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

Submission 2352

Summary of concerns

I am making this submission as the cousin of a 29-year-old NDIS participant who lives with severe non-verbal autism, intellectual disability, and complex support needs. I am also part of his broader circle of support. My central concern is that the proposed amendments risk treating deeply individual support needs as if they can be reduced through broad administrative formulas. For people with profound disability, a reduction in support is not simply a reduction in service; it means increased risks isolation family distress greater pressure wider community In particular,

• Section may allow flat-rate reductions ndis plans ministerial instrument without proper consideration participants circumstances A proposal % to Community Participation funding from October could significantly reduce my cousins overall Core supports leave him hours each day For person requires /7 even few unsupported create serious including distress self-injury injury others absconding crisis escalation Families should not expected silently absorb consequences Funding especially where parents are aging or have health conditions own Community Participation viewed optional recreational narrow sense like persons maintaining health routine emotional regulation dignity connection The proposed restriction to primary qualifying impairment does reflect way complex actually works Comorbidities fluctuating must consider affect functional capacity Any decision substantially affects level reviewable reasonable timeframe ## Submission writing cousin years old man severity nonverbal autism Intellectual Disability Also part circle Support Although parent seen reality over many years care planning skill vigilance required safely Have also seen toll lifelong advocacy places families love someone

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

Submission 2352

My cousin does not have the capacity to advocate for himself in the way many people take for granted. He cannot explain his needs, negotiate his supports, describe his distress, or make a case for why his life matters. That responsibility falls to the people around him: his parents, family members, support workers, clinicians and others who understand his needs. For this reason, I believe any changes to the NDIS must be approached with great care. A policy change that may appear administrative at a government level can have immediate and serious consequences in the life of a person who depends on continuous support. The NDIS has enabled my cousin to have a life that is safer, more structured, and more connected than would otherwise have been possible. It has allowed him to live in specialist disability accommodation, receive appropriate support, and participate in community life in ways that are meaningful for him. This is not a luxury. It is the foundation of his safety and dignity.

The problem with broad funding reductions One of my key concerns is that Section 34A appears to allow funding reductions to be applied broadly, without adequate individual review.

This is deeply concerning because disability support needs are not uniform. A flat reduction may affect different participants in vastly different ways. For some, it may reduce flexibility. For others, it may remove essential hours of support. For someone like my cousin, who requires 24/7 care, the consequences could be severe. The proposed reduction to Community Participation funding is particularly concerning. In my cousin’s case, the scheduled 50% cut from 1 October 2026 could reduce his total Core support by approximately 13.2%. That is not a minor adjustment. It could translate to more than three hours each day without support. For a person with profound communication, social, behavioural and daily living support needs, three unsupported hours per day is not safe. My cousin’s support needs exist across every part of daily life. He requires assistance to remain safe, to manage routines, to participate in activities and to reduce the risk of distress or escalation Without appropriate support he might at risk self injury injure other absconding road safety awareness significant behavioura distres These speculative concern kinds risks justify continuous support first place If participant has already been assessed as requiring continuity should require careful assessment clear right review ## Families cannot treated backup system Major flaw broad funding reductions assumption that families will somehow fill gap many cases they can’t

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

Submission 2352

My cousin’s parents have devoted their lives to supporting and advocating for him. However, they are aging and have health concerns of their own. Like many parents of adults with profound disability, they carry the ongoing fear of what will happen when they are no longer able to provide support, oversight or advocacy. That fear is not abstract. It is a daily reality for families. The NDIS was supposed to provide a sustainable support system so that people with disability were not dependent entirely on the strength, health, finances or survival of their family members. If funding reductions force families back into crisis roles, then the scheme is failing one of its most important purposes. Extended family members, including cousins, siblings, grandparents, aunties and uncles, may form part of a person’s emotional and relational circle of support. But that does not mean we can replace trained, funded reliable disability support.Family love is not a substitute for formal care.When governments reduce formal supports, the cost does not disappear.It is transferred —toparents relatives unpaid carers emergency services hospitals police crisis accommodationandcommunity systemsthat already under pressure.This is why proposed changes should be considered only through lens budget control.They must also consider riskcost shiftinghuman dignity community responsibility## Community Participation essential optionalThe term “Community Participation” makes these supports sound discretionary as though merely social outings lifestyle extras For my cousin this case.Community participation helps him access world beyond home They his physical healthemotional wellbeing routinesocial familiarity quality life Activities such attending gym bushwalking being involved in recycling donations RSPCAattendingfamily gatherings meaningful partslifeThese activities serve practical purpose help maintain movementThey structurereduce isolationsupport regulation allow remain connected familiar tohimFor severe autism intellectual disability participation happens independently requires skilled support preparation supervision understanding communicationbehaviours triggersRemoving reducing it independent more isolatedSociety committed inclusion define good life people profounddisability simply housed fed kept alive Good include connectionbelongingactivity relationships opportunity part communityCommunity participation one mechanisms possible

