Submission 2846
1 June 2026
NDIS Bill Senate submission
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a mother of two autistic children, aged 10 and 11. My children are NDIS participants and the support they have been able to access using their NDIS funding has been invaluable for them. Like many parents of neurodivergent children, I have since discovered that I am also autistic but I am not a NDIS participant. Additionally, I oversee NDIS supports for my uncle who became disabled following a childhood stroke.
In addition to caring for my own children, I work as a paediatric speech pathologist in a public setting where I predominantly work to support inclusive practice and skill development for neurodivergent children. I am also nearing completion of a Master of Autism and Neurodivergent Studies degree. I feel that my professional experience, study, and lived experience as both an autistic individual and a mother of autistic children positions me well to raise concerns about impact of the NDIS Future Generations Bill on people with disability, especially autistic people.
I am opposed to the Bill for many reasons, which I will outline below.
- Cuts to social and community participation funding. These proposed cuts will have a significant negative impact on people’s ability to access the community. In reality, this will mean many people will purely exist and have substantially reduced opportunity to get out of their house because of reduced funding for support workers. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission Human Rights Guidance Paper (2023) outlines the obligations of the NDIS and its alignment with human rights principles. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission Human Rights Guidance Paper (2023) states that the NDIS will “involve, collaborate and engage with people with disability and their supports in consultations, forums, and discussions to inform policies, processes, quality requirements and support the continuous improvement of the NDIS” (p. 7). At no point during the drafting and tabling of the NDIS Future Generations Bill has the government or NDIS engaged in meaningful collaboration or co-design with the disabled community. In fact, the government has done the opposite and spearheaded a concerted, egregious campaign against people with disability, particularly the autistic community.
Cuts to social and community participation funding will further isolate people with disability and directly cause an increase in mental health issues. One of the Inclusive Homes and Communities policy priorities of Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031 states People with disability are able to fully participate in social, recreational, sporting, religious and cultural life. Reducing NDIS funding
Submission 2846
for social and community participation directly works in opposition to the above policy priority.
These cuts will also increase the carer burden of participants’ informal supports, leading to further disadvantage. It will also likely lead to reduced workforce participation for parents of those participants due to the parents having to provide increased support. Statistically, this is likely to disproportionately a[ect mothers who are already financially disadvantaged because of their gender. This will have long lasting and wide-ranging e[ects, including reduced economic participation, reduced opportunity to accrue superannuation, and increased risk of carer burnout.
The government’s own Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031 lists “the role of informal support is acknowledged and supported” as policy priority 3 for Personal and Community Support (p. 20). Again, the NDIS Future Generations Bill will place more ‘parental responsibility’ on parents who are already at breaking point which simply doesn’t align with the above policy priority. By reducing, or removing, my children’s NDIS support will impact my already stretched capacity. There is already basically no acknowledgement or support for informal supports at the moment. To remove our children’s support will crush us and negatively impact our family dynamics. I am accessing psychology support through a Mental Health Care Plan but have no idea how we’ll a[ord it once those subsidised sessions are used, despite continuing to need the support. We were privately paying for a cleaner fortnightly but had to cease that due to increased cost of living. I feel like I’m drowning under “parental responsibility” so I beg that you not increase the pressure on me and other parents like me by reducing our children’s supports.
One of my children has access to a support worker and the support has improved our child’s self-esteem and social communication skills. It has also provided opportunities to develop independence and allowed the formation of a relationship outside of family. This has been life-changing support for our child and has also allowed respite from their sibling, which has been much needed.
If our child’s access to their social and community participation funding was cut, this would impact their confidence, skill development, social communication, mental health and quality of life. Prior to this support being included in their plan, our child often told us that they wished they were dead (child is currently 11) which was heartbreaking for us to hear. Our child now looks forward to the time they get to spend with their support worker and shared that if the Bill passes, they would feel “disregarded” and “unheard”. They described their current supports as allowing them to feel “listened to” and that they know their therapists and support worker will take the information they share and try to help.
- Automated decisions and algorithms with no individual appeal
Submission 2846
I am also concerned about the concept of automated decision-making using algorithms. The nature of disability being an interplay between biological, physical, social, psychological and environmental factors means that each person’s experience of disability di[ers to the next. Applying automated decisions using algorithms will significantly disadvantage people with disability being of the heterogeneity of the population. Automated decision making will lead people with unmet needs and won’t provide an opportunity to explain the nuance of their situation/s.
It is also concerning that the ability to appeal decisions will be removed. This is an appalling decision and is clearly one made to disadvantage people with disability and their families/carers. To have no recourse when supports are misaligned with a person’s support needs is a clear example of the government’s intention to disempower people with disability.
While the current review process is undoubtedly expensive, the amount of money spent on legal fees is a direct result of planners not listening to people’s support needs. When we’re talking about people with disability, receiving inadequate support can literally result in loss of life. While politicians fight about how wasteful the expense associated with the NDIS is, there are families all over Australia who are terrified that cuts will mean their loved one will die.
It is also important to remember the disaster that resulted when Centrelink relied on automated decision-making to raise debts. People died as a result of the stress, helplessness and hopelessness of error-ridden automated decision making. That cannot be undone and to see that nothing has been learned is incredibly disappointing.
It is critical that people at least have the ability to appeal decisions. To do otherwise is unethical and immoral. The funding cuts are already disenfranchising people with disability; to take away their opportunity to voice their concerns and advocate for themselves or loved ones directly goes against the concept of “choice and control”. It also opposes Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031 policy priorities, including:
-
Information and communication systems are accessible, reliable and responsive (pg. 13)
-
People with disability are safe and feel safe from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation (pg. 14).
-
Policies, processes and programs provide better responses to people with disability who have experienced trauma (pg. 15).
-
The rights of people with disability are promoted, upheld and protected (pg.
- People with disability are able to access supports that meet their needs (pg.
- The NDIS provide eligible people with permanent and significant disability with access to reasonable and necessary disability supports (pg. 20).
Submission 2846
o The Disability Strategy further states “As a world-first approach to providing disability support, the NDIS enables people with disability to receive the reasonable and necessary package of flexible supports that help people pursue their goals and aspirations. In putting people at the centre of NDIS decision-making, people with disability can exercise choice and control as they seek to live an ordinary life like any other member of the Australian community. The NDIS, along with other supports and services, can help contribute to the broader outcomes of the Strategy.”
Enforcing automated decision making and removing the right of review directly opposes the above policy priority and the subsequent explanation. It is also critical to understand the fluctuating needs people with disability experience. Being unable to review decisions and having to rely on automated decisions will not o[er the flexibility we need to manage fluctuating capacity and support needs.
While I have much more I’d like to share, unfortunately I don’t have the time available to do so at the moment.
I appreciate anyone who has read my concerns and lived experience.
Please remember that these are people’s lives and families your decisions impact. It isn’t wasted money to support people with disability. It is their human right under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to be able to access and participate in society like any other person.
Warm regards,