Concerns about eligibility changes impacting children with disability (DRO advocacy) | External submission

Submission 294

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the

NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Introduction

About the Centre

The Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare ( the Centre ) is the peak body for child and family services in Victoria and Tasmania , representing over 150 member organisations that deliver early intervention, family support, out -of-home care, disability and allied health services across the state. The Centre’s mission is to advocate for policies and systems that promote the safety, wellbeing and development of children and young people, and that support families to thrive.

The Centre welcome s the opportunity to respond to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 (the Bill).

Scope of this submission The Centre’s submission addresses the Bill’s provisions as they intersect with the wellbeing and rights of children and young people with disability, the experiences of families as carers and advocates, and the capacity of the child and family services sector to conti nue delivering quality support. It draws on research and the reported experiences of families and practitioners.

The Independent Review of the NDIS (2023) found that children and families have been among the most significant users of the Scheme. Any amendment to eligibility, planning, or funding structure therefore have profound impacts on this cohort.

The Centre recognises the need for NDIS reform. We support measures that strengthen integrity, reduce exploitation, improve planning consistency, and enables the scheme to be sustainable for future generations of Australians with disability. However, the Centre has concerns about the pace, design, and sequencing of the changes proposed in this Bill. Specifically, we are concerned that:

The Bill tightens eligibility before foundational supports are funded and available.
The Thriving Kids early intervention program, while conceptually sound, is not yet operational, and the Bill redirects children to it without guarantee of equivalent support.
Reductions to social and community participation funding will begin before adequate evidence review.
The impact on children in out -of-home care , where there is a high proportion of children with disability, has not been adequately considered.
The consultation timeline is insufficient for legislation of this size and consequence.

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577

Submission 294

A note on the adequacy of consultation The Centre notes with concern that the Senate Committee has been given a reporting date of 16 June 2026, less than five weeks after the Bill was introduced on 14 May 2026, and that submissions close on 29 May 2026. We believe this compressed timeline is inadequate for legislation of this scale and complexity.

The Bill is more than 100 pages long and proposes fundamental changes to how Australians with disability access the NDIS, how their budgets are calculated, and what supports they can receive. The communities most affected (people with disability, families and service providers ) need adequate time to read, understand and respond to these proposals. The Centre urges the Committee to seek an extension of the inquiry timeframe and to actively facilitate accessible pathways for community input.

Children and young people as a majority stakeholder group in the NDIS

Children and young people constitute more than half of all NDIS participants (NDIA, 2024). According to NDIA’s 2024 quarterly data, the early childhood cohort (children aged under seven) were among the fastest growing groups in the scheme (NDIA, 2024). The proposed changes to eligibility, planning, and funding will therefore be felt most immediately and profoundly by children and families.

The NDIS Review (2023)   highlights how  access to the Scheme for children, while often delayed and

inconsistent, ha s become a critical lifeline for families navigating complex developmental and disability needs in a context of under -resourced mainstream services. The Review called for a new connected system of support, combining a strengthened early intervention pathway within the NDIS with better funded foundational supports outside of it (NDIS Review, 2023). However, the Bill begins to implement only one si de of this equation : the NDIS pathway changes, without demonstrably establishing the other. The Centre is concerned about the proposed sequencing and considers this to be the Bill’s most significant structural risk.

Most crucially , sequencing is a rights issue, not  merely an administrative one  . Delays in access to support

during key developmental windows can cause harm which cannot be remedied by later investment.

International obligations under the  United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child   (UNCRC ) and the

United National Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD ) recognise the time -critical nature of early support for children with disability. Reforms must therefore avoid creating any inte rim gaps in access for children who require support now.

The ‘Substantially Reduced Functional Capacity’ threshold

The Bill proposes tighter eligibility definitions, including a heightened ‘substantially reduced functional capacity’ threshold and stronger requirements to demonstrate permanence of impairment. The Centre is concerned that these provisions, without approp riate safeguards, may disproportionately affect children with neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism, ADHD, and developmental language disorder, conditions

where functional capacity is variable, context  -dependent, and often not fully apparent in earl  y childhood.

Childhood disability is fundamentally different from adult disability in its presentation, trajectory and measurement (Imms et al., 2017; Moore et al., 201 5). As noted earlier, many conditions that result in significant long-term disability (autism, developmental language disorder, childhood on -set cerebral palsy, and rare genetic conditions) present in ways that are variable, context -dependent, and not fully m easurable in early childhood. A child who appears to function adequately in a one -hour clinic asse ssment may face profound barriers in the classroom, at home, and in the community (Imms et al., 2017). A child’s support needs at age four may not reflect their needs at age eight or twelve.

The evidence base on early intervention is clear; the earlier a quality support is provided, the better the long term outcomes for children with disability and developmental delay (Dew et al., 20 13; Moore et al., 2015). As such, restricting access at the point of greatest developmental plasticity risks causing irreversible harm that will not only cost children and families, but also the scheme and society, far more in the long run.

