National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 262
I am writing as an NDIS participant, a parent, and a concerned Australian in relation to the
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026 and its proposed changes to eligibility, disability permanence, and access to support.
My son and I have both been participants in the NDIS since 2025. We both have Autism Level 2, and the support we receive through the scheme has helped us build safer, more stable, and more sustainable lives.
My son’s plan funds therapy that has helped him begin to identify and communicate his needs, engage socially, and learn safer ways to regulate emotions and cope with overwhelm. These are important skills as he approaches adolescence and the transition into high school. I am concerned that proposed changes to eligibility could place this support at risk. Without support, he may lose important progress during a critical stage of development. During periods of severe distress or meltdown, there are times when I cannot reliably keep either of us safe without support and strategies being in place.
I am also an NDIS participant. My supports help me slowly recover from autistic burnout and re-engage with everyday life. Before support, I struggled to manage the combined demands of parenting, work, appointments, household responsibilities, and basic daily life. I experienced high levels of exhaustion, overwhelm, shutdown, and isolation. I still face these challenges, but therapy and support worker assistance have helped me develop strategies to regulate emotions, manage overwhelm, communicate my needs, and better support both myself and my son.
I am concerned that the proposed changes to how “permanence” is defined could mean people are expected to demonstrate they have exhausted “appropriate” treatment options before disability is recognised as permanent enough for support. Autism is lifelong. Support has not removed disability for me or my son, but it has helped us function more safely, participate more fully in life, and reduce crisis. I am concerned that progress could be treated as evidence that support is no longer needed, when in reality support is what makes progress possible. I am also concerned about what counts as an “available” treatment if therapies are unaffordable, inaccessible, unavailable locally, or not appropriate for the individual.
The bill also raises concerns because eligibility changes appear to be progressing before the foundational supports recommended through the 2023 independent NDIS review are in place. As a participant and parent, I do not understand how people can be expected to rely on supports that do not yet exist.
I am concerned not only for my own family but for disabled people more broadly. Changes to eligibility and permanence have created significant uncertainty about whether disabled people will continue to receive the support needed to work, parent, participate in community life, maintain relationships, and live ordinary lives. For many people, the NDIS is what makes participation possible. I am concerned about the effect this uncertainty is already having on disabled people’s wellbeing and sense of security.
I ask the committee to consider the practical impact these provisions may have on people with disability and families. If foundational supports are not yet in place, on what basis are eligibility changes proceeding? If treatments may be considered “available” even when unaffordable or inaccessible, how will people be protected from losing support they cannot
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 262
realistically replace? What modelling has been done on the likely costs to hospitals, mental health services, and families if support is reduced or removed?
I respectfully ask the committee to reject this bill until foundational supports are genuinely in place, require downstream cost modelling to be released, and require an independent human rights assessment before the bill proceeds. Reform should be transparent, evidence-based, and focused on helping disabled people live safe, stable, and meaningful lives.