Submission 938
Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community AƯairs Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the
NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I am writing as a parent of two autistic children, a speech pathologist working in the disability sector, and a late-diagnosed autistic woman. I advocate daily for my children within the education system and support other families navigating disability services. I am deeply concerned about the impact this Bill could have on children with disability, their families, and the future integrity of the NDIS.
My children are 10 and 8 years old and both have Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 2, requiring substantial support. My daughter has been an NDIS participant since age three and receives Occupational Therapy, Speech Pathology, and Behaviour Support. My son gained access three years ago and receives Occupational Therapy, Psychology, and just 13 hours of community participation funding per year.
These supports are not luxuries. They are essential interventions that help my children participate in everyday life, build communication and emotional regulation skills, and engage more safely with the world around them. They also help our family understand our children’s needs and respond in eƯective, informed ways.
Because of these supports, my children can participate more fully in community life. Without them, they would face far greater risks of social isolation and exclusion.
I am particularly concerned about proposed section 25B(4), relating to “alternative supports,” and sections 34(1G)–(1J), which create a presumption that parents provide substantial care and support as a matter of course.
The concept of “alternative supports” does not reflect the reality of disability and family life. Families are already searching for community programs, school-based assistance, and informal supports, many of which are diƯicult to access, unavailable, or require significant out-of-pocket costs. The Bill appears to assume these supports are readily available and can replace NDIS-funded services. In practice, they often cannot.
Autism is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disability associated with increased risks of mental health challenges, social exclusion, and poorer long-term outcomes. Early intervention and ongoing support are important protective factors. Even with those supports, parenting remains extraordinarily challenging.
Our family manages behaviours that most families are unlikely to encounter, including property damage and serious verbal and physical aggression during periods of severe dysregulation. These experiences are not the result of poor parenting or a lack of discipline. They require carefully planned, individualised supports alongside sustained, informed parenting.
Submission 938
The parental presumption provisions are particularly concerning because they fail to recognise the extraordinary level of care many parents of children with disability already provide. Assuming parents can simply absorb more responsibility ignores the reality that many families are already beyond capacity and risks normalising carer burnout.
If NDIS supports were reduced or removed, the consequences for my family would be severe. Even the small amount of community participation funding my son receives has a significant impact on his wellbeing and my ability to cope. Reducing capacity-building and communication-focused supports would likely lead to greater distress and poorer outcomes for my children, with higher costs to the taxpayer over time.
The impacts would not stop with our family. Burnt-out parents reach breaking point, and children without appropriate support place additional pressure on schools and health services. The costs are simply shifted elsewhere.
In my circumstances, I would likely have to reduce or cease employment to manage my children’s needs, and I may need to consider home-schooling if the education system could no longer meet them. The economic and mental health consequences for carers can be profound. Preventative supports through the NDIS are not only humane; they are economically responsible.
I am also concerned about the broader administration of the Scheme. Four years ago, my daughter’s NDIS funding was reduced after an NDIS delegate incorrectly removed psychology funding during a phone conversation. We were forced to pursue internal and external review processes before her funding was reinstated on the basis of evidence from allied health professionals, her paediatrician, and me.
Although the funding was ultimately restored, the process was highly stressful and demonstrated how easily incorrect decisions can aƯect families. Many families do not have the knowledge, time, or capacity to challenge those decisions through lengthy review processes.
This is one reason I am concerned about proposals that could weaken safeguards or make it easier for participants to lose access to necessary supports.
I respectfully ask the Committee to:
-
Oppose or substantially amend section 25B(4) relating to alternative supports unless robust evidence demonstrates that alternative supports are genuinely available, accessible, and capable of meeting individual needs.
-
Remove or significantly amend sections 34(1G)–(1J) regarding parental presumption to recognise the extraordinary and often unsustainable level of care already provided by parents of children with disability.
Submission 938
-
Ensure that any reforms include strong, legislated safeguards that cannot be easily altered through subordinate rules or administrative processes.
-
Commission an independent review into the development and justification of this Bill, including the impact of public narratives regarding NDIS participants, providers, and alleged “rorting” on policy development and community attitudes toward disability.
-
Ensure that the rights of people with disability, their families, and carers remain central to all NDIS reforms, and that any future changes are developed through genuine, meaningful co-design.
The NDIS can transform lives when it is administered fairly and according to its purpose. My family’s experience demonstrates both the benefits of appropriate support and the harm caused when those supports are threatened or removed. I urge the Committee to consider the real-world consequences of these proposed changes and to ensure future reforms strengthen, rather than weaken, the supports that enable Australians with disability to participate fully in society.
Thank you for considering my submission.