Submission 351
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing
the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted by: ADHD Australia
Date: 1 June 2026
- About ADHD Australia ADHD Australia is the national peak body for ADHD consumers in Australia. We advocate for evidence-based policy, timely diagnosis, equitable access to care and support, and better outcomes across health, education, employment and community life.
We support a sustainable NDIS that remains available to people with permanent and significant disability. But sustainability cannot come at the expense of clarity, fairness or access for people whose disability is often misunderstood or inconsistently assessed.
For people with ADHD, especially those with severe functional impairment and co occurring conditions, the detail of this bill matters. The Committee’s earlier inquiry recognised that NDIS access turns on functional need rather than diagnosis alone, and that ADHD can in some cases be a primary or secondary disability within the Scheme.
Coexisting conditions are common in ADHD. The Australian ADHD Clinical Practice Guideline notes that ADHD frequently occurs alongside other conditions, and international data indicate that nearly 78% of children with ADHD have at least one co-occurring condition. This matters because coexisting conditions can compound functional impairment and increase complexity in assessment, support needs and access pathways.
- Executive summary ADHD Australia supports efforts to strengthen the integrity and long-term sustainability of the NDIS. But this bill makes significant changes to eligibility, permanence, planning and administration. Those changes must not disadvantage people with ADHD and related neurodevelopmental conditions whose disability is often fluctuating, masked or poorly captured by generic assessment models.
Our concern is straightforward: unless the bill is amended carefully, it risks excluding people with genuine and substantial functional impairment simply because their disability is less visible or harder to assess. That is why clarity, fairness and practical safeguards matter.
In our view, the areas of greatest concern are:
- the definition and operationalisation of functional capacity;
- the introduction of “all appropriate treatment” as part of permanence;
ADHD Australia 1
Level 49, 10 Darcy Street
Parramatta NSW 2150
Submission 351
-
provisions requiring consideration of supports available from other service systems when determining NDIS access;
-
tighter limits on unscheduled reassessments and the use of plan end dates and renewals; and
-
broad discretionary powers that may reduce transparency and procedural fairness.
ADHD Australia recommends that the Committee prioritise the following amendments to the bill:
-
require functional capacity assessment approaches that are appropriate for neurodevelopmental, fluctuating and less visible disabilities, including executive functioning impacts;
-
clarify that “all appropriate treatment” does not require a person to exhaust every medication, therapy or intervention, particularly where treatment is inaccessible, contraindicated, culturally unsafe, unaffordable or only partially effective;
-
prevent NDIS access being refused on the basis of theoretical mainstream supports that are unavailable, delayed, inaccessible or inadequate in practice;
-
preserve clear and reviewable mechanisms for unscheduled reassessment where circumstances, risk or functioning materially change;
-
strengthen safeguards, transparency and review rights wherever administrative discretion or automation is expanded; and
-
give appropriate weight to existing assessments by qualified health professionals and avoid duplicative assessment processes that add unnecessary burden for participants, families and carers.
- ADHD and functional impairment: why this matters in this bill The Committee’s 2023 report on ADHD made clear that the NDIS assesses disability through substantial functional impairment, not diagnosis alone, and that people with ADHD may be in the Scheme as either a primary or secondary disability cohort.
ADHD can affect executive functioning, emotional regulation, task initiation, self management, participation, work, study and safety. These impacts are often uneven and highly contextual. A person may appear to be coping in one setting while using unsustainable effort or falling apart in another. This is especially relevant for people whose disability is often under-recognised by standardised tools.
A rigid interpretation of functional capacity could exclude people whose disability is real, substantial and enduring, but not always obvious in narrow or snapshot-based assessment. The issue is whether the law properly accounts for fluctuation, masking, context, cumulative burden and co-occurring impairments.
ADHD Australia 2
Level 49, 10 Darcy Street
Parramatta NSW 2150
Submission 351
- Key concerns with the bill 4.1 Definition of “functional capacity”
The bill would define “functional capacity” and place it more centrally in access and planning decisions. The Government says this is intended to focus the Scheme on people whose disability significantly affects day-to-day living.
ADHD Australia supports the principle that NDIS access should be based on disability-related functional impact rather than diagnosis alone. But the legislation needs to more clearly recognise that functional impairment in neurodevelopmental disability can be variable, hidden, shaped by environment and difficult to capture through one-off standardised assessment. If the definition is framed too narrowly, it risks privileging visible, static and easily measured disability over less visible but equally disabling conditions. That would be inconsistent with the person-centred intent of the NDIS and with the evidence showing that genuine functional need can exist even when impairment is not immediately obvious.
ADHD Australia recommends that the bill or explanatory framework expressly require decision-makers to consider:
- fluctuating presentation over time;
- masking and compensatory strategies;
- executive functioning and self-management impacts;
- the cumulative impact of co-occurring conditions; and
- evidence from multiple settings, including home, school, community, clinical, and work.
4.2 “All appropriate treatment” and permanence
The bill would clarify the definition of permanence by introducing the concept of “all appropriate treatment”.
This is one of the most concerning parts of the Bill for the ADHD community. Treatment response is rarely straightforward. Medication may be effective for some people and ineffective, poorly tolerated or only partly helpful for others. Psychosocial supports can also help, but access remains uneven and affordability is a major barrier. A test that appears to require “all appropriate treatment” before permanence can be recognised risks driving unrealistic expectations and gatekeeping based on theoretical availability rather than clinical suitability and real-world access.
