Submission 224
0303 87988798 99009900 http://www.facebook.com/familiesanhttp://www.facebook.com/familiesandautism/dautism/ autism http://autismgoals.com.auhttp://autismgoals.com.au ABN:ABN: 27640859148 goals
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by: Pauline Aquilina Senior Consultant, Counsellor & Educator Autism Goals Victoria, Australia
Date: 25 May 2026
Executive Summary
This submission addresses aspects of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 relating to:
- functional capacity assessments;
- permanence criteria;
- restrictions on plan reassessments;
- eligibility linked to other service systems; and
- broader sustainability measures.
This submission acknowledges the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability and integrity of the NDIS, including the need to address fraud, improve consistency, and ensure the Scheme remains available for future generations. However, sustainability measures must not unintentionally exclude vulnerable children and families whose support needs remain unmet across other service systems.
The concerns raised in this submission are based on lived experience working alongside children, young people, families, carers, educators, allied health professionals, and schools across Victoria.
The submission raises concerns that:
- proposed functional capacity measures risk overlooking context-dependent disability and masking;
- tightening access based on theoretical alternative systems does not reflect current system realities;
- mainstream education and mental health systems are already critically under strain;
- and reducing access before alternative supports are operational risks increasing long-term harm and social cost.
Submission 224
This submission recommends:
- Functional capacity assessments that meaningfully consider real-world participation and environmental context;
- Strong safeguards for autistic children and children with fluctuating or context-dependent presentations;
- Greater recognition of cumulative trauma, masking, and nervous system dysregulation;
- Investment in mainstream systems before restricting NDIS access pathways; and
- Careful consideration of the cumulative impact these reforms may have on vulnerable children and families.
Introduction
I write this submission on behalf of the many children, young people, families, carers, and educators supported through Autism Goals across Victoria and broader Australia.
This submission directly addresses provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, particularly:
- Schedule 1, Part 1 – Defining Functional Capacity;
- Schedule 1, Part 2 – Limiting Unscheduled Plan Reassessments;
- Schedule 1, Part 8 – Permanence Criteria;
- Schedule 1, Part 9 – Eligibility Based on Access to Other Services; and
- Broader sustainability measures outlined throughout the Bill and Explanatory Memorandum.
The concerns raised are not theoretical. They are grounded in daily lived experience across:
- Education systems;
- Mental health systems;
- Paediatric systems;
- Disability systems; and
- Family homes already operating in survival mode.
Children Behind the Language of “Sustainability”
The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Bill states that the NDIS is growing at an unsustainable rate and that reforms are necessary to secure the future of the Scheme.
This submission acknowledges the importance of financial sustainability and scheme integrity.
However, the children and families affected by these reforms are not abstract budget figures.
They are children:
- Self-harming because schools feel neurologically unsafe;
- Disengaging from education due to chronic exclusion and trauma;
- Presenting to emergency departments in mental health crisis;
- Unable to access timely developmental assessments;
- Spending years on waiting lists for allied health supports;
- Being restrained, suspended, isolated, or informally excluded from education; and
- Living within families experiencing cumulative exhaustion and collapse.
Submission 224
Many of the children we support are already surviving systems that are critically fragmented.
Families are routinely told:
- “There are no placements available.”
- “The school does not have capacity.”
- “We are doing our best with limited resources.”
- “There is nowhere else appropriate for your child to go.$
At the same time, families encounter:
- inaccessible mental health systems;
- long wait times for paediatricians and allied health professionals;
- exhausted educators;
- and increasing barriers to obtaining appropriate support.
The result is cumulative system failure.
Schedule 1, Part 1 – Functional Capacity
Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Bill proposes a definition of “functional capacity” under proposed section 9B. The proposed definition assesses a person’s ability to undertake activities:
- “without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications”; and
- excluding, “as far as possible,” environmental and personal circumstances.
This is deeply concerning in practice for many autistic children and children with disability. Functioning for many neurodivergent children is profoundly context dependent.
A child may appear capable:
- in a highly supported environment;
- during short structured assessments;
- or within familiar sensory settings;
while being entirely unable to sustain:
- school attendance;
- emotional regulation;
- communication;
- self-care;
- social participation;
- or safety across broader daily life.
Removing environmental context from assessment risks fundamentally misunderstanding disability itself.
Children do not function in clinical vacuums.
Submission 224
They function within:
- schools;
- homes;
- sensory environments;
- trauma histories;
- peer systems;
- poverty;
- and nervous systems shaped by chronic stress.
The lived reality is that many children are already masking, compensating, and surviving at extraordinary personal cost until eventual collapse occurs.
Across our work, what is often labelled as “behaviour” reflects:
- severe emotional dysregulation;
- anxiety;
- sensory overwhelm;
- trauma responses;
- communication barriers; and
- nervous systems operating in survival mode.
