Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into Proposed NDIS Reforms
Submitted by: A legal guardian and full-time carer of an NDIS participant
Introduction
I am the legal guardian and full-time carer of a child who is an NDIS participant living with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), ADHD, developmental disability, communication impairment, significant emotional regulation difficulties, psychosocial disability and substantial functional impairment.
I am concerned that recent and proposed reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) risk moving the Scheme away from its original purpose as an individualised, evidence-based support system and towards a more restrictive administrative model in which decisions are increasingly guided by predefined categories, automated processes and cost-containment objectives rather than a participant’s actual circumstances, functional impairment and support needs.
My concerns are not limited to the impact on the child in my care. I am concerned about the broader implications for thousands of Australians living with disability whose needs are complex, lifelong, fluctuating or highly individualized, including people living with neurodevelopmental, intellectual, neurological and psychosocial disabilities.
The Importance of Individualized Decision-Making
The NDIS was established because one-size-fits-all approaches repeatedly failed people with disability and their families. Many disabilities do not present in a uniform manner. Two participants with the same diagnosis may have vastly different levels of functional impairment, support requirements, communication abilities, behavioral presentations, learning styles, risk profiles and capacity for independent living.
This is particularly true for disabilities such as FASD, autism, intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, neurological conditions and psychosocial disability associated with mental health conditions.
The child in my care experiences significant impairment in communication, learning, emotional regulation, independence, safety awareness and social functioning. Multiple assessments by psychologists, occupational therapists, educators, behavior support practitioners and rehabilitation counselors have consistently identified substantial functional impairment across daily life.
What has become increasingly concerning is the apparent shift away from assessing supports against the participant’s individual evidence and toward assessing supports according to broad assumptions about support categories, policy positions or administrative frameworks.
The effectiveness of a support cannot be determined solely by what the support is called. It must be assessed by reference to the participant’s goals, functional impairments, evidence of benefit and individual circumstances. I am concerned that the proposed reforms risk limiting that individualized assessment process.
Concerns About Automated and Technology-Assisted Decision-Making
I am particularly concerned about increasing reliance on automated or technology-assisted decision-making within the NDIS. While administrative efficiency is important, disability support decisions are fundamentally human decisions. They require careful consideration of complex evidence, professional reports, functional assessments, family circumstances, lived experience, and the interaction between disability and environmental factors.
No automated system can adequately assess:
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3088
- the complexity of a child with multiple disabilities;
- the interaction between disability, trauma and behavioural challenges;
- the functional impact of lifelong neurodevelopmental disability;
- the sustainability of informal care arrangements;
- the realities of psychosocial disability;
- fluctuating support needs; or
- the practical challenges faced by families providing intensive daily support.
Technology may assist administration, but it should never replace meaningful human assessment. Participants must have confidence that their circumstances have been individually considered by decision-makers who understand disability, functional impairment, professional evidence and lived experience.
The Concerns About Reduced Weight Being Given to Professional Evidence
Many families spend years obtaining assessments from psychologists, psychiatrists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, physiotherapists, educators, behaviour support practitioners and other specialists. These professionals spend significant time assessing the participant’s functional needs, barriers to participation and support requirements.
I am concerned that recent reforms may make it easier for professional evidence to be overridden by administrative policy approaches, predefined support categories or automated decision-making processes. The NDIS should remain grounded in evidence.
Where multiple qualified professionals demonstrate that a support assists a participant to achieve goals, improve functional capacity, increase participation and reduce long-term support requirements, that evidence should carry significant weight in decision-making.
The Concerns Regarding Fully Treated Requirements
| am concerned about increasing references to participants needing to be fully treated, stabilised or to have exhausted treatment pathways before disability support needs are recognised. For many disabilities, this concept is inappropriate and potentially harmful.
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, intellectual disability, autism, acquired brain injury and many neurological conditions are permanent disabilities. They are not conditions that can be cured through treatment.
The purpose of disability support is fundamentally different from the purpose of treatment. Treatment seeks to improve or manage a condition. Disability support seeks to improve functioning, independence, participation and quality of life despite the ongoing presence of disability.
A participant should not be denied support because a permanent disability remains despite treatment. Nor should families be required to continually demonstrate that all treatment options have been exhausted before receiving disability-related supports. This approach risks fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of the NDIS.
Psychosocial Disability and Mental Health
these concerns are particularly significant for people living with psychosocial disability arising from severe and persistent mental health conditions. Many psychosocial disabilities fluctuate over time, with periods of relative stability followed by periods of significant functional impairment.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 3088 The fact that a person may respond to treatment, engage with clinical services, or experience temporary improvement does not mean that disability-related support needs have disappeared.
People living with psychosocial disability often require ongoing support to maintain housing, personal safety, relationships, community participation, education, employment and daily functioning.
