NDIA Accountability Project

Impact of proposed changes on grandchild with autism

‹ PrevPage 1 of 2 · Source p. 1Next ›

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

Submission 3857

Submission on the NDIS Amendment Bill

Date: 31/05/2026

By:

I am a family member and supporter.

My main concern about this Bill is:

This Bill proposes to shift NDIS access eligibility from diagnosis to a standardised assessment of “substantially reduced functional capacity.” My primary concern is that this change will exclude or reduce support for people with neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism and ADHD, whose functional capacity can fluctuate significantly depending on environment, context, and the very supports the NDIS currently provides. A point-in-time assessment risks being an inaccurate and inadequate measure of lifelong need.

This Bill may affect people I support because:

  • My 9-year-old grandchild is currently an NDIS participant with a diagnosis of autism. They receive support that helps them manage daily life and build skills for adulthood. That support is not a luxury. It is a developmental necessity at a critical age.

  • Under the proposed changes, a diagnosis alone will no longer be sufficient to qualify for the NDIS. Access will instead be based on functional capacity — that is, how much a person’s disability affects their ability to manage everyday life. For a child whose functioning may appear adequate in some settings (particularly if they are masking), this risks an underestimate of genuine need. Ref: Autism Awareness Australia

  • Conditions with fluctuating or less visible impacts — including autism and ADHD — benefit from strong documentation to be captured accurately in an assessment. Many families, particularly in lower-income households, cannot afford the specialist reports needed to adequately document these needs. My family is in that position.

  • The Bill gives the Minister broad powers to declare that an existing government service constitutes an “alternative support” for a disability, which would then exclude that disability from NDIS eligibility — by legislative instrument, with no parliamentary vote and no sunset clause. This creates an unacceptable level of ministerial discretion over the lives of people with disability, subject to political vagaries.

  • The Bill also tightens criteria for unscheduled plan reassessments, limiting them to situations where there have been significant and ongoing changes to a participant’s support needs arising from changes in their functional capacity. For families managing a child’s evolving needs, this removes a critical safety valve. Ref: Australian Government Department of Health

  • I am myself ADHD and never received a formal diagnosis or support through any government system. The impact on my life has been real and lasting. I do not want my grandchild to face the same outcome because access criteria have been made narrower and harder to meet.

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

Submission 3857

An example from my experience:

I was informally identified as ADHD by a psychologist but was never formally diagnosed, which meant I was never eligible for any support framework. As a young person there was no pathway for me to access help managing the practical, educational, and vocational impacts of my condition.

I managed — but not without cost. I have watched my grandchild receive the kind of early intervention I never had, and the difference in their confidence and capability is clear. The support they currently receive is not excessive. It is appropriate, targeted, and it is working. The prospect of that support being reduced or removed — because a standardised assessment on a given day does not capture the full picture — is genuinely alarming.

What I want the committee to understand is:

Neurodevelopmental conditions like autism and ADHD are lifelong. They do not resolve. The supports that help a child manage them are not a drain on the system — they are an investment that reduces dependence on far more costly interventions later in life: mental health services, unemployment support, housing crisis services. Early, sustained support is cheaper than crisis management. Removing or restricting access for children who are currently benefiting from NDIS support, in the name of fiscal sustainability, is a false economy. The committee should also be aware that the families most at risk of losing access under a stricter functional capacity model are those with the least capacity to fund private alternatives. Wealthier families will find a way. Lower-income families will not.

The Bill also concentrates too much power in the hands of the Minister. Decisions about who qualifies for disability support should rest on transparent, legislated criteria — not on ministerial instruments that can be changed without parliamentary scrutiny.

My position on this Bill is that I do not support it.

Because the shift to functional capacity assessment, combined with broad ministerial discretion and reduced reassessment rights, creates unacceptable risk of harm to children with neurodevelopmental conditions who are currently receiving appropriate, effective support. The Bill should not proceed in its current form. At minimum, the Government should provide:

  • Explicit protections for existing participants, including children, during any transition to new access criteria
  • Legislated limits on ministerial discretion regarding “alternative supports”
  • Independent oversight of the Technical Advisory Group developing the functional capacity assessment framework
  • Guaranteed reassessment rights when a child’s needs change, regardless of who initiates the request

I ask that the Government withdraw this Bill.