NDIA Accountability Project

Autistic participant opposes Bill due to impact on support access

‹ PrevPage 1 of 4 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 1809

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

I am writing as both a participant of the scheme, and as a support worker, working with other participants of the scheme. All of my clients will be substantially negatively effected if this Bill is passed, and the levels of distress they have been under, since Mark Butler’s budget speech and the media coverage since, have skyrocketed and three of my clients have been admitted into in-person care. I am most compelled to write on behalf of my clients, who already living with daily suffering due to a lack of support, and I am most concerned about their already difficult lives being made more difficult by a further reduction of supports that are already severely lacking and not meeting their daily care needs.

I am also writing as a participant, who entered the scheme during a time of immense suffering (relationship breakdown, job loss, moving house, hospitalised with organ failure, suffered injury that limited by mobility, autistic burnout) and was substantially helped by the support I was able to access. Having NDIS support has enabled me to recover from my autistic burnout and return to work (self-employed) and be able to contribute to my community and support other disabled, autistic people. Having NDS support builds my capacity so I am able to support others and use my lived experience to support, affirm and mentor other autistic people. I want other disabled people to have the same opportunities I have had to receive support, build capacity and be able to return to the community.

I oppose this Bill because:

  • It is cruel and inhumane
  • This bill will cause unnecessary harm
  • I disagree with the assertion that the NDIS is costing too much or that too many disabled people have access. A small percentage of disabled Australians have access to the scheme. The NDIS costing more over time is a good sign that it is being used by disabled people to improve their lives. Disabled people want to access the scheme because there are not other services and supports available. Being disabled is expensive, with the costs of treatment and medication, when many disabled people are not able to work, or they are not able to access DSP if they have a partner.
  • The bill has been rushed and there has been insufficient consultation with all sectors of the disability community.
  • There are other ways the government could organise the budget that are do not result in marginalised, suffering disabled people being abandoned and left with minimal or no support
  • I do not support a government that prioritises spending on defense and tax breaks for the wealthy over the needs of marginalised people in our community.
  • The use of automation to make decisions about individual peoples lives and needs is unethical.

Submission 1809

  • The bill destroys the purpose of the NDIS and does not align with its mission or values. This bill is removing choice and control from disabled people, removing their autonomy and making clear that this government does not value the lives of disabled people.

Issues with the Bill:

Schedule 1:

  • I am concerned about the changes to the reassessment process - the process is already poorly managed, inconsistent and ableist. Across my clients I have seen consistently cruel, combative and ignorant staff and processes from the NDIA. Already the expert evidence of allied health professionals and clients own lived experience of their suffering is being ignored and rejected by poorly trained staff who do not know how to communicate with disabled people, use slurs and ableist language, make consistent minor and major errors in note taking & documentation, and provide inconsistent or incorrect information. Any reassessment process done using algorithms, automated processes, or staff with no expertise or lived experience of disability will not be relevant to the needs and realities of disabled people.

  • A generic approach to assessing impairment or assigning supports is functionally unsuitable for addressing the reality of the diverse experience of suffering and challenge that disabled people live with.

  • I have serious concerns regarding the potential further narrowing of what constitutes reasonable and necessary supports under the NDIS. There are already documented issues with inconsistencies in advice and information provided across the NDIA website, staff members, plan management providers, support coordinators, Local Area Coordinators, and media sources. Additionally, improperly trained personnel are sometimes making decisions that are harmful and inaccurate regarding the supports participants require. The primary authority on what constitutes reasonable and necessary disability supports should always be the individual with a disability, supported by their healthcare professionals. When the person with a disability and their doctors agree that a support is reasonable and necessary, this constitutes a more accurate assessment than a government determination made by someone without lived experience or medical expertise related to disability.

  • The other services or foundational supports to support disabled people do not exist. People are using the NDIS because they cannot access help elsewhere. There is a massive lack of services across Australia, especially in smaller towns and rural areas.

Schedule 2:

  • I am concerned that the registration requirement may impose unnecessary burdens on sole traders and small independent providers, including myself, who focus on serving a limited number of participants within niche disabled communities, delivered in a disability-friendly, neurodiversity-affirming, or queer-affirming manner. Many of the larger disability service providers do not typically offer trauma-informed, lived-experience-led, neurodiversity-affirming, or queer-friendly care. As a result, these larger, more generic providers may be inappropriate or even detrimental for many individuals with disabilities. While I acknowledge the importance of reducing fraud and ensuring high-quality services, most examples of issues tend to originate from large providers offering supported independent living (SIL), respite, or day services. Independent providers typically offer highly tailored and nuanced support for specific participants and often lack the financial capacity to afford costly registration and auditing processes (e.g., they have their own disabilities and only work part-time)

Submission 1809

Schedule 3:

