Submission 1529

Submission on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Summary

I am an autistic NDIS participant. I object to this Bill’s cuts to capacity building supports, the new powers to reduce whole categories of support, the stricter treatment and eligibility tests, and the removal of review rights. These changes threaten the weekly occupational therapy and psychology I rely on, and will harm autistic people. I ask Parliament to protect individualised, clinically-assessed supports, the right to refuse treatment without losing eligibility, and the right to review.

Request for confidentiality

I request that my name be withheld from publication. This submission contains personal information about my health and disability that I do not wish to be publicly associated with my identity. I am happy to provide my contact details to the Committee but ask that any published version not identify me.

Who I am

I am a level 2 autistic woman and an NDIS participant. I am writing to object to several parts of this Bill that will harm me and other autistic people.

What this Bill takes from me

I receive weekly occupational therapy and psychology. These supports have made an enormous difference to my life. They are not generic services, they are built around how I actually function, how I communicate, and how my autism interacts with my chronic health conditions and with hormonal changes, which affect autistic women in ways that are still poorly understood and rarely captured by standardised assessments. These supports have helped me, and they will keep helping me. Without them I would lose capacity I have worked hard to build, and my family would carry the cost including the real possibility that my husband would have to reduce his paid work to support me.

My concerns and how they link to the Bill

The 10% reduction to capacity building daily activity supports (Schedule 1, Part 4). This cut is applied through a ministerial determination across a whole category, not based on my individual needs, and is not subject to merits review. CBDA is what funds my OT and psychology. A class-wide cut decided at the system level is the opposite of what the NDIS was meant to do, which is fund supports based on the individual person.

Submission 1529

The broader mechanism to reduce supports (new s34A and s33(2EA)). The Bill gives the Minister power to reduce funding for whole groups of supports and to set maximum amounts, intensity or ratios for supports. This means therapy supports like mine could be reduced or capped in future, regardless of what I actually need or what my treating professionals recommend. Supports should be based on individual need, not broad ules.

The “effective and beneficial” evidence hierarchy (new s34(1E)). This requires delegates to rank published, generalisable research above evidence of what actually works for the individual participant. The provision even allows a delegate to decide a support is not effective if there is “limited or no published or peer reviewed evidence, even if there is evidence of effectiveness… for the participant in particular.” The research base for ongoing therapy for autistic adults is thin and contested. A planner could decide my therapy is not supported by general research even though it is clearly working for me. This is wrong.

The “all appropriate treatment” permanence test (new s25A). I strongly object to the requirement that a person must have undertaken “all appropriate treatment” before an impairment is considered permanent, and to s25A(2) which says treatment counts as appropriate “regardless of whether the person’s individual circumstances restrict the person from accessing the treatment.” There are often very good reasons a person has not done every possible treatment such as cost, distance, waitlists, past harm, and for autistic people, communication and sensory barriers that can make some treatments impossible. Deciding someone hasn’t tried hard enough, while refusing to look at whether they could actually access or tolerate the treatment, is unjust.

People should not be forced to undergo treatment they reasonably refuse in order to keep eligibility. The Bill only excuses not undertaking treatment for a “medical reason” (s25A(3)(a)). It does not recognise that a person may have good reason to decline a treatment that is technically available because it is dangerous, has serious side effects, is frightening or traumatic for them, or because they reasonably judge the risks to outweigh the benefits.

Requiring people to undergo treatment they would otherwise refuse, on pain of losing NDIS access, undermines bodily autonomy and the right to informed consent. The right to refuse treatment without losing eligibility must be protected, and “appropriate

Submission 1529

treatment” must account for a person’s reasonable, informed choices about their own body.

Supports must not be cut by separating autism from mental health (Schedule 1, Part 3, ew s34(1)(aa)). The Bill requires supports to arise “directly” from the impairment that meets access criteria. For autistic people, this is dangerous. Autism and mental health cannot be cleanly separated! anxiety, depression and distress often arise directly from being autistic in a world that does not accommodate us. My psychology supports me as an autistic person; it is not a separate “mental health” service that can be carved off. I am concerned that this provision will be used to cut supports on the basis of an artificial distinction that does not reflect how autism actually works.

Plan suspension for not answering contact (new s40A). The Bill lets the Agency suspend a participant’s plan if “reasonable attempts” to contact them have been made and they don’t respond, with participant status able to be revoked after 90 days. There is no requirement for contact to be made in the participant’s preferred or accessible way. Many autistic people, including me, do not answer calls from unknown numbers . this is a disability-related communication difference, not a refusal to engage. Under this provision the Agency could call from an unidentified number, send a letter that arrives late, and suspend my plan while the 90-day clock runs without me knowing. There must be a requirement that contact attempts use the participant’s stated accessible communication method.

This is an attack on autistic people. Autism is the largest group in the NDIS, so cuts and tighter thresholds fall hardest on us. The new functional capacity definition in s9B requires assessment “in a setting that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.” For autistic people, functioning is completely tied to environment. In a calm, accommodated setting I can sometimes function. In a loud, unpredictable, demanding one I cannot. Assessing autistic people as if environment doesn’t matter will systematically underestimate our needs.

The right to review must be protected. Many of the cuts in this Bill support determinations and plan renewals are explicitly not subject to merits review. Participants must be able to keep the ability to take a disputed decision to the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Removing review rights leaves people with no way to challenge decisions that seriously affect their lives.

Submission 1529

Professional opinion must come first. A planner does not have the clinical skill of an occupational therapist or psychologist, and does not know me the way my treating professionals do. The opinions of doctors and allied health professionals who actually assess and work with me must be prioritised above a planner applying a rule or a tool.

Decisions about complex needs must not be automated or reduced to a tick-box.

What I want Parliament to do

I want Parliament to:

• reverse the reductions to capacity building and community participation supports;
• remove or substantially limit the ministerial powers to reduce or cap whole categories of supports, including therapy;
• ensure functional capacity and support needs assessments are done by appropriately qualified allied health professionals, and that their clinical opinions are prioritised over planner decisions;
• prohibit automated eligibility and funding decisions and require human oversight;
• remove the requirement to have undertaken “all appropriate treatment” without regard to whether treatment is actually accessible to the person;
• ensure that people are not required to undergo treatment they reasonably refuse — including treatment that is risky, harmful, or that they object to — in order to keep their eligibility;
• ensure supports for autistic people are not cut by artificially separating autism from co-occurring mental health needs;
• require that any contact before a plan is suspended uses the participant’s stated accessible communication method;
• ensure the Bill does not narrow access for autistic people and others with complex or fluctuating needs; and
• protect the right to seek review of decisions at the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Please do not take away the supports that have allowed me to live my life.

Thank you for considering my submission.