Submission 2792
COMMITTEE SECRETARY, SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
E: COMMUNITY.AFFAIRS.SEN@APH.GOV.AU
01 JUNE 2026
Dear Committee Secretary,
Re: Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I am a mother of an 8-year-old boy with a rare genetic condition causing life-long significant high needs in all areas of his life - non-verbal, wheelchair-bound, incontinent and uncontrolled epileptic seizures. My son has been an NDIS participant since he was 10-months old and I greatly appreciated what this has helped our son achieve.
We live in regional NSW 2 hours from Sydney and find extra challenges in this due to the limited services available and longer distances providers must travel. In general, we find this bill will adversely affect younger people with a disability, those that require 1 on 1 support and those living in regional and remote areas.
I agree that the NDIS does need reform to reduce cost and result in a fairer system for all. However, I want to outline the harm this Amendment Bill will cause if it passes Parliament. This Bill is too far-reaching to pass as it stands. I believe the Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds.
Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency
The Issue: The consultation period for the Amendment Bill is two weeks, which is insufficient to allow for appropriate consultation, considering accessibility and communication needs. The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days where possible.
“Personal Impact: The short timeline impacts me as it has caused high levels of anxiety due to the extensive changes proposed that will be lifechanging in a negative way for so many disabled people and their families. I would like to provide a thoughtful and helpful response – but this short timeline makes it impossible. It feels like a purposeful barrier to silence the disability community.”
Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.
Submission 2792
Assumption of parental responsibility without adjustment for need The issue: The Bill inserts new subsections 34(1G), (1H) and (1J), that relate to parental responsibility. Subsection 34(1G) sets out a presumption that “parents are responsible for providing substantial care and support for their children”. According to subsection (1H), substantial care and support includes: (a) supervision, personal care, transport, emotional support and behavioural support, and (b) other assistance with the activities of daily living that, regardless of the child’s disability, would reasonably be expected of a parent of a child of a similar age.
How this affects participants: This blanket reference to emotional and behavioural support, without any recognition or adjustment for different levels of support need, implies that it is considered reasonable for parents to provide any level of emotional and behavioural support required. This creates an elevated risk that families whose children require intensive supervision, emotional and behavioural support may still be deemed ineligible for the Scheme or not be provided funding for this.
“Personal Impact: This definition could be used to deny my son support worker hours he needs for daily living causing serious safety concerns for my son and myself. I have other young children and a husband that requires to work late a few nights a week. These nights I require trained support worker to help with daily routine that know my son, know how to use hoists, how to spot his type of seizures and how he communicates.”
Recommendation: Provide a definition and assessment of parental responsibility that accounts for the significant variation in level and complexity of support needs.
Removal of children from the NDIS without established safeguards or supports
The issue: According to the Department of Disability, Health and Ageing’s website on NDIS Changes, children aged 8 and under with developmental delay and/or autism and low to moderate support needs will no longer be eligible for the NDIS, and will instead be supported by the new Thriving Kids program.
Removal of this cohort of children aged 8 and under from the NDIS is being justified by changes to the definition of “functional capacity” and how “reasonable and necessary supports” are described, even though Autism is not explicitly named in the legislation (see Issue 1c of this submission)
How this affects participants: Apart from the lack of suitability of using functional capacity as the basis for assessment for children with fluctuating needs (see Issue 1c), the key issues with the removal of children from the NDIS to Thriving Kids are the speed of the transition which does not allow for genuine co-design, nor the adequate establishment of safeguards or alternative supports. This would require, at a minimum:
guarantees that accessing Thriving Kids does not disqualify dual access to the NDIS if required
guaranteed mechanisms to ensure that children can reapply to the NDIS after they transition out of Thriving Kids at age 9
Page 2 of 5
Submission 2792
establishment of alternative supports through Thriving Kids before children are removed from the NDIS
a trial period to ensure evidence-based user testing and validation of the supports provided by Thriving Kids before removal of other supports
adequate funding for capacity building and workforce development to ensure that support provided through Thriving Kids meets best practice standards.
“Personal Impact: This will not directly impact my son would if this was implemented when my sone was younger. I know of so many friends and their children that this will. The NDIS is an “insurance scheme” and I believe this cohort of children have the most potential to benefit from early intervention. Parents at this stage often have other young children to look after and are dealing with the diagnosis, many medical appointments and gaining general knowledge around the disability. This is an extremely overwhelming period and to think parents can deal will result in more costs in the future due to:
- parents’ mental health and relationship breakdowns
- children not receiving the supports they need early on to cope in the future It can take many years to receive a diagnosis and fully realise the true lasting effect of some disabilities. Children could lose valuable years of early intervention during this time if a bare minimum is not provided during this time.”
