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

Submission – NDIS Amendment Bill (Parts 6, 8 and 9)

From a parent and Early Childhood Teacher (Early Childhood Intervention) I write this submission both as a parent of a child accessing the NDIS for early intervention and as a professional working within Early Childhood Intervention. My child has a lifelong diagnosis; however intensive early speech intervention therapy supported by strong research has significantly improved their functional capacity. This therapy has enabled the development of neural pathways that would not otherwise have occurred. Without this support, my child would have required far greater long-term supports across multiple government systems (Health & Education). Early intervention is both transformational and cost-effective.

I strongly support the need for a sustainable and financially responsible NDIS for the future. However, sustainability must be achieved without compromising human rights or equitable access. Cost reductions should instead focus on:

• Addressing systemic inefficiencies and administrative waste within the scheme
• Reducing duplication, excessive bureaucracy, and inconsistent decision-making processes
• Closing existing loopholes and misuse within the system
• Investing in early intervention and evidence-based supports, which reduce long-term costs Importantly, reform must not create additional barriers for:
• low socio-economic families
• rural and remote communities
• participants with complex needs Sustainability should be achieved through system improvement not by restricting access to essential supports.

Part 6 – Reasonable and Necessary Supports

Concerns

The shift to CEO-determined “NDIS supports” creates significant risk of non-clinical, budget-driven decision-making, with no clear definition or safeguards.

Recommendations

• Retain evidence-based decision-making grounded in qualified professionals
• Legislate a clear definition of “NDIS supports”
• Ensure participant needs remain the primary consideration, not budget
• Amend “value for money” provisions so cost does not override clinical effectiveness or long-term outcomes

Part 8 – Tightening Definition of Permanence

Concerns Requiring individuals to undertake “all appropriate treatment” is unrealistic, inequitable, and harmful. It ignores:

• financial capacity
• geographic access
• medical suitability It also fails to recognise that early intervention can improve function without removing the lifelong nature of a diagnosis.

Recommendations

• Remove the requirement to undertake all possible treatment
• Base permanence on clinical evidence, not theoretical treatment availability
• Recognise that ongoing supports often maintain function rather than cure impairment
• Ensure decisions reflect real-world access to services

Part 9 – Eligibility Based on Access to Other Services

Concerns These changes are deeply concerning and contradict the core purpose of the NDIS. Requiring individuals to prove they have accessed all treatments regardless of availability will:

• Exclude participants based on postcode and income
• Disproportionately impact regional and low socio-economic communities Regional Impact (Tasmania – East Coast, Break O’Day) In my community:
• Health services are extremely limited beyond GP and emergency hospital care
• Outreach services are overwhelmed and restricted in scope
• Families face long wait times, travel burdens, and financial barriers For example, visiting speech therapists are unable to provide full therapy or assessments, leaving families without viable pathways to care. These reforms would create further barriers for already disadvantaged families.

Recommendations

• Remove provisions requiring completion of all treatment regardless of access barriers
• Ensure eligibility considers: o service availability o financial and geographic constraints o complexities of participants multiple disabilities

• Prevent cost-shifting to systems that are inaccessible or under-resourced

The proposed amendments risk shifting the NDIS away from its founding principles of equity, early intervention, and individualised support. As both a parent and professional, I have seen firsthand that early, targeted support reduces long-term costs and improves lifelong outcomes. These changes, however, introduce uncertainty, reduce access, and disproportionately impact vulnerable communities. The legislation must ensure that participant need, clinical evidence, and equitable access remain at the centre of all decisions.

Sincerely,

Early Childhood Teacher East Coast, Tasmania (Break O’Day Region)