The Centre calls on the Committee to recommend that the Bill be amended to include explicitly guidance on

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577

Submission 294

how the substantially reduced functional capacity threshold should be interpreted for children, including recognition of variability, developmental trajectory, and the limits of early assessment.

Access equity and the impact on infants The Bill places considerable emphasis on an applicant having undertaken all appropriate treatments before gaining access to the NDIS. The Centre is concerned that this requirement is not equitable in its design or application. Many families, particularly t hose in low -income households, in regional or rural areas, or from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, will have encountered significant financial barriers before ever reaching the NDIS access process.

Medicare subsidies and public health services do not eliminate out -of-pocket costs (e.g., gap fees for paediatric assessments, specialist consultations, and early intervention) which can be substantial, and for many families are simply unaffordable. To req uire that a family ‘exhaust all other options’ as a precondition for NDIS access, without acknowledging that those options carry real costs that not all families can bear, is to

design equity out of the system at the point of entry    (Carers Australia, 202  2; Gosse et al., 202 5).

The Centre is particularly concerned about the impact of these requirements on infants and young children identified in hospital settings as having a disability or significant developmental concern. For example; a baby born with Down Syndrome, or an infant identified through neonatal or paediatric care as having a rare genetic condition, may not yet carry a confirmed diagnosis, particularly where the condition is rare and diagnostic processes are lengthy. Critically, at that early stage, they may not yet de monstrate ‘severely reduced functional capacity’ in measurable terms as they are infants, and their functional capacity has not yet been assessed against the developmental milestones of typically developing children. Yet, their trajectory (to significantly reduced functional capacity requiring lifelong support) is in many cases, not in doubt. Under the current NDIS, these children can access the scheme early, enabling supports to begin before functional decline becomes entrenched. The Bill, as currently dra fted, risks closing that early access pathway, with profound consequences for children whose outcomes depend on timely intervention (Dew et al., 20 13; Moore et al., 2015; Imms et al., 2017).

The ‘Thriving Kids’ reform and early intervention pathway

The Bill legislates the framework for the new Early Intervention Pathway, which will route children aged under 8 with ‘low to moderate’ support needs away from the NDIS and into the new federally funded ‘Thriving Kids’ model, a state delivered community -based support program. The Centre recognises the intention behind Thriving Kids; to ensure early, proportionate, and timely support for children without requiring NDIS access. A dedicated early childhood support model, properly resourced and evidence -based c ould provide timely, proportionate support without the administrative burden of full NDIS access. However, while the policy intent is sound, the Centre has concerns about the implementation, sequencing, and resourcing of Thriving Kids and its interface wit h the Bill:

The category of ‘low to moderate’ is not sufficiently defined in the Bill and has historically been contested in NDIS assessments. Families report that assessment outcomes shift significantly depending on the assessor, the tool used, and the day of the ass essment (Children and Young People with Disability Australia, 202 6). There is no guarantee that this category will be applied consistently across jurisdictions.
Thriving Kids will be delivered through state and territory systems that are already under strain. The Centre notes that paediatric community health services experience wait-times of 6 to 12 months common for public speech pathology, occupational therapy and psychology services ( Gosse et al., 202 5; Dew et al., 20 13). Redirecting children from the NDIS to an underfunded mainstream system risk creating a support vacuum that families cannot bridge without significant personal financial cost. Additionally, without significant new investment in workforce and infrastructure, these systems will not be able to deliver equivalent outcomes.
Group-based delivery creates access barriers for priority families. While group models can be cost -

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577

Submission 294

efficient and foster peer connection, over -reliance on them risks excluding families with the greatest need. Structural barriers include geographic distance, disability, mental health challenges, competing

caregiving responsibilities, work constraints, and    cost-of-living pressures (Dew et al., 20  13; Gosse et al.,

2025; Carers Australia, 202 2). Evidence shows families experiencing higher complexity and disadvantage are the least likely to engage with or benefit from group formats (Moore et al., 201 5; Dew et al., 2013). A model centred on group delivery may therefore unintentionally function as a barrier to early intervention rather than enabling access.

Children who move to Thriving Kids will lose the enforceable individual entitlement that is the hallmark of the NDIS. Thriving Kids, as a block -funded program, does not carry the same guarantee of individualised support. This is a fundamental shift in the right of children with disability that has not been adequately acknowledged in the public forum.

The risk of underestimating demand A foundational concern is that the modelling underpinning Thriving Kids may significantly underestimate the number of children who will seek to access the program. It is crucial to emphasise that this is not a hypothetical risk, rather, it is a pattern wit h direct precedent in the design of the NDIS itself. When the Productivity Commission (2011) modelled the original NDIS, its participation estimates proved substantially lower than actual demand, contributing in part to the cost pressures that drive this v ery reform (Productivity Commission , 2011; Carey et al., 2017). In Victoria alone, the number of children expected to be redirected from the NDIS to Thriving Kids, combined with new families who would previously have accessed the NDIS, is anticipated to place extraordinary pressure on a prog ram and workforce that does not yet exist at scale. If demand modelling is again inaccurate (as it was for the NDIS) the consequences will fall directly on children and families waiting for support, and on the child and family services sector that will be expected to absorb the overflow ( Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare , 2024).

