Submission 465 - Supplementary Submission
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations) Bill 2026
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
As Managing Director of NAPA Australia, I have the privilege of working alongside families, clinicians and support professionals who are committed to improving outcomes for children and individuals living with disability. Through this work, I have witnessed the transformative impact that timely, individualised supports can have on participants, their families and the broader community.
There is broad recognition that the National Disability Insurance Scheme must remain financially sustainable if it is to continue supporting Australians for decades to come. Responsible stewardship of public resources is essential. However, reforms designed to strengthen the Scheme should also protect the principles that have underpinned its success— participant choice, flexibility, equity and access to supports that reflect each person’s unique circumstances.
While the objectives of the proposed legislation are understood, several aspects of the Bill raise concerns about how the changes may affect participants and those who support them.
Access to the Scheme
One of the most significant concerns relates to the proposed changes to eligibility and access arrangements.
Any tightening of entry criteria should occur only once alternative disability supports are fully established, adequately funded and consistently available across Australia. Introducing stricter eligibility requirements before these systems are mature risks creating service gaps for individuals who still require substantial assistance but may no longer qualify for the NDIS.
This issue is particularly relevant for children with developmental delay, neurodevelopmental conditions and complex functional challenges, where early intervention and continuity of care are often critical to long-term outcomes. NAPA Australia was built by families who had been travelling overseas to access interventions for complex diagnosis – and we do not want to return to having to send people overseas to access quality care.
Before implementing more restrictive access arrangements, consideration should be given to ensuring that:
- foundational supports are operating effectively and sustainably;
- services are accessible regardless of geographical location;
- clear safeguards exist to prevent vulnerable people from losing essential supports; and
- implementation is informed by transparent evaluation and evidence. Without these foundations, demand may simply shift to health, education and community services that are already experiencing significant pressures. Consideration also needs to be
Submission 465 - Supplementary Submission
given to the fact that for many children, receiving an actual diagnosis can take a long time – time that they cannot afford wasting whilst trying to access funding for intervention.
Assessment of Support Requirements
The proposal to introduce support needs assessments warrants careful consideration.
Determining the level and type of disability support required is a complex process that relies on clinical expertise and a comprehensive understanding of functional capacity. Disability affects people differently, even where diagnoses are similar, and meaningful assessment extends well beyond standardised measurement tools.
Effective assessments should consider factors including communication, mobility, cognition, sensory processing, environmental barriers, family circumstances, participation goals and daily functional impact.
There is concern that assessment models which rely on generic methodologies or insufficiently qualified assessors may fail to capture this complexity, potentially resulting in:
- underestimation of genuine support requirements;
- inconsistent outcomes between participants;
- reduced safety and independence;
- poorer recognition of complex or less visible disabilities; and
- inequitable funding decisions. Robust, multidisciplinary assessment processes remain essential to ensuring participants receive appropriate and proportionate supports.
Maintaining Individualised Funding
Individualised funding has been a defining feature of the NDIS because it recognises that disability does not present uniformly.
The proposed move towards greater standardisation or block funding may reduce the Scheme’s capacity to respond to the diverse circumstances of participants. Two individuals with the same diagnosis can have markedly different goals, functional abilities, family supports and environmental challenges.
Funding arrangements should retain sufficient flexibility to accommodate changing circumstances over time and allow supports to evolve alongside participants’ needs.
Greater rigidity may also increase administrative complexity while making it more difficult for participants to access clinically appropriate adjustments when circumstances change.
Preserving Person-Centred Practice
The effectiveness of disability services depends upon recognising each participant as an individual rather than applying uniform solutions.
Support planning should continue to account for personal circumstances including cultural identity, family dynamics, communication preferences, developmental stage, geographic location and lived experience.
Submission 465 - Supplementary Submission
This is particularly important for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and other culturally diverse populations, where culturally responsive approaches are fundamental to achieving equitable outcomes.
Equity is achieved by responding appropriately to difference—not by treating every participant identically.
Recognition of Families and Informal Care
Families play an indispensable role in supporting children and adults living with disability.
The proposed changes concerning parental responsibility have the potential to increase expectations on families who are already providing extensive unpaid care. Many parents balance intensive caregiving responsibilities alongside employment, financial pressures and their own health and wellbeing.
Where disability-specific supports are redefined as ordinary parental responsibilities, the consequences may include increased caregiver fatigue, reduced workforce participation, deterioration in family wellbeing and poorer outcomes for participants.
The distinction between ordinary parenting responsibilities and disability-related supports should remain clear to ensure families continue receiving the assistance necessary to sustain long-term care.
Closing Remarks
The National Disability Insurance Scheme has fundamentally changed the lives of many Australians by providing opportunities for greater participation, independence and inclusion.
Future reforms should preserve these achievements while ensuring the Scheme remains financially sustainable. Achieving this balance requires policy settings that continue to value participant choice, clinically informed decision-making, flexibility and equitable access to appropriate supports.
I encourage the Committee to carefully consider the practical implications of the proposed amendments and to ensure that implementation does not unintentionally reduce access, increase inequity or diminish outcomes for people living with disability.
Australians with disability deserve a system that supports their aspirations, recognises their individual circumstances and enables meaningful participation in community life. These principles should remain central to any future evolution of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.