Submission 2360

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

I am an autistic woman, a mother of disabled children, and a Practice Manager in paediatric allied health.

Both personally and professionally, I see the realities behind disability policy every day. I work alongside disabled children, their families, caregivers and the clinicians who support them. I see children waiting for assessments and supports, families navigating complex systems, caregivers reducing work hours or leaving the workforce to provide care, and clinicians working within a sector already under significant pressure.

I support a sustainable NDIS. I support accountability, good governance and ensuring public money is spent responsibly. However, sustainability cannot be considered in isolation from outcomes. The purpose of the NDIS is not simply to manage expenditure. It is to enable people with disability to participate in their communities, build relationships, exercise choice and control, pursue their goals, education and employment and live meaningful lives.

My concern is not that reform is occurring. My concern is that many of the reforms proposed in this Bill would grant significant powers and establish new assessment and decision-making frameworks before the underlying rules, safeguards and implementation details have been publicly scrutinised.

Throughout this submission I raise concerns about transparency, participant rights, assessment processes, increasing reliance on families and carers, and the capacity of existing systems to absorb additional demand. My concern is not that reform is occurring, but that reforms intended to improve the sustainability of the NDIS may reduce supports without sufficient evidence that alternative systems have the capacity to meet the resulting need.

The NDIS was established to enable people with disability to live ordinary lives, participate in their communities and exercise choice and control. Any reform of the Scheme should ultimately be judged by whether it strengthens or weakens the rights, dignity, inclusion and participation of disabled people.

Cost Shifting and the Absence of Public Modelling

My concern is that disability-related support needs do not disappear when funding is reduced. Those needs are either met elsewhere, absorbed by families, or left unmet. This raises important questions about the impact of the proposed reforms and the

Submission 2360

The consequences of withdrawing support on health, education, mental health, child protection, housing, justice and carer support systems.

I see the pressure already being experienced across these systems. I am concerned that reforms intended to reduce NDIS expenditure may unintentionally transfer costs and demand to other government services, families and communities.

I have not seen publicly available whole-of-government modelling demonstrating how these impacts have been assessed. If such modelling exists, it should be released. If it does not exist, it should be undertaken before significant reforms are implemented.

Before reducing disability supports, Government should publicly demonstrate where those needs are expected to be met and who is expected to bear the consequences if they are not.

Important questions remain regarding the broader impacts of these reforms, including:

• If a person experiences a preventable crisis because supports are reduced, does demand increase on emergency departments, hospitals, police and crisis accommodation?
• If parents leave the workforce to provide disability support, what is the economic impact through reduced taxation revenue and increased welfare reliance?
• If support is delayed in early childhood, what is the downstream impact on education, health and employment systems over the next decades?

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.

I acknowledge the importance of financial sustainability and scheme integrity. However, the children and families affected by these reforms are not abstract budget figures or actuarial projections.

They are children who are self-harming because educational environments feel unsafe and inaccessible; disengaging from education due to exclusion, unmet needs and trauma; presenting to emergency departments in mental health crisis; unable to access timely developmental assessments; waiting months or years for essential allied health supports; being restrained, suspended, isolated or excluded from educational settings; and living within families experiencing cumulative stress, exhaustion and burnout.

When discussing sustainability, it is important that Parliament considers not only the financial cost of support, but also the human cost of failing to provide it.

Submission 2360

Reliance on Natural Supports and Gendered Impacts

I am also concerned by the increasing reliance on “natural supports” within disability policy. When support is withdrawn, the need does not disappear. The care, coordination and advocacy responsibilities are often transferred to families, particularly women.

Women With Disabilities Australia has highlighted the significant gendered risks associated with the proposed reforms. Tightening access to supports and increasing expectations of family care may disproportionately impact women with disability, mothers, female carers and other family members who already carry much of the unpaid labour that sustains Australia’s disability support system.

Support Needs Assessments and Standardisation

I am concerned by increasing reliance on standardised assessments, functional capacity measures and automated decision-making to determine access to supports and funding levels.

Many disabilities, including autism, psychosocial disability and chronic health conditions, are complex, fluctuating and highly dependent on context. They cannot always be accurately captured through a single assessment, score or algorithm.

