National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 944
Submission to the Senate Community AƯairs Legislation Committee
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment — Securing the NDIS for Future
Generations Bill 2026
Date: 24/05/2026
Dear Committee Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment — Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026.
I am a late diagnosed AuDHD mother of two children on the NDIS. My older child has been on the scheme since 2019. They are autistic with level 2–3 support needs, ARFID, and a specific learning disorder. Their plan funds occupational therapy and speech therapy that have supported communication, emotional regulation, safety, and the development of meaningful social connection. These gains have taken years of consistent, specialist support.
My younger child has been on the NDIS since 2022. They are autistic with level 2 support needs, ADHD, rejection sensitive dysphoria, and a motor development disorder. Their plan funds occupational therapy and speech therapy supporting motor skills, emotional regulation, perspective taking, and non-verbal communication. These supports are essential to their participation in school and daily life.
I am deeply concerned that the proposed changes will reduce funding, restrict eligibility, and significantly limit choice and control. For my children, there is no realistic alternative system that can replace what the NDIS currently provides. If supports are reduced, the only option left to me will be to withdraw from paid work to provide full time care. This is not a choice between eƯiciency options — it is a loss of support that will be shifted onto families.
As a neurodivergent parent, I also rely on my own lived experience to understand what supports actually work for my children. Choice and control in the NDIS is not abstract for us. It is the diƯerence between therapies that are genuinely eƯective and systems that do not understand neurodivergent needs. I am concerned that reduced funding and tighter eligibility will remove that choice and replace it with standardised options that do not reflect lived neurodivergent experience. I would also strongly prefer that treating professionals working with my children include neurodivergent practitioners where possible, as lived experience improves understanding, communication, and outcomes.
The 2023 independent review provided a roadmap of 26 recommendations and 139 actions, with clear instruction that they be implemented as a whole. Foundational
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 944
supports were identified as a prerequisite to any changes in eligibility or funding. Those supports are not yet in place, yet eligibility changes are proceeding.
These reforms were not presented at the 2025 federal election. There is no clear public mandate for removing approximately 160,000 participants or reducing average plans by $5,000. Families made irreversible life decisions based on the promise of ongoing support once access was granted.
If my children lose supports, I will likely need to leave work entirely. This does not reduce system costs; it shifts them into families and other services. The NDIS delivers $2.25 to the economy for every dollar spent. Reducing supports does not remove need — it transfers it into hospitals, schools, mental health services, and unpaid care, largely carried by women.
Fraud accounted for just 1.05% of projected savings, while a third of savings came from removing children from the scheme. In July 2024, parliament was told billions were being rorted, despite confirmed fraud of $34.5 million across 72 active cases in a $42 billion system. In March 2026, a Senate inquiry into NDIS fraud was voted down, despite ongoing reliance on fraud claims to justify reform.
Autistic people form a significant proportion of NDIS participants, and the Productivity Commission identified autism as a core cohort the scheme was designed to support. The suggestion that autistic children were not intended to be included is not consistent with the scheme’s original purpose.
I ask the committee to consider the real-world impact on families like mine. On what basis are eligibility changes proceeding when foundational supports are not yet in place? What modelling has been done on downstream costs to hospitals, mental health services, housing, and families if NDIS supports are reduced? What gender impact assessment has been conducted on the increased unpaid care burden placed on women?
I ask the committee to reject this bill until foundational supports are in place, require full transparency of downstream cost modelling, and require an independent human rights assessment before any further changes proceed.
Yours sincerely, A parent