Recommendation: Guarantee that children aged 8 and under are not removed from the NDIS before adequate safeguards, alternative supports, minimum allowances and pathways for reassessment throughout their development are established
Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law The issue: The Bill allows Ministers to change who gets NDIS support (Schedule 1 Parts 8 and 9) and how much funding people receive (Schedule 1 Part 4; Schedule 3) by signing an instrument, without going back to Parliament. The rules that will determine critical eligibility thresholds (Schedule 1 Parts 1, 8 and 9) have not yet been written.
How this affects participants: The decisions that shape the lives of participants, whether they qualify for the NDIS and what supports they can access, could be changed without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny. Participants may not know supports or eligibility rules have changed until their plan is affected.
“Personal Impact: This fills me with constant anxiety that everything could change on a whim with no consultation on how this effects people. I feel as a parent of a child with a disability that this will impact us more as much needed supports will be classified as “parental responsibility” and taken away. It is hard enough dealing with constant changes with a growing child due to puberty affecting his disability, changing needs and abilities and general weight gain affecting transfers and equipment. Let alone changing the NDIS goal post as well.”
Page 3 of 5
Submission 2792
Recommendation: Require that all decisions affecting NDIS eligibility and funding levels be made through primary legislation subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory advance notice to affected participants before any changes take effect.
Existing participants face narrower criteria and fewer rights to challenge decisions The issue: The Bill changes the rules for existing NDIS participants and makes it harder to challenge some decisions about supports and funding. It also restricts when you can request a reassessment, removes review rights for automatic plan renewals, and makes funding reductions unreviewable (Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 8). Combined with restrictions on reassessment requests (Part 2), automatic plan renewals without review rights (Part 5), and unreviewable funding reductions (Part 4), existing participants face narrower criteria with significantly fewer avenues to challenge decisions about their supports.
How this affects participants: This does not protect participants already on the NDIS, who could be reassessed under stricter rules. If someone’s funding is reduced or their plan renewed automatically, they may have limited or no ability to challenge that decision. This could make it harder for people to get extra support when their circumstances or disability change.
“Personal Impact: We have had countless instances with the NDIA not properly understanding our son’s disability and in turn needs. Therefore, I have no confidence that the department will get this right. So to take away valuable input from the community in terms of feedback and update plans seems like such missed opportunity and extremely dangerous.”
Recommendation: Require a “no harm” safeguard ensuring no current participant loses access to supports unless equivalent supports are in place, with independent review rights before any exit decision and access to unscheduled reassessments preserved.
Unreviewable ministerial power to cut funding across all support categories The Issue: The Minister can reduce funding for any support or group of supports by a specified percentage through an instrument that cannot be challenged (Schedule 1 Part 4). This applies across all budget categories. Unspent funds will no longer carry over at plan renewal (Schedule 1 Part 5).
How this affects participants: A participant’s community participation, capacity building or assistive technology funding could be cut without warning and without any right to appeal. Participants who save unspent funds across plan periods for high-cost items will lose that ability entirely.
“Personal Impact: In our experience we have gained approval for a give item type, however, may put of purchasing this if our child’s needs are changing or if the technology is progressing quickly. This is to ensure we purchase the best piece of equipment that will meet the needs of our child the longest. Not allowing these AT high need costs go from one plan to another may result in increases costs as items will be purchased that will need reviewing earlier.”
Page 4 of 5
Submission 2792
Recommendation: Require that unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for participants saving for high-cost items and require independent review rights before any funding reduction takes effect.
Supports cut before replacement system is ready The issue: From 1 October 2026, the government has announced funding for social, civic and community participation supports will be cut by 50 per cent and capacity building daily activities by 10 per cent for all participants, reductions that will be implemented through the ministerial instrument power in Schedule 1 Part
- The Foundational Supports system intended to fill that gap has no confirmed implementation date and is not yet operational.
How this affects participants: Supports that help participants connect with their community, build skills and maintain independence may be cut before anything exists to replace them, leaving carers and families with greater responsibilities and no additional support. These supports are often what help people stay visible, connected and safe.
“Personal Impact: This will greatly affect my son during the school holidays. The few activities my son can participate in require 1 on 1 support and are organised by those in the industry. General for-profit providers exclude children with a disability due to increased cost more as they require trained workers, additional workers or using facilities that allow for inclusion i.e. wheelchair accessible and inclusive bathrooms with hoists. My son will be left being unable to connect with peers during this time along with will add additional strain on me as the care giver to give up my already part-time employment as I won’t be able to work during school holidays. Work is my only respite causing additional strain on our family financially as well as my mental health.”
Recommendation: Require that no reductions to community participation or capacity building supports take effect until Foundational Supports are fully operational, adequately funded and demonstrably able to meet the needs of those who will lose NDIS supports. In addition, this reduction isn’t applied to participants below the age of 18 as they typically have limit funding for access to the community.
Yours Sincerely,
MOTHER OF A CHILD WITH A DSIBAILITY ON THE SCHEME
Page 5 of 5