Submission 958
To the Committee Secretary
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Submission to the Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
My name is and I am the mother of a 14-year-old daughter who has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. My daughter was diagnosed with autism at the age of four and has had an approved National Disability Insurance Scheme plan since that time.
The support provided through the NDIS has had a profound and positive impact on both my daughter and our family. It has enabled her to access the therapies and supports she has needed through each stage of her development. Without this funding, our family would not have had the financial capacity to access the level of intervention required to give our daughter a meaningful opportunity to participate at school, at home, and within the broader community.
Autism is a lifelong disability that significantly affects my daughter’s ability to function within a society designed primarily for neurotypical people. The impact of her disability extends far beyond social communication difficulties. She experiences severe anxiety, social isolation, poor executive functioning, low muscle tone, hypermobility, digestive issues, toileting challenges, and difficulties with both fine and gross motor skills. These challenges have had a serious impact on her mental health, contributing at times to suicidal ideation and self-harm.
Referring to Autism Level 2 as a “moderate” disability does not adequately reflect the daily barriers autistic people face when trying to navigate systems that are not designed to accommodate their needs. Disabilities such as autism are often “hidden”, yet their impact can be profound, persistent, and disabling across all aspects of life.
As my daughter grows older, each new stage of life brings new and increasingly complex challenges. Continued access to NDIS supports into adulthood will be essential if she is to maintain her wellbeing, independence, education, and future participation in society. Therapies and supports cannot simply cease once a child reaches a certain age, particularly for individuals with lifelong neurodevelopmental disabilities.
I am deeply concerned by several aspects of the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. I also wish to note my concern regarding the extremely limited timeframe provided for public submissions. Allowing only two weeks for consultation does not provide adequate opportunity for families already managing the significant demands of disability, employment, and caregiving responsibilities to properly review and respond to legislation of this magnitude.
I respectfully ask the Committee to carefully reconsider the following proposed provisions.
Section 34A — Ministerial Funding Cuts
I understand that this section grants the Minister broad powers to implement percentage-based funding cuts across entire categories of support.
This is deeply concerning because it enables sweeping reductions without guaranteeing appropriate safeguards, parliamentary scrutiny, or meaningful consultation with the disability community. Decisions of this scale should not rest solely with the discretion of a single Minister, particularly when they may significantly affect vulnerable Australians and their families.
Submission 958
Broad funding reductions fail to recognise that disability support needs are highly individualised and require a full understanding of a participant’s circumstances, based on clinical evidence provided by qualified professionals and disability specialists who understand the realities of living with disability.
Section 33(2EA) — Support Caps by Cohort
This section would allow the Minister to cap supports for particular cohorts of participants.
I am concerned this undermines the foundational NDIS principle of providing “reasonable and necessary” supports based on individual need. Cohort-based funding caps risk removing essential supports from those who need them most simply because they belong to a broader diagnostic category.
Autistic individuals can present very differently from one another, even when they share the same diagnostic level. A standardised or capped approach ignores the complexity and diversity of disability experiences.
Section 50A — Unspent Funds and Auto-Renewal
I am concerned about provisions that would result in participants losing unspent funds when plans are reassessed or automatically renewed.
Families often face delays in accessing services due to workforce shortages, long waitlists, therapist availability, participant burnout, illness, or changes in circumstances. Unspent funding does not necessarily indicate that supports are unnecessary. In many cases, it reflects systemic barriers to accessing appropriate services.
Removing these funds may unfairly penalise participants and families for circumstances outside their control.
Section 34(1)(aa) — “Directly Arising” Rule
This proposed change would narrow eligibility criteria so that supports are funded only if they “directly arise” from a participant’s primary disability impairment.
For autistic individuals, disabilities rarely exist in isolation. The impacts of autism are interconnected with mental health challenges, physical impairments, sensory regulation difficulties, executive functioning deficits, and social participation barriers.
Attempting to separate supports into rigid categories risks excluding essential therapies and interventions that genuinely improve a participant’s quality of life and functioning. Disability is complex, and legislation should reflect that complexity rather than impose narrow definitions that fail to account for real-world experiences.
Section 9B — New Eligibility Test
The introduction of stricter functional capacity assessments for both new and existing participants from 2028 is another area of significant concern.
Many disabilities, particularly autism and ADHD, fluctuate depending on environmental demands, mental health, stress, masking behaviours, and available supports. Functional capacity assessments conducted at a single point in time may fail to accurately capture the true extent of a person’s disability and support needs.
Submission 958
There is also a serious risk that reassessing existing participants under stricter criteria will create fear, instability, and distress for people who rely on consistent supports to maintain their functioning and wellbeing.
Schedule 5 — Broad Regulatory Powers
I am particularly concerned by provisions that would allow the Minister exceptional discretion to alter how the Act operates for up to 12 months without further parliamentary approval.
Legislation affecting Australians with disability should be subject to transparent oversight, accountability, and parliamentary scrutiny. Extraordinary powers without adequate checks and balances undermine public confidence and create uncertainty for participants and families already navigating complex and stressful systems.
Conclusion
The NDIS has been life-changing for my daughter and our family. It has allowed her access to therapies and supports that have improved her ability to engage with education, daily living, and the community. Without these supports, her future opportunities and wellbeing would be significantly diminished.
I strongly urge the Committee to ensure that any reforms to the NDIS preserve the scheme’s original purpose: providing individualised, evidence-based support to Australians with disability so they can live with dignity, safety, and meaningful participation in society.
I also urge the Committee to ensure that any future changes to the NDIS involve genuine consultation with people with disability, their families, disability advocates, and professionals working directly within the sector.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours sincerely,