Submission 1485

1

29/5/26

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to express my strong concerns about the proposed NDIS Amendment Bill. I am an Autistic person who accesses the NDIS, and I have two young autistic children who also rely on the scheme. These proposed changes would have a significant and devastating impact on our family.

Increased Administrative and Compliance Requirements:

I am concerned that the proposed changes would introduce tighter timeframes for responding to the NDIA, more formal processes for managing plans and supports, and greater compliance expectations overall. For participants like me and my children, these changes risk becoming significant barriers to accessing funding. Many participants — including those experiencing hospitalisation, mental health crises, burnout, housing instability, or communication difficulties — may be unable to meet these expectations through no fault of their own. A proposal that does not account for these realities will result in vulnerable people falling through the cracks.

Non-Contactable Participant Rules:

I am particularly concerned about the proposed rules around participant engagement and ability to be contacted. The suggestion that access to support could be suspended or denied if a participant does not respond within a required timeframe fails to consider the many reasons a person may be unreachable. This change could result in the most vulnerable participants losing access to supports entirely, at precisely the moments when they need them most.

Plan Reassessments and Suspensions:

The proposed restrictions on unscheduled plan reassessments and the introduction of plan suspensions for non-contactable participants are concerning to me. Disability does not follow a schedule, and participants frequently experience changes in circumstance that require timely plan adjustments. Reducing this flexibility will leave people without adequate support during crises.

Submission 1485

Funding Adjustments and Ministerial Control Over Categories:

I am concerned about proposals that would allow funding levels to be adjusted across entire categories of supports, rather than on an individual needs basis. This approach removes the person-centred foundation of the NDIS and risks cutting critical supports for many participants — including my children and me — without any consideration of our individual circumstances.

Definition of Permanent Disability and Functional Capacity:

The proposed changes to the definition of permanent disability — including the expansion of what constitutes “appropriate treatment” — concern me. Under these changes, a person could be denied NDIS access if a treatment exists that reduces some impacts of their disability, even if that treatment is financially or geographically out of reach. As an autistic person with autistic children, I am concerned that we could be deemed ineligible for the scheme despite having lifelong, genuine support needs. Similarly, the introduction of a new formal definition of functional capacity may exclude many people who currently qualify and who desperately need funded support.

Family Support for Children:

I have serious concerns about the proposed changes to what constitutes a parent’s responsibility for care. If the NDIA were to determine that supports such as behavioural therapy reduce the time it takes a parent to care for their child below an expected threshold, those supports could be denied. As a disabled parent myself, I already face significant challenges in supporting my children’s complex needs. I have substantially reduced my working hours to manage their care, and this proposed change could force me to stop working altogether. For our family, that outcome would be financially and personally catastrophic.

Increased Use of Automated Decision-Making:

The proposal to increase reliance on automated and administrative systems in NDIS decision-making concerns me greatly. Standardised, system-driven processes are inherently less able to respond to the individual circumstances of participants. This approach risks making the scheme less equitable and less humane, and would represent yet another barrier for people who are already struggling to navigate a complex system.

Submission 1485