The proposed definition risks narrowing access precisely for those children whose impairments are least visible during brief or reductionist assessment processes.
Schedule 1, Part 2 – Restrictions on Plan Reassessments
Schedule 1, Part 2 proposes restrictions on participant-requested reassessments and introduces additional conditions for reassessment requests.
While consistency and safeguards against misuse are understandable objectives, there is concern that children with fluctuating, escalating, or context-dependent presentations may experience delays in accessing urgently required support changes.
Many children experience rapid functional deterioration linked to:
- school trauma;
- mental health decline;
- puberty;
- family crisis;
- sensory dysregulation;
- or cumulative burnout.
Families already report significant difficulty navigating:
- administrative processes;
- evidentiary burdens;
- and delays in obtaining reassessments.
Additional procedural barriers risk increasing crisis escalation before supports can be adjusted appropriately.
Submission 224
Schedule 1, Part 8 – Permanence Criteria
Schedule 1, Part 8 proposes amendments relating to permanence and “all appropriate treatment.”
There is concern regarding how permanence may be interpreted for:
- autistic children;
- children with psychosocial disability;
- children with trauma-related presentations;
- and children with fluctuating or context-sensitive support needs.
Many neurodevelopmental disabilities are lifelong, even where functioning fluctuates over time.
Families should not be repeatedly required to prove permanence for conditions already clinically understood to be enduring.
There is also concern that some children may be denied support on the basis that additional therapies or interventions theoretically exist, even where:
- access is financially prohibitive;
- waitlists are excessive;
- services are unavailable regionally;
- or interventions have limited practical accessibility.
Schedule 1, Part 9 – Reliance on Other Service Systems
Schedule 1, Part 9 proposes tightening access where another service system could “reasonably” meet a person’s needs.
This assumption does not reflect the lived reality of many families.
The systems children are expected to rely upon are already under significant strain.
Families routinely report:
- multi-year mental health waitlists;
- inability to access developmental paediatricians;
- schools unable to implement reasonable adjustments effectively;
- lack of specialist educational placements;
- and crisis-driven rather than preventative intervention.
Restricting NDIS access before alternative systems are genuinely operational risks creating catastrophic support gaps.
Education Systems and Escalating Harm
Across our work, we repeatedly see children:
- informally excluded through reduced timetables;
- denied reasonable adjustments;
- suspended due to disability-related behaviours;
- pressured into homeschooling;
Submission 224
- or unable to access specialist placements.
Families are routinely navigating:
- school refusal linked to trauma;
- severe anxiety;
- self-harm;
- suicidal ideation;
- dysregulation;
- aggressive survival responses;
- and profound nervous system exhaustion.
Many children become grouped broadly under “behaviour” despite entirely different underlying causes, including:
- autism;
- intellectual disability;
- trauma;
- sensory processing differences;
- PTSD;
- family violence exposure;
- homelessness;
- communication barriers;
- and chronic unmet support needs.
Restricting NDIS access while mainstream systems remain critically underprepared will not eliminate need.
It will simply relocate suffering into:
- families;
- schools;
- emergency departments;
- child protection systems;
- mental health systems;
- and eventually justice systems.
Recommendations
- Functional capacity assessments should meaningfully consider:
- environmental context;
- masking;
- sensory regulation;
- cumulative stress;
- and real-world participation.
-
The Government should not reduce NDIS access based on theoretical access to mainstream systems that are currently unable to meet demand.
-
Permanence criteria should explicitly recognise lifelong neurodevelopmental disability and avoid repeated evidentiary burdens for enduring conditions.
Submission 224
-
Safeguards should exist to ensure children with fluctuating, trauma-related, or context-dependent presentations are not excluded through narrow assessment frameworks.
-
Investment in education, mental health, and disability systems should occur before restricting NDIS access pathways.
-
The Senate should carefully consider the cumulative impact of these reforms on:
- autistic children;
- children with intellectual disability;
- children with psychosocial disability;
- children in out-of-home care; and
- families already experiencing significant disadvantage.
Conclusion
This Bill seeks to secure the future sustainability of the NDIS.
However, sustainability measures must not unintentionally exclude children whose lives are already shaped by:
- exclusion;
- trauma;
- nervous system dysregulation;
- chronic stress;
- and systemic failure.
The question before the Senate is not solely whether the NDIS can financially sustain itself.
It is also whether Australia is willing to ensure that disabled children and vulnerable families continue to receive meaningful access to support, participation, dignity, and safety during periods of increasing systemic strain.
Human rights matter most precisely when systems are under pressure.
Sincerely,
Pauline Aquilina Senior Consultant, Counsellor & Educator Autism Goals (Electronically Signed)