NDIA Accountability Project

Concerns regarding impacts on autistic young people and families

‹ PrevPage 1 of 33 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 1985

Submission to the Inquiry into the

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

Submitted by:​ Rebecca McCash​ Founder & CEO, FutureTech Australia

1. Executive Summary

This submission is made by Rebecca McCash, Founder and CEO of FutureTech Australia, a neurodivergent-led social enterprise supporting autistic and neurodivergent young people and families across Sydney. It is informed by my lived experience of disability, frontline work with autistic young people and families, experiencing employing neurodivergent adults, and contribution to national autism policy discussions through the National Autism Strategy Economic Inclusion Working Group.

I established FutureTech in 2021 in response to a significant gap in accessible supports for autistic young people. Since then, FutureTech has supported more than 150 young people and created employment opportunities for 20 neurodivergent adults, including pathways for former participants to become peer mentors themselves.

This submission raises serious concerns regarding the likely impacts of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 on autistic young people, families, community-based supports, and lived-experience-led organisations.

Across my work at FutureTech, I am already observing increasing fear, uncertainty, and disengagement among families interacting with the NDIS system prior to the implementation of these reforms. Many families report being afraid to request plan

Submission 1985

reviews or utilise funding flexibly due to concerns regarding funding reductions, retrospective scrutiny, or loss of supports. At the same time, many small providers and lived-experience-led organisations are operating under increasingly unsustainable conditions while attempting to continue supporting vulnerable young people and families.

A central concern of this submission is that tighter eligibility criteria, reassessment processes, and reduced access to participation supports may disproportionately impact autistic young people whose disabilities are often less visible or fluctuating in nature.

This submission also highlights the broader economic and social consequences of these reforms, including risks to neurodivergent employment pathways, increased pressure on families and schools, and reduced sustainability of small community-based support models.

While sustainability and reform of the NDIS are important objectives, reforms must not unintentionally remove the supports that help autistic young people remain connected to education, peers, family life, and community participation.

This submission makes a series of recommendations aimed at:

  • preserving access to early and community-based supports;
  • ensuring implementation processes are informed by lived experience;
  • protecting autistic young people at risk of falling through gaps in functional assessment models;
  • supporting the sustainability of lived-experience-led organisations; and
  • reducing unintended harm to disabled Australians and their families during reform implementation.

2. About the Author

I am a multiply disabled social entrepreneur, educator, and disability advocate with lived and professional experience across the disability, education, and community sectors.

I am the Founder and CEO of FutureTech Australia, a neurodivergent-led social eenterprise supporting autistic and neurodivergent young people through peer mentoring, STEAM-based learning programs, and community participation supports.

Submission 1985

In addition to my work at FutureTech, I currently work as a Neurodiversity Education Officer at The Beach School, where I am involved in piloting neurodiversity-informed educational approaches focused on wellbeing, emotional regulation, belonging, and student engagement.

I also contributed to the Economic Inclusion Working Group for the National Autism Strategy alongside Autistic Australians, researchers, advocates, and sector leaders. Through this work, I contributed to discussions regarding autistic wellbeing, employment, community participation, and systemic inclusion.

Prior to founding FutureTech, I worked across a range of disability support and advocacy roles, including support coordination, recovery coaching, inclusion consulting, and community capacity building. My work has involved collaboration with schools, universities, disability organisations, researchers, and government stakeholders.

This submission is informed by my lived experience of disability, frontline work with autistic young people and families, experience employing neurodivergent adults, and ongoing involvement in disability policy and advocacy spaces.

About FutureTech Australia

FutureTech Australia is a neurodivergent-led social enterprise established in 2021 to support autistic and neurodivergent young people to build confidence, connection, and pathways toward meaningful participation in education, community, and employment.

I founded FutureTech in response to a significant gap in accessible and community-based supports for autistic young people, particularly those experiencing social isolation, school disengagement, anxiety, and barriers to belonging within traditional educational and therapeutic environments.