Requiring individuals to demonstrate complete clinical stability or the exhaustion of all treatment pathways before accessing disability-related supports risks creating barriers that are inconsistent with both the realities of mental illness and recovery-oriented practice.
Concerns About Tightening Access to the Scheme
I am concerned about reforms that appear designed to tighten access to the NDIS or increase the removal of participants from the Scheme. Sustainability is important. However, sustainability should be achieved through fair and evidence-based decision-making, not by making access more difficult for people who genuinely meet the disability requirements of the Scheme.
Many participants rely on the NDIS because there is simply no equivalent support system available elsewhere. The NDIS was introduced because existing systems repeatedly failed to meet the needs of people with disability. If participants are increasingly excluded from the Scheme, the question must be asked: Where are they expected to go? In many cases, there is no realistic answer.
The Absence of Alternative Support Systems Families are frequently told that supports should be provided by health, education, community or mainstream services. In practice:
- many health services are difficult to access or unavailable;
- education systems are funded to deliver education, not disability supports;
- community services are often oversubscribed;
- mental health services frequently have long waitlists; and
- many families cannot afford private alternatives.
Too often, participants are caught between systems. One system says a support belongs with another. The second system says it is not their responsibility. The result is not an alternative source of support. The result is no support at all.
This issue is particularly acute within the mental health system. People living with psychosocial disability frequently encounter fragmented services, crisis-driven responses, lengthy waitlists and limited access to ongoing recovery supports.
Clinical treatment and disability support serve different purposes. Mental health treatment seeks to reduce symptoms and manage illness. Disability supports assist people to function, participate and live as independently as possible despite ongoing impairment. Treating these systems as interchangeable risks leaving people without either adequate treatment or adequate disability support.
I am concerned that reforms which restrict access to NDIS supports may inadvertently recreate the very gaps the Scheme was designed to address.
Concerns About Review and Appeal Rights
Review rights are among the most important safeguards within the NDIS. They provide participants and families with the opportunity to challenge decisions where evidence may not have been fully considered or where circumstances may have been misunderstood.
Without meaningful review rights, participants become increasingly dependent upon the accuracy of the original decision. No decision-making system is perfect. That is why independent review rights are essential.
I am concerned that reforms which reduce access to review, narrow grounds for challenge, or increase bariers to review may have a disproportionate impact on participants with complex disabilities whose eeds do not fit neatly within predetermined categories.
Strong review rights improve accountability, transparency, consistency and confidence in the Scheme. They should be strengthened, not weakened.
Rises for Children and Participants with Complex Disabilities
People with complex disabilities are particularly vulnerable to these reforms. Their support needs frequently span multiple systems, including disability, health, education, behaviour support, housing, community services and mental health.
Their presentations may change over time. Their disabilities frequently affect every aspect of daily unctioning. If decision-making becomes increasingly standardised, automated or category-based, the people with highly individual support needs risk being disadvantaged because they do not fit neatly in simplified administrative frameworks.
The NDIS was intended to be person-centred. That principle must remain at the heart of the Scheme.
Recommendations
1 Individual circumstances remain the primary consideration in NDIS decision-making. 2 Professional clinical evidence continues to be given significant weight. 3 Automated or technology-assisted decision-making is strictly limited and subject to meaningful human oversight. 4 Participants are not required to prove that permanent disabilities are fully treated before accessing disability supports. 5 Disability supports continue to be assessed on functional impairment, participation and evidence of benefit rather than treatment status. 6 Reforms aimed at sustainability do not exclude participants who genuinely meet disability access requirements. 7 Government demonstrates that genuine alternative support systems exist before restricting access to NDIS-funded supports. 8 Participants retain strong and accessible review and appeal rights. 9 No participant is removed from the Scheme unless their disability-related needs can be demonstrably and adequately met elsewhere. 10 Reforms affecting psychosocial disability recognise that treatment, recovery and disability support are distinct concepts and do not require participants to demonstrate complete clinical stability before accessing disability-related supports.
Conclusion
The NDIS was created because people with disability could not be adequately supported through fragmented and inflexible systems.
National Disability Insurance Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3088
Any reform that reduces individualized decision-making, weakens review rights, increases reliance on automated assessments, narrows access to supports, or assumes the existence of alternative systems risks undermining the very purpose for which the Scheme was created.
I ask the Committee to ensure that future reforms strengthen – not weaken – the principles of fairness, individualization, evidence-based decision-making, participant choice and control, and meaningful participation that underpin the NDIS.
Future reforms should continue to recognize the diverse ways disability presents across physical, intellectual, neurological, developmental, and psychosocial domains and ensure that participants are assessed according to their individual functional circumstances rather than broad administrative categories.
Thank you for considering this submission.