Falling through the support gap As it stands, the program is not yet operational. Transitioning children from the NDIS to a program that does not yet exist at scale creates a risk of a support gap for some of Australia’s most vulnerable children. This is the case as a transition at this scale will inevitably produce a group of children for whom neither pathway is suitable. There is concern that this gap will not be a temporary implementation challenge, but rather, a structural feature of the new system if i t is not designed against explicitly. Moreover, there is a risk of replicating the dynamics of a highly medicalised, deficit -focused model, one where families must prove how sick or functionally impaired their child is in order to access support. The Centr e is aware that this already occurs through the current NDIS access process, requiring families to present their child at their worst, and to navigate adversarial, gate keeping processes in order to access supports. The current system that families experie nce today may be replicated or worsened in the new model.

Where will the unmet need go? Perhaps the most pressing and least acknowledged consequence of the Thriving Kids model is the question of; where will the unmet need go? When Thriving Kids cannot meet a family’s needs (because the program is full, because the group format is inaccessible , because the child’s needs are more complex than the program is designed to address, or because geography makes it impossible), those families will simply not disappear.

There is a clear answer to where that unmet need will land, and that is with the child and family services sectors and in schools. Early childhood educators, family support workers, maternal and child health nurses, social workers, and teachers will absorb the demand that Thriving Kids cannot meet. It is well known that these systems are already under resourced and stretched beyond capacity. The NDIS Review found that mainstream services had failed to develop alongside the scheme precisely because unmet nee d had been absorbed by the NDIS (Australian Government, 2023). Redirecting that need to those same under resourced systems, without commensurate investment is not reform, it’s displacement.

Diagnostic and evidence requirements

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577

Submission 294

The Bill and associated framework planning changes placed increased weight on formal diagnostic evidence and professional assessments. For children, particularly those in rural and regional areas, from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgroun ds, or in out -of-home care, accessing timely and comprehensive diagnostic evidence and assessments is often an insurmountable challenge. Research finds that for families in rural and regional communities face waiting periods for public assessments of 12 to 24 months or more (Gosse et al., 202 5). Additionally, private assessments costs can run to thousands of dollars, placing comprehensive diagnosis beyond the reach of families who are already managing the financial stress of caring

for a child with disability. Carers Australia (202   2) finds that  families of children with disability face

significantly higher household costs and lower workforce participation than the general population .

Children from  First Nations communities, from CALD backgrounds, and those in out  -of-home care are

particularly likely to face barriers in the evidence -gathering process. For these children, the new requirements risk creating structural exclusion from a scheme intended to be needs -based. Moreover, the Bill does not include provisions addressing the access gaps experienced by CALD families or First Nations communities.

The Centre recommends that the Committee require the NDIA to publish a cultural equity strategy alongside the implementation of the Bill’s eligibility and planning changes, including measurable targets for CALD participation and funded supports for cultura lly safe navigation assistance. The Centre also urges the Committee to recommend amendments to the Bill to include explicit provisions for First Nations access equity, including investment in ACCOs, culturally safe assessment processes, and service deliver y models tailored to remote communities.

The NDIS Review found that access to scheme was often delayed, based on diagnosis, and not based on the child’s needs (NDIS Review, 2023) . The reforms proposed in this Bill risk entrenching these inequities rather than addressing them, unless specific safeguards for vulnerable children are embedded in legislation and practice guidance.

Functional Assessments: Tools, qualified assessors, and training The Bill’s new planning framework places significant weight on functional capacity assessments as the mechanism for determining both eligibility and plan budgets. Yet the Bill is largely silent on three critical questions: W hich assessment tools will be used for children, who will be authorised to administer them, and what training will be required of those assessors ? The Centre considers these omissions to be significant risks to the integrity of the new system.

There is no single, universally accepted tool for assessing functional capacity in children with disability ( Shire et al., 2017; Sparrow et al., 2016). The field includes a range of instruments each with different strengths, normative populations, and age ranges. The cho ice of tool will significantly shape the outcome of any assessment. As such, the Centre is concerned that without transparent, legislated guidance on which tools are appropriate for children of different ages and diagnostic profiles, there is a real risk of i nconsistent outcomes ultimately leading to the systemic underestimation of children’s support needs (Shire et al., 2017).

Equally important is the question of who will conduct these assessments and how will they be trained. The Centre strongly recommends that functional assessments of children must be conducted by skilled practitioners with specific paediatric expertise. A ge neric disability assessor, however skilled in adult functional assessment, may not have the clinical knowledge to interpret the presentation of a two -year-old with autism or a seven -year-old with a rare genetic condition. Without mandatory training standar ds and qualification requirements specific to childhood assessment, the new framework risks making consequential decisions about children’s futures on the basis of inadequate or inappropriate clinical judgement (Anaby et al., 2014).

