victoria to help bridge any gaps. The NDIS, for families like ours, is not a supplement to other support — it is the support. This Bill, if passed, could make that access harder or less certain at exactly the moment it matters most.

What I am asking the Committee to do

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

The changes proposed are drastic and will harm real families — families like mine, who are already doing everything we can with no margin left. Before any legislation of this nature is pursued, the Government must conduct genuine, substantive consultation with disability advocacy organisations and with the families who live these realities every day. Policy made without our voices will not serve us.

The NDIS was built on the principle that people with disability deserve the support they need to live full lives. This Bill undermines that principle. I urge the Committee to say so clearly in its report.