Submission 2603
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for
Future Generations) Bill 2026
Name:
State: Victoria
Date: 1 June 2026
Dear Committee Secretary,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to the inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I make this submission in a personal/professional capacity, drawing on my experience supporting students and families to navigate the NDIS. The views expressed are my own.
Through my work, I support young people with disability and their families to understand, access and use the NDIS. Many of the students and families I work with are navigating complex disability, including autism, intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, communication needs, behaviours of concern, significant functional impairment and school-to-adult transition planning.
I support the need for a fair, sustainable and well-regulated NDIS. Families and participants also want the Scheme to be protected from fraud, misuse and poor-quality providers. However, I am concerned that some proposed changes may unintentionally make the NDIS harder to access and navigate for the people it was designed to support, particularly children and young people with complex disability, school leavers, families with limited advocacy capacity, and people who rely heavily on informal supports.
This submission focuses on five key areas:
- functional capacity and access decisions
- plan reassessments and change of circumstances
- social and community participation supports
- provider regulation and safeguards
- automated decision-making and transparency
- Functional capacity must be understood in real-life context I support the principle that the NDIS should focus on functional impact, not diagnosis alone. However, functional capacity is complex and must be assessed in a way that reflects a person’s real life, not only what they can do during a short assessment or in a highly supported setting.
This is particularly important for students in specialist school settings. A young person may appear to be coping at school because they have routine, structure, trained staff, visual supports, supervision, behaviour support strategies and predictable expectations. This does not mean they have the same level of functional capacity at home, in the community, in employment settings, on public transport, or during major life transitions.
Submission 2603
Functional capacity can also fluctuate. Autistic students and young people with psychosocial disability may mask their difficulties, experience burnout, or present very differently depending on the environment. Behaviours of concern may also be linked to communication needs, sensory overload, distress or unmet support needs.
I am concerned that if functional capacity is assessed too narrowly, some participants may be found to have less need for support than they actually do.
Functional capacity assessment should consider:
-
the person’s functioning across home, school, community, employment and transition settings
-
fluctuating capacity, masking, burnout, sensory overload and distress
-
communication needs and behaviour as communication
-
risk, vulnerability and safety in the community
-
the level of informal support required from family and carers
-
evidence from families, schools, allied health professionals and support workers
-
whether the person can complete tasks safely, consistently and independently, not just whether they can complete them once
The NDIS must remain person-centred and evidence-based, rather than becoming a narrow checklist.
- Plan reassessments must remain accessible when circumstances change I am concerned about any changes that may limit or delay participant-requested plan reassessments where there has been a genuine change of circumstances.
In my experience, plan reassessments are often not excessive or optional. They are required because a participant’s circumstances have genuinely changed. For children and young people, these changes can happen quickly and can have significant impacts on the whole family.
Common changes include:
-
leaving school
-
moving from school into SLES, supported employment, day programs or community participation
-
increased behaviours of concern
-
changes in family or carer capacity
-
carer stress or burnout
-
changes in accommodation or transport needs
-
new safety risks or vulnerability in the community
-
loss of informal supports
-
changes in functional capacity, mental health or health needs
Submission 2603
- new assessments recommending support coordination, therapy, behaviour support or assistive technology
For school leavers, a plan that was appropriate while the young person was at school may not be appropriate after school ends. A young person may suddenly need support to access employment pathways, community participation, life skills, transport training, recreation, social connection and meaningful daytime activities.
If a reassessment cannot occur in a timely way, families are left trying to fill the gaps. This can increase carer strain, isolation, crisis presentations and pressure on schools, health services and community services.
I recommend that the Bill include clear protections so that participants can still request a timely plan reassessment where there is evidence of a genuine change of circumstances, particularly during school-to-adult transition.
- Social and community participation supports are essential, not optional extras I am particularly concerned about any reduction or narrowing of access to social and community participation supports.
For many young people with disability, these supports are not simply recreational. They are central to wellbeing, inclusion, independence, safety, skill development and family sustainability.
For school leavers, social and community participation supports can be the difference between having a meaningful weekly routine and becoming isolated at home. After Year 12, many young people lose the structure, relationships and predictability of school. Without appropriate funded supports, families may struggle to provide safe supervision and meaningful activity during the week.