Environment Matters: Assessing child in natural settings A child’s functional capacity cannot be understood in isolation from the environments in which they live, learn, and participate. A child with autism may appear to function adequately in a structured, one -tone clinical assessment room which presents as qui et, predictable, and attended by a familiar caregiver, but face

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577

Submission 294

profound difficulty in a busy classroom, a playground, a supermarket, or at a family gathering. Moreover, a child with significant physical disability may function differently in their own home where the environment has been adapted to their needs, than in an unfamiliar clinic setting. As such, functioning is not a fixed trait of the child, it must be understood that it is always a product between the child and their environment (Imms et al., 2017).

The Centre is concerned that the Bill’s functional assessment framework does not appear to embed this ecological understanding of disability. If assessment processes are designed to observe and measure children only in clinical settings, they will systemat ically underestimate the support needs of children whose difficulties are most pronounced in natural, community, and education environments (Imms et al., 2017). Assessment frameworks for children must incorporate information from parents and caregivers, ed ucations, and practitioners who see the child across multiple settings and over time, not only from a single clinical encounter. The Centre calls on the Committee to recommend that the functional assessment framework for children be explicitly designed to capture functioning across natural environments, and that carer, educator,

and practitioner observations be formally incorporated into the a   ssessment process  (Imms et al., 2017).

Children in out -of-home care

Children and young people in out -of-home care (OOHC) are overrepresented among NDIS participants and face compounded disadvantage in navigating complex service systems. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) estimates that children in care a re around ten times more likely to have a disability than children in the general population (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2024).

Research by Cheng et al. (2024) found that disability and child protection systems frequently operate in silos, with children in OOHC falling through the gaps between them. Workers in child protection agencies often lack expertise in disability support, while NDIS planners may lack under standing of the trauma, attachment

disruption, and developmental adversity that characterise many children in care     (Cheng et al., 2024)   .

The Bill’s proposed planning approach relies on a support needs assessment and budget methodology. For children in OOHC, the Centre is concerned that:

Many will lack a stable, consistent adult to advocate through the assessment and planning process.
The trauma -related presentation of many children may not be captured by assessment tools designed for disability rather than adversity.
State child protection agencies, which are already under -resourced, will face additional administrative demands in navigating the new NDIS processes for children in their care.
Foster and kinship carers, who provide most of the day -to-day support for children in care, may experience additional challenges by reducing NDIS flexibility.

The Disability Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability

(2023) published extensive findings on the vulnerability of people with disability in institutional and care settings and recommended that disability and children protection systems be better integrated with a child rights framework at the centre. At this point in time, the Bill does not reflect those recommendations.

Reduction in social and community participation supports

The Bill’s proposed changes to social and community participation (SCP) supports, including the commencement of funding reductions from July 2026, are of particular concern to the Centre as this will occur before the inquiry reports and before any alternat ive funding mechanism is in place.

For children, SCP supports underpin inclusion in schools, sport, recreational programs, and community life, and is often the mechanism that enables children to participate in activities that their peers take for granted. Research on the wellbeing benefits of social inclusion for children with disability is unambiguous; participation in community activities is associated with improved mental health outcomes, social skills development, and

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577

Submission 294

long-term quality of life (Imms et al., 2017; Anaby et al., 20 14). Participation is not a luxury, rather, it is a developmental necessity and a right enshrined in the UNCRC and the CRPD.

Additionally, SCP funding also provides parents and caregivers with essential respite. When a child with disability participates in a community activity, a parent or caregiver can work, rest, or attend to the needs of other family members. Reducing SCP fun ding does not make the need for support disappear, it only transfers the cost, in time, money and health, onto families, and disproportionately onto mothers who provide the

majority of informal disability care in Australia  (Sawyer et al., 2010;  Deloitte Access Economics, 2020    ).

Deloitte Access Economics (2020) analysis estimates the annual economic value of informal care at over $77 billion.

Any reduction in this area should be approached with extreme caution, and a robust and credible evidence base. As such, the Centre strongly recommends that the Committee require a comprehensive evidence review of the developmental and wellbeing impacts of SCP funding reductions before any changes are implemented, and that children be explicitly protected from SCP cuts pending this review.

The disproportionate impact on young people at critical transition points The Centre is concerned about the cuts to SCP funding and their disproportionate impact on young people with disability. Adolescen ce is a developmental stage defined by growing independent form parents, peer connection, and the beginnings of employment and community participation (Imms et al., 2017 ). Most young

NDIS participants already receive significantly smaller SCP budgets than adults      (NDIA, 2024)  . To reduce these

budgets further, at precisely the developmental moment when the investment is most critical to long -term independence, risks entrenching dependency, isolation, and reduced life outcomes. If a young person with disability is to get their first job, build social relationships outside the family, and participate meaningfully in their community, it is the supports funded through SCP that make this possible. Halving these budgets during adolescen ce is not a sensible cost -saving measure (Imms et al., 2017 ), rather, it is a measure that will increase long-term reliance on the scheme and on informal carers.

