National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3130
To whom it may concern,
Re:Submission on the NDIS Future Generations Bill 2026
My name is . I am the mother of a five-year-old boy who was diagnosed with autism last year. He is currently accessing NDIS Early Childhood Intervention supports after a speech delay was identified through a language study with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, which led to the discovery of a global developmental delay. As additional challenges emerged, we sought answers through a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment and he was subsequently diagnosed with Level 3 autism.
I oppose the provisions in this Bill that expand the Minister’s power to reduce or remove funding, limit review and appeal rights, and allow greater use of automated decision-making. These issues are closely connected. Decisions that affect a person’s supports should be made transparently, based on their individual circumstances, and remain subject to independent review. No family should lose essential supports because of an automated process or a decision that cannot be properly challenged.
When the psychologist read my son’s autism assessment report, I sat in silence with tears running down my face. Not because of the diagnosis itself, but because I understood the challenges that lay ahead: exclusion, discrimination, and barriers that would follow him throughout his life. I never imagined those fears would come so soon. As a parent, it has been deeply distressing to hear public discussion that questions the legitimacy of autism diagnoses or portrays autistic children as a financial burden. Combined with proposed changes that make it easier to reduce supports and harder to challenge decisions, this creates the impression that disabled children are being viewed as a budget problem rather than citizens entitled to equal dignity, opportunity and support. My family followed government recommendations and uses the key-worker model through a not-for-profit provider. My son receives support from allied health professionals who address his specific needs. Like every autistic child, his needs are unique and change over time.
These supports have helped my son make meaningful progress. We would struggle to cope if they were reduced or removed. His paediatrician has recommended additional supports that
1
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3130
would benefit him, including community participation and support worker assistance, but our existing funding is already committed to the therapies and interventions he depends on. We are not asking for luxury or excess; we are trying to meet our child’s needs with the resources available. What concerns me is the possibility that future decisions affecting his supports could be made without adequate safeguards, without meaningful review rights, or through automated processes that cannot understand the complexity of his circumstances. An algorithm cannot understand the day-to-day reality of my son’s needs, the constant adjustments required to support him, or the consequences of getting a decision wrong. Decisions that affect a child’s future should be made by accountable people who can consider the whole person, not just the fragments entered into a system.
As the mother of a child with disability, I need to be one step ahead to meet his needs, keep him safe, and balance caring responsibilities with paid employment. The consequences of reducing supports do not fall on government systems alone—they fall on families, particularly mothers and unpaid carers, often pushing them towards burnout and out of the workforce. I have experienced periodic carer burnout, where the pressure of managing my son’s needs alongside work and family responsibilities has left me questioning whether I can continue in the part-time job that I love. The burden of these changes will not be shared equally; it will fall overwhelmingly on mothers already carrying the greatest responsibility.
I ask the Committee to recommend the removal or substantial amendment of provisions that allow funding reductions without review rights, weaken participants’ ability to challenge decisions, or increase reliance on automated processes in decisions about essential supports. Families affected by disability deserve fairness, accountability, and confidence that decisions about essential supports will be made by people who understand their circumstances and will thoroughly review before making a decision. The complexity of disability cannot be reduced to an algorithm, and decisions with life-changing consequences should always involve meaningful human judgement.
2