The use of algorithms to influence funding decisions is particularly concerning given Australia’s experience with Robodebt. As the Australian Human Rights Commission has stated, “Independent scrutiny is critical where automated or algorithm-based systems are used in public administration in ways that shape access to services and have financial consequences.” To date, there has been limited public information regarding how any automated decision-making tools may be designed, validated or monitored.

Any assessment or automated decision-making tool that influences access to supports should be transparent, independently validated and subject to meaningful scrutiny by disability-led organisations and people with lived experience before implementation.

Consistency is important. Fairness is not achieved by treating different people as though they are the same.

Alternative Supports and System Capacity

I am concerned about the proposed alternative supports provisions, which may allow participants to be excluded from NDIS supports on the basis that other supports are available.

Mainstream health, mental health and education systems are already under significant strain, with long waitlists and limited capacity. Participants should not be denied access to NDIS supports based on theoretical, unavailable, inaccessible or inadequate mainstream services.

Submission 2360

Reducing access to NDIS supports before alternative supports are available, accessible and adequately funded risks increasing long-term harm for individuals and families while simply shifting costs to other parts of the system.

Foundational Supports and “Thriving Kids”

These services must be established, adequately funded, accessible and operational before participants lose access to NDIS supports.

Participants should not be excluded from the NDIS on the assumption that alternative supports will be available in the future. In many communities, including regional areas, these services do not yet exist at the scale required to meet demand. Transitioning people out of the NDIS before replacement supports are demonstrably available risks leaving children and families without the assistance they need.

Through my work in paediatric allied health, I regularly see families waiting months for assessments, therapy and specialist services. Workforce shortages and service capacity constraints already limit access for many children. Any assumption that foundational supports can immediately absorb additional demand should be supported by clear evidence that sufficient workforce, funding and service capacity are already in place.

I am also concerned about proposals that may extend reassessment decision-making timeframes from 21 days to 90 days. For children, three months can represent a significant developmental period. Delayed decisions may leave children and families without appropriate supports during critical periods of development, learning and participation.

Community Participation

I am concerned by proposals that reduce funding for community access and participation. Community participation is not an optional extra. It is fundamental to inclusion, independence, wellbeing and the objectives of the NDIS.

We cannot return to a system where people with disability are excluded from community life because the supports required to participate are no longer available.

The response to poor practice should be improved quality and accountability, not reduced opportunities for people with disability to participate in their communities.

Schedule 1, Part 8 – Permanence Criteria

I am concerned about the proposed amendments relating to permanence and the requirement that “all appropriate treatment” be explored before access to the NDIS can be established.

Submission 2360

Many neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, are lifelong conditions, even where support needs and functional capacity fluctuate over time. Families should not be repeatedly required to prove the permanence of conditions that are already clinically recognised as enduring.

I am also concerned that some children may be denied access to supports on the basis that additional treatments theoretically exist, despite being financially inaccessible, available in regional communities, subject to excessive waitlists, or otherwise beyond practical reach.

Reassessments and Children’s Development

I am concerned about the proposed restrictions on participant-requested reassessments and the extension of decision-making timeframes from 21 to 90 days.

Children’s development is dynamic and not always predictable. Changes in communication, behaviour, participation, school engagement and family circumstances can occur rapidly, particularly during key developmental and educational transitions.

Families already report difficulty navigating reassessment processes. Further restricting access to reassessments and extending decision-making timeframes risks leaving children on plans that no longer reflect their needs, placing additional pressure on families, schools and clinicians to manage increasing challenges without adequate support.

Ministerial Powers and Review Rights

I am concerned about the proposed expansion of ministerial powers and the increasing reliance on rules and administrative processes to determine matters that directly affect access to supports.

I am also concerned by the Bill’s reliance on broad delegated powers that allow significant aspects of the Scheme to be determined through future rules rather than primary legislation. This means Parliament is being asked to approve powers before the public can fully understand how those powers may ultimately be exercised.

The right to seek independent review is a fundamental safeguard within the NDIS. The removal or weakening of review rights risks undermining fairness, transparency and accountability within the Scheme.

People with disability must retain the ability to challenge decisions that directly affect their lives, particularly where those decisions relate to eligibility, funding, participation, independence, health, safety and wellbeing.