The Centre is also concerned that eligibility reassessment may coincide with, rather than respect, key transition points in young people’s lives. As the reassessment of eligibility rolls out from 1 January 2028, some young people will be reassessed at a po int when they are completing school, one of the most vulnerable and important transitions that they will face. A young person navigating the end of secondary schooling, the NDIS

reassessment process, and the uncertainty of adult life simultaneously is bein    g set up to fail. The Centre  urges

that the implementation schedule for eligibility reassessment explicitly exempt young people who are within 12 months of a major transition point, including school leaving, until that transition has been completed and stabilised.

Families experiencing intersecting vulnerabilities The Centre’s member organisation s work with families who are not simply navigating disability in isolation, rather, they are navigating disability alongside poverty, family violence, housing instability, parental mental illness, substance use, and child protection involvement. For these f amilies, community and social participation is not a discretionary extra, it is often the only structured engagement outside the home that a child with disability experiences, and the only regular respite that a family under extraordinary pressure receives . The proposed reductions to SCP funding will be felt most severely by families who already are least

able to absorb them  (Carers Australia, 202  2; Moore et al., 2015).

Furthermore, the Centre is concerned about the situation facing families with two or more children who are currently NDIS participants, but who may all fall below the new eligibility threshold following the reassessment process. The cumulative impact of ca ring for multiple children with disability is not simply additive, it is exponential. These families face a more intense caregiving lost, significantly constrained workforce participation, and a much higher risk of carer breakdown than families with a sing le child with disability (Carers Australia, 202 2). The Bill does not appear to provide any mechanism for recognising this cumulative impact. If multiple children in a family lose NDIS access simultaneously, because none individually meets the new threshold, even if together their care needs are overwhelm ing, those families will be left

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577

Submission 294

without the support workers and allied health supports that have kept them functioning (Carers Australia, 2022). The Centre urges the Committee to recommend that the reassessment framework include an explicit provision for assessing cumulative family impact where two or more children are participants.

Child safety risks from reduced support The Centre notes with concern that the reform debate has thus far given insufficient attention to the child safety implications of reducing supports for children with disability and their families. Research consistently shows that children with disability are at significantly elevated risk of abuse and neglect, both within and outside the home (Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability,

2023; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2024).   The supports fun ded through the NDIS (including in   -

home support workers, therapy, and respite) do not only build skills and participation, but they also provide oversight, reduce carers stress, and in many cases are the mechanism through which concerns about a child’s safety are identified and responded to (Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, 2023) . When these supports are reduced or removed, the risk to children increased.

The Centre urges  the Committee to commission  an independent child safety impact assessment of the Bill’s

proposed eligibility and funding changes, with specific attention to children in families with multiple intersecting risk factors.

The invisible infrastructure of disability support

Families are the primary infrastructure of disability support in Australia. The Productivity Commission (2011), in its foundational inquiry into disability care and support, estimated that informal carers provide the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of full-time workers’ worth of care annually, at an economic value that overshadows the formal care sector. More than fifteen years on, that dynamic has not materially changed.

Deloitte Access Economics (2020)    analysis estimates the annual economic value of i   nformal care at over $77

billion.

Moreover, this invisible workforce is overwhelmingly female. Research consistently shows that mothers of children with disability experience significantly higher rates of psychological distress, employment disruption,

and financial hardship than other parents (   Deloitte Access Economics, 2020)     . The NDIS was designed, in part,

to relieve this burden by providing funded supports that reduce reliance on informal care. The reforms proposed in this Bill risk reversing that progress.

Parental Responsibility: Definition, application, and assessment The Bill seeks to define ‘parental responsibility’, a concept that is already embedded within current NDIS guidelines and has long been a source of confusion, inconsistency, and distress for families. The Centre supports efforts to provide greater clarity on this concept, however, the critical issues is not what parent responsibility means in the abstract, but how it is understood, applied, and assessed by individual planners and functional assessors (and whether those assessors have the training, context, and tools to make this distinction appropriately for children).

Consider a concrete illustrative example for instance; a ll children under 12 years old require adult supervision

at a playground  , and it is understood that  this is an ordinary parental responsibility.   However, the nature and

intensity of that supervision can differ enormously. Some parents of children with disability need to be physically assisting their child to use equipment throughout the visit. Some must remain within arm’s reach at all times to prevent abs conding or manage sudden distress. Others can s it at a distance and have a conversation while their child plays. All three parents are ‘supervising ’ their child, but the support burden they bear is categorically different in its intensity, frequency, and physical and emotional demand.

As such, it is essential that plan budgets recognise the cumulative additional intensity and frequency of care provided by parents who are constantly delivering higher levels of supervision and support with daily tasks (tasks that for a typically developin g child of the same age would require only ordinary parental attention). This cumulative burden is qualitatively and quantitatively different from typical parental responsibility, and it must be reflected in core support budgets. If the parental responsibi lity framework in the Bill is applied

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577

Submission 294

without this nuance, it risks systematically underfunding families who are providing an extraordinary level of

care, framed as ‘something ordinary parents do anyway    ’ (Carers Australia, 202  2). The Centre urges the

Committee to recommend that explicit, worked guidance on the distinction between ordinary parental responsibility and disability -related care be developed and publicly consulted on before the new framework takes effect.

