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

Submission 1816

I am writing this submission as someone with a background in Public Health specialising in health systems and policy, as an autistic adult with lived experience accessing the NDIS, and as a current employee of an NDIS provider. I am making this submission out of deep concern that the proposed amendments to the NDIS Act will have significant and detrimental impacts on both current and prospective participants.

While I acknowledge that the Scheme requires thoughtful adjustments to ensure long-term sustainability, the mechanisms proposed in this Bill will undermine the very goals of clarity, consistency, and equity. Although there are numerous potential pitfalls across the breadth of amendments, my submission focuses specifically on the proposed redefinition of functional capacity, which I believe will systematically underestimate disability for cohorts with psychosocial disability, intellectual disability, and autism.

The revised definition in Schedule 1, Part 1, s9B states that:

 "A person’s functional capacity… is the person’s ability to undertake the activity without assistance… and in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances." 

This represents a fundamental departure from the NDIS Act’s original social model of disability, which recognises disability as arising from the interaction between a person’s impairment and their environment. For disabilities such as autism, which are inherently context-dependent, functional capacity cannot be meaningfully assessed without considering factors such as:

• sensory environment
• social demands
• predictability and routine
• communication context
• executive functioning load
• masking and burnout

All of these are either stripped from the proposed definition or rendered invisible depending on the circumstances of the assessment on the day. Many autistic adults, particularly those diagnosed later in life, have developed compensatory strategies that mask impairment in structured or artificial settings. This disproportionately disadvantages women and minorities, who research shows are more likely to mask and therefore more likely to be mis-assessed under a context-free model.

I have personally benefitted greatly from the NDIS. Access to supports has enabled me to obtain and maintain full-time employment in a role aligned with my skills and education, after years of underemployment, burnout, and cycling through part-time roles. My continued contribution to the workforce is contingent on these supports being maintained. Under the proposed definition of functional capacity, I would likely be assessed as ineligible. On the surface, it may appear that I can perform most activities of daily living without assistance; however, doing so without support comes at a significant cost to my long-term wellbeing.

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

Submission 1816

function until I burn out, at which point I am unable to perform even basic tasks without substantial assistance. The recovery required to return to baseline far exceeds the cost of ongoing preventative support.

To rectify this, I strongly recommend amending s9B to restore contextual assessment, including:

• reinstating the WHO ICF model as originally intended
• requiring functional assessment across multiple real-world contexts
• ensuring that environmental and personal circumstances remain central to determining functional capacity

These changes would align the Bill with the Act’s foundational principles, uphold the social model of disability, and prevent the systematic exclusion of those whose disability is inseparable from context.