Submission 2542
30 May 2026
REQUEST FOR NAME SUPPRESSION AND CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs - Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
My name is . I am a neurodivergent parent of a teenager with Autism and ADHD, and I am also a Registered Nurse-Midwife. I am writing to express my concerns about several provisions in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 and the potential impact these changes may have on families like mine.
My son is 15 years old and has been a NDIS participant for approximately one year. He currently receives modest funding that enables him to access occupational therapy, speech therapy, and support to participate safely in community activities. While these supports may seem basic, they have had a profound impact on his life and on our family.
Prior to accessing the NDIS, my son experienced four years of emotional-based school avoidance. During this period, I left my position with the WA Country Health Service to care for him and provide home education. He became increasingly isolated, disconnected from peers, and struggled significantly with his mental health. As a parent, I was deeply concerned about his future.
The supports he now receives have helped him better understand his brain, his nervous system, and the challenges associated with executive functioning. He is developing practical strategies to navigate a world that is not always designed with neurodivergent people in mind. His communication skills are improving, and he is now participating in community activities with peers in a safe and supported way. For the first time in many years, I can see a future where he is able to participate meaningfully in education, employment and community life.
Importantly, my son’s package is not extravagant. It funds a small number of targeted supports that are helping him build the skills, confidence and independence needed to become a contributing adult who can participate more fully in education, employment and community life.
It is because I have witnessed this transformation firsthand that I am deeply concerned about several provisions within this Bill.
Section 25A (2) would allow a treatment to be considered “appropriate” even where a person cannot realistically access it due to cost, geography, workforce shortages,
Submission 2542
or long waiting lists. Our family has experienced firsthand the impact of geographic inequity. We recently relocated from regional WA to Perth because access to specialist services and disability supports was significantly more limited where we lived. Not every family has the financial means, employment flexibility or support networks required to make such a move. It is therefore difficult to understand how a treatment can be considered available if it cannot realistically be accessed. Assessments of permanence should reflect real-world circumstances, not theoretical possibilities. Otherwise, rural, remote and financially disadvantaged Australians risk being unfairly excluded from support.
Section 25B (4), relating to alternative supports, is also concerning. Alternative supports should not be considered a substitute for NDIS access unless they are genuinely available, adequately funded and capable of meeting a person’s individual needs. Declaring an impairment “excluded” because an alternative support theoretically exists creates a real risk that vulnerable people will fall through gaps in the system.
I am particularly concerned by the parental presumption contained in sections 34(1G) -(1J). Parents naturally provide care for their children, but disability-related support often extends far beyond what would ordinarily be expected of a parent. Our family has lived this reality. My son’s support needs directly contributed to my decision to leave my role as a Registered Nurse-Midwife in the WA Country Health Service in order to care for him and provide home education, resulting in significant financial, emotional and professional consequences for our family. The assumption that parents will simply absorb additional caring responsibilities fails to recognise the reality of carer burnout, people being forced to reduce or leave paid employment, and the resulting financial hardship and impacts on family wellbeing. These costs do not disappear; they are simply shifted onto families. They may also have broader societal impacts through reduced workforce participation, including in critical sectors such as healthcare, where workforce shortages already exist.
Section 34A, which permits funding below the total cost of a support where a cheaper alternative exists, raises similar concerns. While I understand the need for the NDIS to be financially sustainable, cost should not take precedence over effectiveness. Providing a support that is cheaper but less suitable may appear cost effective in the short term but can lead to poorer outcomes, increased support needs and greater costs over time. The goal should be meaningful participation and improved quality of life, not simply the lowest-cost option.
I am also concerned by section 59B (4), which would permit automated systems to make decisions involving discretion and evaluative judgement. Disability support needs are complex. Individual circumstances matter. Decisions regarding support needs require consideration of evidence, context and human experience. While technology may assist administrative processes, decisions that significantly affect people’s lives should remain subject to meaningful human oversight. Transparency, accountability and procedural fairness are essential. The experience of previous automated government decision-making programs, including Robodebt, demonstrates the importance of maintaining robust human oversight where decisions may significantly affect people’s wellbeing, rights and access to essential supports.
Submission 2542
Finally, I am troubled by the fact that the transitional protections associated with these reforms are not guaranteed within the legislation itself. Participants and families deserve certainty. If access to essential supports may be affected by these changes, protections should be embedded in primary legislation rather than relying on temporary rules that may later be altered or removed.
If my son’s supports were reduced or removed, we would do everything possible to continue funding them ourselves. However, this would likely reduce my capacity to work and increase the financial pressures on our family. More importantly, I fear he would lose the progress he has made. He is at a stage of life where peer connection, identity development and community participation are critically important. Returning to the isolation he previously experienced would have serious consequences for his wellbeing and mental health. The impact would extend beyond our family and would likely increase demand on health and mental health services. When families are left to manage disability support needs without adequate assistance, the consequences often include increased use of healthcare services, mental health supports, crisis interventions and carer support services. In many cases, the cost is simply transferred from one system to another.
I respectfully urge the Committee to carefully review the provisions outlined above and delay passage of the Bill until adequate safeguards and genuinely accessible alternative supports are in place. I also strongly support an independent review process that includes meaningful representation from people with disability, families, carers, and the communities that support them. The principle of “nothing about us without us” should remain central to any reform of the NDIS.
The NDIS has given my son opportunities that once seemed impossible. I ask the Committee to ensure that future reforms protect those opportunities rather than place them at risk.
Thank you for considering my submission.