Administrative burden and family capacity The Bill’s changes to access, planning, and provider registration will substantially increase the administrative demands placed on families. Many families of children with disability are already managing complex webs of

appointments, assessments, reports,  and funding negotiations   , often while also providing intensive direct

care. Research by the Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA) found that families spend

an average of seven to ten hours per week managing NDIS    -related administration (CYDA  , 2026). Any

increase to this burden will come at a direct cost to family wellbeing and the time available for care.

The Centre is particularly concerned about families with lower literacy, limited English proficiency, or limited access to advocacy support. For these families, the increasing complexity of the NDIS system is already a significant barrier. The Bill does not appear to include provisions to mitigate this, such as mandatory access to independent advocacy at key decision points.

The intersection with the Child and Family Services system

The NDIS does not operate in isolation. It sits within a broader system of services for children and families that include early childhood education, family support programs, child protection, mental health, housing, and

justice. Many Centre member organis  ations hold the unique position of operating across the NDIS,     child

protection, family services, and mental health systems simultaneously, providing continuity of support for children and families with complex and intersecting needs. The reforms proposed i n this Bill will affect these organisations not just as NDIS providers, but as employers, as partners of the NDIA and state governments, and as the community infrastructure that catches children and families when other systems fail.

Moreover, the Bill’s provisions, particularly tighter eligibility and reduced SCP funding, risk creating or expanding service gaps that families will inevitably have to navigate at their own cost. The Centre is particularly concerned about the ‘cliff’ that families face when children transition out of the NDIS (or are not eligible) and the mainstream system is unable to meet their needs. Evidence from the NDIS Review (2023) showed that ‘foundational supports’ (the services intended to serve people below the NDIS threshold) are chronically underfunded and inconsistently available across states and territories (Australian Government, 2023).

As it stands, the Bill itself does not establish or fund foundational supports. The Centre urgers the Committee to ensure that any eligibility ‘tightening’ in the NDIS is contingent on demonstrated adequacy of foundational supports, not merely the aspirati on for them.

The ‘Foundational Supports’ gap The Bill’s changes to NDIS eligibility and the Thriving Kids redirect are premised on the assumption that children who exit or do not access the NDIS will be supported by a well -resourced system of foundational supports (mainstream and community services available to all Australians, not just NDIS participants ). This assumption is not currently warranted.

The NDIS Review (2023) found that foundational supports , defined as services below the threshold of NDIS eligibility but above what is universally available , had not developed as intended alongside the scheme. Many jurisdictions lack the infrastructure, workforce, and funding to deliver consistent foundational supports for

children and families (Australian Government    , 2023). The Review recommended significant Commonwealth     -

State investment in foundational supports as a precondition for any reduction in NDIS eligibility.

This Bill does not establish foundational supports , nor does it make the implementation of eligibility tightening contingent on their availability. In the absence of funded foundational supports, children who are

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577

Submission 294

redirected from the NDIS or assessed as ineligible will be left with nothing , or rather, they will be left with their families who will bear the cost alone.

Carey et al. (2017) warned that disability policy designed without attention to social determinants risks entrenching, rather than reducing, the inequities it claims to address (Carey et al. , 2017). The Centre urges the Committee to hold firm to this principle and recommend that the eligibility tightening provisions of the Bill not take effect until funded foundational supports are demonstrably available in each jurisdiction.

Workforce and organisational capacity Additionally, the Centre’s analysis of NDIS reform legislation found that the proposed changes had the potential to significantly affect the financial viability, workforce capacity, and service delivery models of member organisations ( Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare , 2024).

The National Skills Commission (202 3) identified direct care and community services roles among the most critically shortage -affected occupations in Australia, with demand projected to significantly outpace supply through the decade. Disability support workers, early childhood educators, soc ial workers, and allied health professionals are all in short supply, and the sector consistently struggles to compete on wages with the public sector and large commercial providers.

The Bill’s expanded mandatory registration requirements and new compliance obligations will add to the cost burden of smaller organisations, many of which already operate on margins that leave little capacity for additional administrative investment. Witho ut commensurate workforce and compliance funding, these

requirements risk driving smaller, community  -embedded providers from the market    , precisely the

organisations that are most trusted by, and most responsive to, children and families with complex needs (National Skills Commission , 2023).

The Centre notes that the sector’s workforce challenges are structurally linked to wage levels, which in turn are tied to NDIS pricing. Any reform that further constrains provider revenue without addressing underlying workforce costs will only accelerate the exit of quality providers from the sector.

Recommendations

The Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare respectfully submits the following ten recommendations to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee.