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

Submission 2352

Complex disability cannot be reduced to one diagnosis

I am also concerned about the proposal to limit funded supports to those arising directly from a participant’s primary qualifying impairment. This approach does not reflect the lived reality of complex disability. My cousin’s primary disabilities are severe non-verbal autism and intellectual disability. However, he also has a diagnosis of Paediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcus, known as PANDAS. When he experiences PANDAS flares, his functioning can deteriorate significantly. These flares may involve extreme obsessive-compulsive behaviours, movement difficulties, vocal tics, heightened distress, and reduced tolerance for change. In practice, this means his support needs can increase beyond his already significant baseline needs. It would be artificial and unsafe to try to separate these conditions from one another when assessing his support requirements. His autism, intellectual disability and PANDAS do not operate in isolation. They interact. They compound. They affect the whole person. A funding framework that considers only the “primary” impairment risks misunderstanding the actual support needs of people with complex conditions. This is especially concerning for participants who cannot verbally explain changes in their condition. If a person cannot describe pain, fear, confusion or distress, then the system must be especially careful not to narrow the evidence it is prepared to consider. Functional capacity should be assessed in the real world, not through a rigid hierarchy of diagnoses.

The need for review rights and safeguards

Any decision that significantly reduces a participant’s support should be subject to review. This is particularly important where the participant has high and complex needs, requires 24/7 support, or faces documented safety risks if support is withdrawn. A no-review process would leave families and support networks powerless to challenge decisions that may be based on incomplete information, misunderstanding, or administrative error. That is not a fair or safe approach. The NDIS deals with people’s lives, not just budget categories. Participants and families must have access to timely, meaningful review processes when decisions affect safety, dignity and daily functioning. Where Community Participation funding is reduced, there should also be safeguards to ensure that a participant’s essential Core support is not unintentionally compromised. If a person requires continuous support, the funding structure must preserve that continuity. A reduction that creates unsupported hours for someone assessed as needing 24/7 support is not merely a financial decision. It is a safety decision.

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

Submission 2352

What I ask the Committee to consider

I ask the Committee to consider the following: Flat-rate funding reductions should not be applied to participants with complex or 24/7 support neds without individual assessment. Any reduction that affects a participant’s daily support hours should be reviewable within a reasonable timeframe. Community Participation funding should be recognised as essential to wellbeing, safety, inclusionand prevention of crisis, particularly for people with profound disability.Familiesshouldnotbetreatedasthe default replacementfor formal fundedsupports.Comorbidd conditions mustbeconsideredwhere they affectaparticipant’s functional capacity,even iftheyarenotinthe primary qualifying impairment.TheNDIS shoule remain focused on ther eal-life needsofparticipants,nottonlyonsimplified categoriesofofimpairment orbroad budget mechanisms.

ConclusionMy cousinisaperson o f immense value.He is lovedby his family.Hebelongsinhiscommunity Hedeserves alife thatis safe stable meaningful and dignified.Because he cannot speak forthemself,thepeoplearound himmustspeakwith care an honesty about what these proposed changes may mean.For families like ours ,theconcern isn ot theoretical. We knowwhat happens whensupport istot adequate.Weknowhow quickly distress can escalate.Weknowthat aging parentscannot carry them full weight oftcare forever .Weknowtha t community inclusion requires more than good intentions— itrequires properly fund edsupp ort.T h enDIS Sh oul d not move toward amodel where peop le w ith the most complexneeds are made

more vulnerable by broad reductions limited review rights or narrow definitions od disability The purposeodthescheme should be to protectthedignity safet yand in clusion of people with disability now into future.In its current form, Iam concerned that this Bill risks doing opposite.I urge Committee ensure any reforms preserve individual assessment, reviewrights recognition comorbidities essential supports allowpeopl elike my cousin live safely meaningfully comm unity.