NDIA Accountability Project

This project is in DRAFT

Submission 3131 — Name Withheld — NDIS Future Generations Bill

‹ PrevPage 1 of 3 · Source p. 1Next ›

SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

I am an Autistic parent of an AuDHD young adult. I work as a consultant and inclusive education teacher, and I have spent many years advocating for my child and for neurodivergent people more broadly. My child is 25, diagnosed with Autism Level 2, ADHD combined type, and gender dysphoria. They have been an NDIS participant for five years.

The supports they receive - daily living assistance, social and community access, capacity-building allied health, and low-cost assistive technology - have been life-changing. These supports have allowed my child to complete university, gain part-time employment, build independence, and participate in the community without relying on me for every aspect of daily life. As someone who has experienced Autistic burnout and is still recovering, these supports have also allowed me to work and maintain my own wellbeing. Without them, neither of us could function safely or sustainably.

The NDIS Amendment Bill threatens the stability and safety of everything my child has worked for. I am deeply concerned that several provisions will harm people like my child, undermine the purpose of the NDIS, and contradict Australia’s obligations under the CRPD. I outline my apprehensions below.

  1. s 25A(2) — Access test change: “appropriate treatment” The Bill states that a treatment may be considered “appropriate” even if a person cannot access it due to their financial circumstances or geographical location. This is alarming. It means my child’s lifelong disabilities could be deemed “not permanent” simply because a hypothetical treatment exists somewhere, even if it is ineffective, inappropriate, or impossible to access.

Autism and ADHD are lifelong neurotypes. There is no “treatment” that remedies them. My child was diagnosed at age three and has had fluctuating support needs across their life. The idea that we may need to “prove” permanence again is distressing and clinically inaccurate. This clause risks excluding entire cohorts of neurodivergent and disabled people from the scheme.

  1. s 25B(4) — “Alternative supports” and excluded impairments The Bill allows the Minister to declare “alternative supports,” after which an impairment can be treated as an “excluded impairment,” even if the alternative is not fully operational or does not meet the person’s needs.

Before the NDIS, there were no adequate alternative supports for my child. We paid privately for allied health, often going without due to cost. Other systems, such as mental health, medical, and education sectors, routinely misunderstand or mishandle co-occurring neurodivergence. Research clearly shows that neurodevelopmental disabilities interact with one another, and that siloed systems cannot meet these needs safely.

Pointing people to non-existent or inappropriate “alternatives” is not reform - it is abandonment.

  1. s 34A — Funding below total cost This clause allows the NDIS to fund less than the total cost of a support if a cheaper option exists, even if that cheaper option does not meet the person’s needs. This is dangerous. Cheaper supports are often unsuitable, unsafe, or more expensive in the long run due to replacement, abandonment, or harm.

  2. s 59B(4) — Automated decision-making The Bill authorises automated systems to make decisions involving “discretion,” “evaluative judgement,” and forming a “state of mind” about a participant’s needs.

Given the NDIA already struggles to understand disability complexity, I have no confidence that AI will do better. Research shows AI in clinical decision-making is “substandard,” prone to hallucinations, misinformation, and missing key personal information. My child has already received plans with errors, missing documents, and even the wrong name. The idea that these decisions could be automated without consent, oversight, or transparency is terrifying.

This is not person-centred practice. It is dehumanisation.

  1. Schedule 5 — Transitional protections not guaranteed The Bill places transitional protections in temporary rules that expire within 12 months and cannot be remade. This means there is no guaranteed protection for the estimated 300,000 people who may lose access under the new criteria.

If my child loses access, they will lose their allied health team, their support workers, and their ability to work, study, and live independently. It took years to build a safe, trusted team. Losing them would cause severe distress, a decline in skills, and a collapse in their quality of life. As a disabled parent recovering from burnout, I cannot fill the gap. We would both be unable to work, and the cost to the government would increase, not decrease.

  1. Evidence of harm already occurring

Even before this Bill has passed, we have experienced:

 drastic funding cuts since October 2024

 plan changes made without consent

 incorrect records and unexplained decisions

 removal of essential supports (psychology, dietetics, meal prep, assistive tech)

 refusal to consider assistance animal evidence

 administrative errors so severe that I questioned whether decisions were made by humans or AI.

These experiences show that the NDIA is already struggling. Adding more discretion, more automation, and more pathways to deny support will only worsen the harm.

Recommendations

I respectfully ask the Committee to:

  1. Reject the Bill in its current form. It is unsafe, unsupported by evidence, and inconsistent with the purpose of the NDIS.

  2. Require an independent review of the proposed changes, with mandatory implementation of recommendations.

  3. Guarantee that people with disability, families, and allied health professionals are involved in genuine co-design and co-production of any future reforms.

  4. Remove or significantly amend the most harmful provisions, including: o s 25A(2) (access test change)

o s 25B(4) (alternative supports)

o s 34A (funding below total cost)

o s 59B(4) (automated decisions)

o Schedule 5 (temporary transitional protections)

  1. Ensure that rights under the CRPD and the original intent of the NDIS are upheld, including choice and control, dignity, and access to supports based on need.

My child deserves stability, safety, and the ability to live a meaningful life. The NDIS has made that possible. This Bill puts it at risk. I urge the Committee to protect the rights and futures of disabled Australians by rejecting or fundamentally revising this legislation.

Thank you for considering my submission.