Recommendation 1: Child -appropriate eligibility thresholds

That the Bill be amended to include explicit statutory guidance on the application of the ‘substantially reduced functional capacity’ threshold for children, recognising the variable, developmental, and context dependent nature of childhood disability. Thi s guidance must:

a) Account for known trajectories of conditions such as Down syndrome, autism, cerebral palsy, and rare genetic conditions , etc.

b) Allow for early access prior to measurable functional decline in cases of confirmed or highly probable long-term impairmen t.

c)  Require that all functional assessments of children be conducted by practitioners with paediatric      -specific

training and experience.

Recommendation 2: Equitable access – addressing gap fees and the ‘appropriate treatments’ requirement

That the Bill be amended to ensure that the requirement to have ‘undertaken all appropriate treatments’ prior to NDIS access does not constitute a barrier for families who have been unable to access or afford relevant services. Specifically:

d) The NDIA must publish clear, publicly available guidance on what constitutes ‘appropriate treatments’ in the context of young children and infants .

e) Financial and geographic constraints must be recognised as legitimate reasons for not having accessed particular services .

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577

Submission 294

f) Families must not be required to have accessed any program that was not yet available, fully operational, or accessible in their region at the time of application.

Recommendation 3: Sequencing the Thriving Kids transition – safety before transfer

That the provisions of the Bill enabling the transition of children from the NDIS to Thriving Kids not commence until:

a) Demand modelling for Thriving Kids is published and independently verified, with specific analysis of state-level volumes .

b) Thriving Kids is fully funded, operational, and capable of delivering supports equivalent in intensity to current NDIS plans, including individual (not only group -based) pathways .

c)  Enforceable individual entitlements are established within Thriving Kids       .

d) A clear, expedited pathway back to the NDIS exists for children whose needs cannot be met by Thriving Kids .

e) An independent evaluation framework is in place with results publicly reported. Recommendation 4: Functional assessment standards for children

That the Bill be amended to establish in legislation, or require the NDIA to publish as subordinate legislative instrument, mandatory standards for functional capacity assessments of children including:

a)  A defined list of age  -appropriate, validated assessment tools    .

b)  Mandatory qualification and paediatric  -specific training requirements for assessors of children     .

c) Requirements that assessments incorporate functioning across multiple natural environments (home, school, and community), not only clinical settings .

d) Formal mechanisms for incorporating parent, carer, and educator observations into assessment outcomes. Recommendation 5: Protect social and community participation funding for children and young people

That the proposed reductions to social and community participation (SCP) funding for children and young people be paused pending a comprehensive, independent evidence review of their developmental, mental health, and quality -of-life impacts. This review mu st:

a)  Be co -designed with children, young people, and families with lived experience       .

b)   Specifically examine the impact on young people at adolescence and key transition points          .

c)  Assess the cumulative impact on families with multiple children with disability        .

d) Be completed and publicly reported before any SCP funding changes take effect for participants under 25 years of age .

Recommendation 6: Protect parental responsibility boundaries and fund cumulative carer burden

That the Bill’s parental responsibility provisions be accompanied by:

a)   Detailed, publicly consulted guidance distinguishing ordinary parental responsibility from disability      -related

care, with worked examples addressing the intensity and frequency differential (not merely its existence) .

b)  A requirement that plans budgets explicitly account for cumulative caregiving intensity          .

c) An explicit provision in the reassessment framework for recognising the cumulative family impact where two or more children in the same household are NDIS participants.

Recommendation 7: Protect children in out -of-home care

That the Bill be amended to include specific protections for children in out -of-home care under the new eligibility and planning framework, including .

a) Mandatory access to independent disability advocacy at every assessment and planning stage. b) Trauma -informed assessment processes and tools that distinguish disability from the effects of developmental adversity.

c) Clear and enforceable responsibilities for child protection agencies and guardians in supporting children through NDIS processes.

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577

Submission 294

d) A requirement that NDIS eligibility reassessments for children in care be coordinated with, and not precede, relevant child protection reviews.

Recommendation 8: Cultural equity strategy and First Nations access

That the NDIA be required to publish a cultural equity strategy alongside the implementation of the Bill’s eligibility and planning changes, including measurable targets for CALD and First Nations participation. The strategy must include:

a) Funded, culturally safe navigation assistance for CALD families. b) Investment in Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCOs) as the primary vehicle for disability support delivery in First Nations communities.

c) Culturally safe assessment processes. d) Remote -specific service delivery models. The Bill must be amended to make these provisions legislatively enforceable, not merely aspirational.

Recommendation 9: Foundational supports as a legislated precondition

That the eligibility tightening provisions of the Bill does not take effect in any jurisdiction until the Commonwealth and that jurisdiction can demonstrate that funded foundational supports are available, adequately resourced, and accessible to children a nd families who will not meet the new NDIS thresholds. This must be a legislated precondition, not a ministerial discretion. The Committee should further recommend

that the Government publish a  ‘Foundational Supports Readiness Report     ’ for each state and te rritory prior to

commencement of eligibility changes in that jurisdiction.