Social and community participation supports can help young people to:
- build independence
- practise communication and social skills
- access sport, recreation and community life
- develop travel and safety skills
- reduce isolation
- explore employment and volunteering pathways
- build confidence and routine
- support emotional regulation
- reduce pressure on parents and carers Foundational supports may be an important part of the future disability support system, but they are not yet a reliable replacement for individualised NDIS support. Until foundational supports are fully available, accessible and adequately funded, there is a real risk that participants and families will fall into a service gap.
Submission 2603
Any reform to social and community participation should be staged carefully and should not remove individualised support from people with significant functional impairment, intellectual disability, autism, psychosocial disability, communication needs or complex behaviour support needs.
- Provider regulation is important, but it must not reduce choice and access I support stronger safeguards in the NDIS, particularly where providers are delivering personal care, behaviour support, daily living support, transport, support in closed or high-risk settings, or services to people who are highly vulnerable.
Families need to know that providers are safe, ethical, skilled and accountable. Stronger safeguards are important to protect participants from neglect, exploitation, unsafe practice and poor-quality services.
However, provider regulation must be proportionate and carefully implemented. Many families already struggle to find appropriate providers, especially providers who understand autism, intellectual disability, behaviours of concern, trauma, communication needs, family complexity and school-to-adult transition.
If registration or compliance requirements are too burdensome, some small but high-quality providers may leave the sector. This could reduce participant choice and control, particularly in areas where there are already limited providers.
Provider regulation should be:
- risk-based and proportionate
- focused on quality and safety, not just paperwork
- designed with participants, families and providers
- accessible for small and community-based providers
- monitored for unintended impacts on participant choice
- responsive to thin markets and specialist support needs Safeguards should improve the quality and safety of supports without making it harder for participants to find the right support.
- Automated decision-making must have strong human oversight I am concerned about any increased use of automated administrative decision-making without strong safeguards, transparency and review rights.
NDIS decisions are complex. They require an understanding of disability, functional impact, family systems, informal supports, risk, behaviour, trauma, communication, culture and environment. These matters cannot be safely understood through data alone.
If automated systems are used, there must be:
- clear information about when automation is being used
- transparent reasons for decisions
- human review before decisions cause harm
Submission 2603
- accessible appeal and review pathways
- safeguards against bias
- recognition that complex cases require professional judgement
- clear processes for participants and families to provide additional evidence Participants and families must not be left trying to challenge decisions they do not understand.
Recommendations
I respectfully recommend that the Committee consider amendments or safeguards to ensure that the Bill:
-
Protects access for people with significant functional impairment, including autistic people, people with intellectual disability, psychosocial disability and complex support needs.
-
Ensures functional capacity is assessed in real-life contexts, including home, school, community, employment and transition settings.
-
Recognises that capacity can fluctuate and may be affected by masking, burnout, sensory overload, communication needs, trauma, mental health and environmental demands.
-
Ensures participant-requested plan reassessments remain available where there is a genuine change of circumstances.
-
Recognises school-to-adult transition as a major life stage requiring timely and flexible NDIS planning.
-
Protects access to social and community participation supports for participants with significant functional impairment and complex support needs.
-
Ensures foundational supports are not treated as a replacement for individualised NDIS supports until they are fully available, accessible and adequately funded.
-
Ensures provider regulation is risk-based, proportionate and does not unintentionally reduce participant choice and access.
-
Places strict safeguards around automated decision-making, including transparency, human oversight and accessible review rights.
-
Requires ongoing consultation with people with disability, families, carers, schools, frontline workers and disability advocates before major operational changes are implemented.
Conclusion
The NDIS must be sustainable, but sustainability should not be achieved by making access harder, reducing essential supports, or shifting pressure back onto families, schools and crisis systems.
Submission 2603
For many young people with disability, the NDIS is what allows them to move from school into adult life with dignity, safety, inclusion and purpose. Reform should protect the Scheme while also protecting the rights, choice, safety and wellbeing of participants and their families.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours sincerely,
Victoria
1 June 2026