  • A focus on price over quality is extremely unhelpful. People need funding that covers the whole cost of the supports they need. There is already a gap with medicare for medical services that mean that many disabled people are not able to afford the regular care they need. Many people with disabilities are living below the poverty line and already spending their limited money on medications and specialist appointments. People can’t afford adequate care already, so they go without.
  • The use of automated or AI decision-making raises significant concerns. Remember how many marginalised people suicided or suffered severe mental health challenges as a result of Robodebt? It is unreasonable to rely on such shortcuts when funding directly affects individuals’ daily lives. Algorithms making inhumane decisions are dangerous and unjust. The automated aged care trial has proven ineffective, with support needs being underestimated, clinical discretion being removed, and transparency diminished. As a result, older adults are receiving less care, which negatively impacts their health and wellbeing. Aged care, like disability support, is highly personalized and evolves quickly; therefore, a rigid, automated system cannot accurately reflect the complexities of individuals’ daily experiences. People’s health and safety depend on nuanced and thoughtful approaches; relying solely on automation is inherently risky.

Schedule 4:

  • There is a significant risk that automated assessments will not accurately reflect the individual needs of each person. No two individuals with the same disability are identical; some may experience severe functional impairments in certain areas, while others may have moderate or lesser challenges. Assessments of disabilities should only be conducted by qualified, trained medical professionals with expertise in the specific disabilities being evaluated. It is inappropriate and potentially unsafe for non-medical personnel without specialized training to perform these assessments. Additionally, it is neither appropriate nor ethical to rely solely on AI or automated systems for conducting such evaluations.
  • I am gravely worried about the impact that reduced funding and plan changes will have on my clients. There is already minimal understanding from NDIA staff about the realities of living with disability and how long it takes people to do things (e.g., can take over an hour for a disabled person to have a shower) and I am concerned about blanket or automated decision making reducing plans of people who are already inadequately funded. One of my clients is bed-bound. She is funded for one three-hour session with me a week as a support worker. She receives no other core supports. She cannot feed herself, wash herself, do household chores or leave the house. Three hours is woefully inadequate to meet her needs. She has not had a shower for three months because she has wanted me to do house cleaning and prepare meals and help her eat. There is not enough time to complete the daily activities of self care she needs, let alone the whole week of care and support that she would need, in order to be able to see any improvement in her condition, or ability to get out of bed. The rest of the week she lies alone in bed, waiting for her husband and children to get home so she has a brief moment of company. Her husband then needs to do all the cooking and cleaning and caring for two children and looking after her and looking after himself whilst working fulltime so they can afford to live (they are barely scraping by). I usually do several more hours of unpaid labour to help her because I hate seeing her suffering.
  • The focus should be directed toward the appropriate areas of inefficiency within the system. For example, why isn’t there greater scrutiny of the high costs associated with NDIA executive salaries? Additionally, attention should be given to inefficiencies in customer service and administrative processes, the frequency of errors that have negatively impacted individuals’ plans, and the expenses related to outsourcing services to providers who often demonstrate low quality and insufficient training. There are other

Submission 1809

ways you can save money on the NDIS without penalising individual disabled people who are suffering every day, suffering so much more than any politician could perhaps understand.

The government messaging and media rhetoric around the cost of the NDIS has been incredibly triggering and harmful to disabled people and their allies. Disabled people already suffer every single day because of the ableist structures and systems that exist in the society and the ongoing weight of microaggressions that occur every single day. Australia already has a severe problem with ableism and discrimination towards disabled people. ( https://humanrights.gov.au/about-us/media-centre/opinion-pieces/disability-rights/impairment-is-part-of-human-diversity.-society-response-to-that-is-what-disables-us). I am incredibly disappointed to live in a country with a government that would rather prioritise spending on defence and helping rich people get richer, whilst demonising disabled people, some of whom have had a brief moment of support for the first time in their lives, lives which are full of suffering and struggle and disadvantage every single day.

This Bill is harmful and unethical and should not be passed by Parliament. I ask the committee what kind of Australia they want to live in - one that supports the vulnerable members of our society, or one that is focused on economics over humanity and maintains an ableist, classist system that keeps marginalised people marginalised. I also ask the committee to consult with more disabled groups in society, including their disabled Parliamentary colleagues. Jordon Steele-John is the politician who should be the most involved in this process - he has the lived experience and is engaged with the disabled community. The Government needs to listen to him and his supporters, to seek advice from the people who are living this reality. Jordon Steele-John should be the Minister for Disability, not Mark Butler. We should not have an able-bodied person representing disabled people, when they have clearly demonstrated an offensive lack of understanding of the reality of living as a disabled person.

I ask the committee to consider my lived experience as a disabled person, and my experience of working with other disabled participants when reviewing the Bill. Nothing about us, without us!