Recommendation 10: Sector sustainability, workforce, and registration equity

That expanded mandatory registration requirements be accompanied by :

a)  A fully funded transition support package for small and community    -controlled providers.

b) Differential streamlined compliance pathways for organisations below a defined size threshold. c) NDIS pricing arrangements that reflect the full cost of delivering quality services, including workforce wages.

d) A market monitoring mechanism to detect and prevent provider exit in regional, rural, and remote areas. The Committee should further recommend that the Government commission a workforce sustainability review specific to the child and family disability sector within 12 months of the Bill’s commencement.

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577

Submission 294

References

Anaby, D., Law, M., Coster, W., Bedell, G., Khetani, M., Avery, L., & Teplicky, R. (2014). The mediating role of the environment in explaining participation of children and youth with disabilities across home, school, and

community. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation    , 101(5), 881–892. https://www.archives  -

pmr.org/article/S0003  -9993(14)00032  -X/fulltext

Australian Government. (2023). Working together to deliver the NDIS: Independent Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme final report . Department of Social Services. https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/resources/reports/working -together -deliver-ndis/

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2024). Child protection Australia 2022 –23 (Child welfare series no.

77; Cat. no. CWS 86). AIHW.  https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child  -protection/child -protection -australia -

2022-23

Carers Australia. (2022). Caring costs us: The economic impact on lifetime income and retirement savings of

informal carers. https://www.carersaustralia.com.au/wp  -content/uploads/2022/04/Caring   -Costs -

Us_Summary -of-Findings_FINAL_070422.pdf

Carey, G., Malbon, E., Reeders, D., Kavanagh, A., & Llewellyn, G. (2017). Redressing or entrenching social and health inequities through evidence -based policy: Examining the social determinants of health in the NDIS. Critical Public Health , 27(4), 419 –431. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0682 -z

Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare. (2024).     Sector impact of the NDIS reform legislation    .

https://cfecfw.org.au/sector -impact -of-the-ndis-reform-legislation -2/

Cheng, Z., Tani, M., & Katz, I. (2024). Children with disability in out -of-home care: Prevalence and characteristics. In G. Bennett & E. Goodall (Eds.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Disability (pp. 1 –9). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 -3-031-40858 -8_71-1

Children and Young People with Disability Australia. (2026). Snapshot of children and young people with

disability in Australia: Key statistics report.   https://cyda.org.au/wp  -

content/uploads/2026/03/REP_KeyStatistics_FinalReport_20260303.pdf

Deloitte Access Economics. (2020). The value of informal care in 2020. Report for Carers Australia. https://www.deloitte.com/au/en/services/economics/perspectives/value -of-informal-care-2020.html

Dew, A., Bulkeley, K., Veitch, C., Bundy, A., Gallego, G., Lincoln, M., Brentnall, J., & Griffiths, S. (2013). Addressing the barriers to accessing therapy services in rural and remote areas. Disability and rehabilitation, 35(18), 1564–1570. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2012.720346

Gosse, G., Kumar, S., Banwell, H., & Moran, A. (2025). Child Development Allied Health Services in Rural and

Remote Areas: A Systematic Scoping Review of Drivers, Barriers and Enabling Strategies to Delivery of

Services . Rural and Remote Health , 33(1), e70010. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.70010

Imms, C., Granlund, M., Wilson, P. H., Steenbergen, B., Rosenbaum, P., & Gordon, A. M. (2017). Participation, both a means and an end: A conceptual analysis of processes and outcomes in childhood disability. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology , 59(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13237

Moore, T. G., McDonald, M., Carlon, L., & O’Rourke, K. (2015). Early childhood development and the social

determinants of health inequities.  Health Promotion International  , 30(S2), ii102 –ii115.

https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dav031

National Disability Insurance Agency. (2024).   NDIS quarterly report Q4 2023  –24. NDIA.

https://www.ndis.gov.au/publications/quarterly -reports/archived -quarterly -reports-2023 -24

National Skills Commission. (2023).    Skills Priority List Key Findings Report 2023      . Australian Government.

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577

Submission 294

https://www.jobsandskills.gov.au/publications/skills -priority -list-key-findings -report-2023

NDIS Review  (2023). A new connected system of support and new early intervention NDIS pathway        .

Department of Social Services.   https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/resources/fact  -sheet/new -connected -system -

support -and-new-early-intervention -ndis-pathway

Productivity Commission  (2011). Disability care and support: Productivity Commission inquiry report     (Vols. 1–

2). Australian Government.  https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries  -and-research/disability -support/report/

Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (2023). Final

report . Australian Government.  https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final    -report

Shire, S., Chang, Y., Shih, W., Bracaglia, S., Kodjoe, M., & Kasari, C. (2017). Hybrid implementation model of community -partnered early intervention for toddlers with autism: A randomized trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 58(5), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12672

Sparrow, S., Cicchetti, D., & Saulnier, C.   (2016). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales   (3rd ed.). Pearson.

50 Market Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

(03) 9614 1577