Concerns regarding percentage reductions to social and community participation funding for participants with autism spectrum disorder and other disabilities (Participant experience)

Submission 2430

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs

Legislation Committee

Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment

(Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

My name is , a mother and carer to two adult children and one child, all of whom have a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder as well as other disabilities and are NDIS participants. I am deeply concerned about the

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for

Future Generations) Bill 2026 particularly for people who require 24/7 support.

I support the objective of ensuring the NDIS remains sustainable and available to future generations of Australians with disability. However, I do not support this Bill in its current form. In my view, several provisions have the potential to adversely affect participants, particularly those with complex and high support needs, and should be amended before the Bill is passed.

I respectfully urge the Committee to carefully consider the practical impact of these changes on participants and to recommend amendments that strengthen transparency, consultation, procedural fairness, and safeguards for those who rely on the NDIS for their health, safety, independence, and community participation.

1. Section 34A – Percentage-Based Plan Reductions Concerns:

• Section 34A allows the Minister to reduce plan funding for any support category by legislative instrument without merits review.

• Social and community participation funding is the first target, phased from 1 October 2026. For many participants, particularly those with high or complex needs, this funding is essential for supervision, behavioural support, communication, nursing oversight, airway safety, and active support outside the home.

Submission 2430

• Percentage reductions do not reduce actual support needs and can create unsafe gaps, risking neglect, preventable hospitalisation, restrictive practices, placement collapse, and life-threatening harm.

• The Bill risks framing these supports as discretionary “lifestyle” spending, ignoring their critical role in safety and inclusion.

Recommendations:

1. Mandatory Consultation / Co-Design: Any percentage reduction must involve co-design with the disability community or consultation, with a published impact statement. Participants should retain merits-review rights for harmful reductions.

2. High-Needs Exemption: Participants with complex needs—including 24/7 supervision, profound behavioural support needs, complex health support (tracheostomy, swallowing or airway management), or intensive 1:1 support—must be automatically exempt from percentage reductions that would create unsafe gaps.

3. Section 33(2EA) – Ministerial Power to Cap Supports Concerns:

• Section 33(2EA) allows the Minister to cap any support, including maximum hours, intensity, or worker-to-participant ratios, overriding the planner’s reasonable-and-necessary determination (EM ¶ 527).

• Subsections 33(2G)–(2H) and 209(2AA)–(2AB) allow cap values to reside in an external document incorporated by reference. This allows the Agency to update cap values without further Parliamentary scrutiny, even though the cap rule itself remains disallowable.

Recommendation:

• Amend the Bill so that cap values themselves are included directly in the disallowable NDIS rule, rather than an external incorporated document. This ensures Parliament retains oversight of changes directly affecting participant supports.

Submission 2430

3. Section 48A – Unscheduled and Emergency Reassessments Concerns:

• The Bill extends the Agency’s timeframe to decide on an unscheduled reassessment from 21 days to 90 days, removes the “deemed decision” safety net for missed deadlines, and requires changes to be “significant and ongoing.” Informal-support changes only count if “unanticipated.”

• There is no emergency reassessment pathway. Participants whose supports collapse, housing is at risk, behaviour support needs escalate, or safety is immediately threatened could experience harm during the 90-day decision period.

Recommendations: Retain Core Protections:

• Restore the 21-day decision timeframe for unscheduled reassessments.

• Reinstate the “deemed decision” safety net if the Agency misses deadlines.

• Remove the “unanticipated” qualifier for informal-support changes. Emergency Reassessment Pathway:

• Introduce a statutory fast-track pathway with a 14-day decision timeframe for participants at immediate risk of harm, housing loss, behavioural escalation, or support breakdown.

• Allow certification of urgency by the participant, nominee, or treating practitioner.

• Treat missed 14-day deadlines as a deemed decision in the participant’s favour pending final determination.

Rationale: Without these safeguards, participants with urgent needs could experience preventable harm, including safety risks, placement breakdown, or escalation of behavioural or health issues, while waiting for Agency decisions.

Submission 2430

Conclusion

While the Bill seeks to secure the NDIS for the future, its current design risks unsafe reductions in supports for participants with complex needs, allows key parameters to be changed without parliamentary oversight, and removes important safeguards for urgent reassessments. Mandatory consultation, high needs exemptions, transparent disallowable rules for cap values, and statutory emergency reassessment pathways are essential to protect participants’ health, safety, independence, and inclusion.

Yours sincerely,