Submission 2360

Workforce and Provider Sustainability

The success of any reform depends on the workforce available to deliver it. Ongoing uncertainty, increasing administrative burden, funding constraints and reduced provider viability risk driving experienced clinicians out of the disability sector. Reforms should be assessed not only for their impact on participants, but also for their impact on workforce capacity, provider sustainability and access to services, particularly in regional communities.

Transparency and the Future Direction of Reform

I am concerned by reports regarding the Integrated Care and Commissioning Initiative trials and recommendations contained within the Productivity Commission’s interim report, Delivering Quality Care More Efficiently.

As someone who remembers why the NDIS was created, I am concerned by any move away from individualised funding and participant choice and control toward provider-controlled or block-funded models.

I urge the Committee to seek clarity from Government on how current and future reforms align with the principles of choice and control and the recommendations of the Disability Royal Commission.

Additional Concerns Regarding the Bill

I am concerned by provisions that may allow plans to be suspended or revoked where participants are deemed not contactable. Many disabled people face barriers related to communication, mental health, housing instability, trauma, executive functioning or periods of crisis. Loss of support due to difficulties engaging with administrative processes may disproportionately affect those who are already most vulnerable.

The repeal of section 31 risks weakening participant-directed and individualised planning principles that have been central to the NDIS since its inception.

I am also concerned by the extensive use of delegated legislation and transitional rule-making powers within the Bill. Significant aspects of eligibility, assessment processes, participant obligations and support arrangements appear intended to be determined through future rules rather than primary legislation. This makes it difficult for participants, families, providers and Parliament itself to fully understand the practical impact of the reforms before they are enacted.

Recommendations

1. Publish whole-of-government modelling on the impact of reduced NDIS expenditure across health, education, housing, child protection, mental health,
    justice, family violence, carer support and welfare systems.

Submission 2360

• Ensure no participant loses access to supports until equivalent foundational supports are operational, funded and accessible.

• Require independent review, public validation and ongoing monitoring of support needs assessment tools, including meaningful participation from disability-led organisations and people with lived experience, including ANPA, WWDA, VALID, PWDA and Inclusion Australia. Particular attention should be given to ensuring assessment tools do not disadvantage people with neurodevelopmental, y psychosocial, chronic, fluctuating, invisible or otherwise complex disabilities.

• Require a comprehensive gender impact assessment of the reforms.

• Strengthen parliamentary oversight of future rules affecting eligibility, supports, funded supports and participant rights.

• Publicly report on impacts in regional and rural communities.

• Measure reform success through participation, independence, wellbeing and quality-of-life outcomes, not solely expenditure reduction.

• Publish anticipated savings alongside projected costs shifted to other systems.

• Ensure children and young people can access timely reassessments when developmental, educational or family circumstances change.

• Publicly clarify the long-term direction of disability reform, including commissioning models, pooled funding approaches, automated planning tools and any proposed lifetime cost modelling.

• Retain meaningful rights to independent review and appeal of decisions affecting eligibility, supports and budgets.

• Ensure permanence criteria and “all appropriate treatment” requirements recognise lifelong neurodevelopmental disabilities, fluctuating disabilities, regional shortages and barriers to service access.

• Ensure significant changes affecting eligibility, support needs assessments, participant obligations, funded supports and participant rights remain subject to robust parliamentary scrutiny and that key rules and frameworks are publicly released before implementation.

Submission 2360

evidence, robust safeguards and transparent scrutiny because the consequences of getting them wrong will be borne by disabled people and their families.

The Bill may reduce supports before replacement systems are fully operational, narrow access before key rules and assessment frameworks have been publicly scrutinised, increase reliance on mainstream systems that are already under considerable strain, and shift costs onto families, carers, health services, education systems and state- funded supports. It also has the potential to reduce transparency and accountability at a time when trust and confidence in the reform process are essential.

The NDIS requires ongoing reform and stewardship. However, reform should make the Scheme fairer, safer, more transparent and more responsive to the lived experience of disabled people.

The true measure of these reforms will not be what they save, but whether they strengthen or weaken the rights, dignity and participation of disabled people.