Submission 883
Submission regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing
the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I am writing this submission as both a parent/carer and as someone who works closely with Australian families navigating disability, neurodivergence and the NDIS system every day.
I understand the Government’s stated goal of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS. However, I am deeply concerned that several of the proposed legislative and policy changes risk reducing access to essential supports for disabled Australians and creating greater long-term social and economic costs.
In particular, I am concerned about the proposed reforms relating to:
tighter eligibility requirements based on “functional capacity”
increased emphasis on “permanent and significant disability”
reassessment processes
changes to reasonable and necessary supports
reduced funding for social and community participation
the rollout of the new “Thriving Kids” foundational supports model
The Government has stated these reforms are intended to “return the NDIS to its original intent” and introduce “standardised, evidence-based assessments of functional capacity” as the basis for determining access.
While consistency is important, I am concerned that these changes risk oversimplifying disability and neurodevelopmental conditions that are complex, fluctuating and heavily impacted by environment and support access.
Conditions such as autism, ADHD, psychosocial disability and developmental delay do not always present in linear or easily measurable ways. Functional capacity can vary significantly depending on stress, burnout, school environment, support availability, sensory demands and mental health.
I am especially concerned about the proposed shift toward stricter interpretations of “permanence” and whether impairments can be “treated” or “alleviated”. The Government has indicated future eligibility assessments will include “more consistent assessment of permanence and whether an impairment can be alleviated or treated.”
This creates enormous fear for families of neurodivergent children and disabled people whose conditions may improve with support, but who still require substantial ongoing assistance to participate safely in daily life.
Support should not be removed simply because therapy helps.
Submission 883
In many cases, therapy and supports are the reason a child can attend school, communicate, regulate emotions, participate socially, or avoid crisis. Removing those supports because a child has shown progress fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of early intervention.
I am also deeply concerned about the rollout of the “Thriving Kids” program.
The Government has stated that from 2028, children aged 8 and under with developmental delay and/or autism with “low to moderate support needs” will generally access support through Thriving Kids rather than the NDIS.
At present, there remains significant uncertainty about:
what supports children will actually receive
how consistently services will be delivered across states
waitlists and workforce capacity
whether supports will be individualised
how eligibility thresholds will work
how families will appeal decisions
how continuity of therapy will be maintained
Unlike the NDIS, Thriving Kids is not an entitlement-based scheme and will operate with capped funding. This creates legitimate concern that many children may receive far less support than they currently require.
There is substantial evidence that early intervention reduces long-term support costs and improves outcomes across education, employment, mental health and community participation.
Reducing access to occupational therapy, speech therapy, physiotherapy, psychology and social skills supports during early childhood is likely to increase downstream pressure on:
schools
hospitals
mental health systems
child protection systems
emergency services
carers and families
These costs do not disappear. They simply shift elsewhere.
I am also concerned about the proposed tightening around “reasonable and necessary” supports and the stated intention to reset budgets for social, civic and community participation supports.
Submission 883
Community participation is not a luxury.
For many disabled people, these supports are essential for:
preventing isolation
maintaining mental health
building independence
developing communication and social skills
reducing behavioural escalation
participating in employment and education
maintaining safety
Cuts in these areas may appear financially efficient on paper, but in reality often increase loneliness, burnout, family breakdown and long-term dependency.
I also want to highlight the immense administrative burden already placed on families.
Parents and carers are already spending countless unpaid hours managing reports, evidence gathering, reassessments, applications, appointments and advocacy. Additional reassessment hurdles and stricter eligibility thresholds risk creating further exhaustion and distress for families who are already overwhelmed.
The NDIS is not simply a funding scheme. It is infrastructure that enables disabled Australians to participate in society.
I urge the Senate to carefully consider the real-world consequences of these reforms and ensure that:
early intervention remains genuinely accessible
support access is based on functional need, not narrow interpretations of permanence
children are not excluded from meaningful support due to arbitrary thresholds
families are not subjected to excessive reassessment and administrative burden
community participation supports are recognised as essential preventative supports
lived experience voices remain central to reform design
The sustainability of the NDIS matters. But sustainability cannot come from reducing support to children and families whose needs remain very real.
True sustainability comes from timely intervention, evidence-based supports, and investing early enough to prevent greater human and financial costs later.