ADHD Australia is particularly concerned that this concept may be applied in a way that penalises people who:
- cannot tolerate medications;
- face long waiting times for psychiatrists, paediatricians or allied health;
ADHD Australia 3
Level 49, 10 Darcy Street
Parramatta NSW 2150
Submission 351
- cannot afford ongoing therapy;
- live in regional, rural or remote areas; or
- have complex presentations where no single treatment resolves disability- related impairment.
ADHD Australia recommends amending the bill to make clear that:
-
“all appropriate treatment” does not mean every conceivable treatment has been attempted;
-
treatment must be judged in the context of clinical appropriateness, consent, safety, accessibility, affordability and likely benefit; and
-
enduring functional impairment may still be permanent for the purposes of the Act even where treatment has delivered only partial improvement.
4.3 Consideration of other service systems
The bill would require consideration of a person’s eligibility for other service systems when determining access to the NDIS.
The NDIS should not be expected to fill every gap in mainstream systems. The concern is that this provision may operate as a gatekeeping mechanism where supports are said to sit with another system, even when those supports are delayed, inaccessible, unaffordable or inadequate in practice.
That principle becomes problematic when people are denied NDIS access because a support is said to sit with another system in theory, while that support is unavailable or inadequate in practice. This is a long-standing issue for people with ADHD, whose needs often sit across health, mental health, education, employment and disability policy. Many families and adults already face delays, fragmentation and cost barriers when trying to access diagnosis, medication reviews, behavioural support, occupational therapy, psychology, school adjustments, carer support or community-based interventions. If “other service system” considerations become a statutory gatekeeping tool without enforceable guarantees that those services are actually there, people with substantial disability-related needs will continue to fall through the cracks.
ADHD Australia recommends that the bill be amended so that access cannot be refused merely because a support is nominally the responsibility of another system. Decision-makers should be required to consider whether alternative supports are available, timely, affordable, culturally safe, geographically accessible, and sufficient to meet the person’s needs in reality. We are not advocating in this submission for ADHD to be funded as a standalone condition; rather, we are concerned to ensure that people with substantial and enduring functional impairment are not excluded because responsibility is shifted to systems that are not meeting need in practice.
ADHD Australia 4
Level 49, 10 Darcy Street
Parramatta NSW 2150
Submission 351
4.4 Plan end dates, renewals and limits on unscheduled reassessments
The bill would introduce plan end dates and renewal processes and limit unscheduled plan reassessments.
ADHD Australia understands the case for reducing unnecessary administrative churn and improving consistency. But for people with ADHD and other neurodevelopmental or psychosocial disabilities, support needs can shift materially in response to developmental transitions, school exclusion, family stress, housing instability, burnout, co-occurring mental ill-health, justice involvement or the breakdown of informal supports. A system that is too rigid, or too slow to respond, risks locking people into plans that are no longer safe or adequate.
This is especially concerning where disability is episodic or unmet need escalates quickly if supports are delayed. Administrative efficiency must not come at the cost of early intervention, safeguarding or crisis prevention.
ADHD Australia recommends retaining a clear, accessible and reviewable pathway for unscheduled reassessment where there is evidence of significant change in function, risk, support breakdown, developmental transition or crisis.
4.5 Broad discretion, automation and transparency
The bill also expands governance and administrative powers, including pricing, indexation, automation and fraud compliance.
ADHD Australia supports strong action against fraud and exploitation. Confidence in the NDIS depends on a Scheme that is both sustainable and well governed. But where legislation expands administrative discretion or enables automated decision making, transparency, procedural fairness and review rights must keep pace. This matters particularly for people with cognitive, communication, psychosocial or executive functioning barriers, who may face greater difficulty understanding decisions, providing evidence within timeframes or navigating review pathways.
ADHD Australia recommends stronger statutory safeguards around notice, reasons, accessibility, human oversight of automated decisions, and simple review mechanisms.
-
Recommended amendments The recommendations below consolidate the amendments set out above and identify the changes the Committee should prioritise.
-
functional capacity is assessed in a way that recognises fluctuating, masked and less visible disability, including executive functioning and self management impacts relevant to ADHD and related neurodevelopmental conditions;
-
“all appropriate treatment” is clarified so it does not create an unreasonable burden to prove permanence or require people to pursue treatments that are inaccessible, unsuitable, unsafe or only marginally effective;
ADHD Australia 5
Level 49, 10 Darcy Street
Parramatta NSW 2150
Submission 351
-
consideration of other service systems is constrained so people are not excluded from the NDIS on the basis of supports that are unavailable, unaffordable, delayed or inadequate in practice;
-
the provisions on plan end dates and reassessments preserve a responsive mechanism for urgent review when a participant’s circumstances, risk or functioning materially change;
-
expanded powers relating to governance, compliance, automation and administration are accompanied by transparency obligations, accessible communication, human review and procedural fairness safeguards;
-
implementation of the bill is supported by co-designed guidance, assessor training and accessible materials for neurodevelopmental disability, informed by people with lived experience.
-
Conclusion ADHD Australia supports an NDIS that is fair, sustainable and protected from fraud. But sustainability cannot be achieved by narrowing the Scheme in ways that overlook real disability-related need. The bill must be drafted and implemented with enough precision to avoid excluding people with substantial functional impairment simply because their disability is less visible or harder to assess.
The issue for the ADHD community is whether the law will recognise real-world functional disability fairly and consistently. We urge the Committee to recommend amendments that preserve access for people with genuine and enduring disability related needs while strengthening clarity, accountability and confidence in the Scheme.
- Further feedback on the inquiry ADHD Australia would welcome the opportunity to appear before the Committee and provide further evidence if that would assist the inquiry.
ADHD Australia 6
Level 49, 10 Darcy Street