FutureTech delivers peer-led programs designed by neurodivergent people for neurodivergent young people. Programs focus on:

  • social connection and peer relationships;
  • interest-led STEAM learning;
  • mentoring and role modelling;
  • emotional wellbeing;
  • self-advocacy and identity development; and
  • community participation.

Submission 1985

Since 2021, FutureTech has supported more than 150 young people and families across Sydney, including many young people at risk of school disengagement, mental health deterioration, and long-term social exclusion.

FutureTech currently employs 20 neurodivergent adults, many of whom face significant barriers to traditional employment. Our peer workforce model creates meaningful employment opportunities while also allowing young people to connect with mentors who share lived experience and understanding. We have also supported pathways for former participants to become peer mentors themselves.

The majority of FutureTech participants access supports through NDIS social and community participation funding. As a result, both the organisation and the young people we support are particularly vulnerable to reforms impacting eligibility, participation supports, and community-based service provision.

While FutureTech was initially established as an early support model focused on connection and wellbeing, I have increasingly found the organisation functioning as a critical support point for young people and families experiencing significant distress, educational disengagement, social isolation, and family exhaustion.

Across my work at FutureTech, I have consistently observed the important role that peer-led and community-based supports can play in improving wellbeing, supporting educational re-engagement, and creating meaningful participation pathways for autistic young people.

Existing Conditions Prior to Reform

4.1 Increasing Fear and Uncertainty Among Families

One of the most significant issues I am already observing through FutureTech is increasing fear, uncertainty, and disengagement among families interacting with the NDIS system prior to the implementation of these reforms.

Many families report feeling afraid to request plan reviews, seek additional supports, or utilise funding flexibly due to concerns that doing so may result in reduced funding, increased scrutiny, or the loss of existing supports altogether. Several families described continuing under outdated plans that no longer reflect their children’s current needs because they fear engaging further with the review process.

Submission 1985

This fear is changing behaviour. I have increasingly seen families:

  • delay or avoid accessing supports;
  • underutilise funding despite significant unmet needs;
  • avoid reassessment processes; and
  • disengage from the NDIS system altogether due to exhaustion and lack of trust.

One family connected to FutureTech described having multiple autistic children on plans that had been rolled over repeatedly over several years. While the children’s eeds had changed significantly over time, the family reported being too fearful to request reviews because previous attempts to seek additional supports had resulted in funding reductions. The parent described feeling exhausted, demoralised, and unable to continue navigating the system despite their children continuing to experience significant support needs.

In my experience, these examples suggest that for some families the NDIS is already functioning as a source of fear and instability rather than confidence and support.

A support system that families are too afraid to fully engage with is already malfunctioning.

Outdated and Inflexible Plans

Through my work at FutureTech, I have increasingly seen plans that no longer align with the actual support needs of autistic young people and their families.

Many young people initially entered the NDIS at a much younger age, often with goals and supports developed around early childhood intervention or clinical therapy models. Years later, many of these young people require fundamentally different forms of support, particularly around:

  • social connection;
  • peer relationships;
  • school engagement;
  • emotional regulation; and
  • community participation.

However, many families report difficulty adapting plans to reflect these changing developmental and social needs.

Submission 1985

I have repeatedly encountered situations where young people have access to limited therapeutic supports while lacking access to the peer-based and community supports having the greatest practical impact on their wellbeing, confidence, and participation.

This issue is particularly significant for autistic young people whose support needs are often participation-based and difficult to capture within traditional clinical frameworks.

Many of the young people I support may appear comparatively “lower needs” within traditional frameworks, despite experiencing:

  • severe school disengagement;
  • significant anxiety;
  • deteriorating mental health;
  • social isolation; and
  • loss of confidence and participation.

Without appropriate support, these young people are at risk of escalating into far more complex situations over time.

Workforce and Provider Instability

The uncertainty surrounding ongoing NDIS reforms is also contributing to increasing instability among small and lived-experience-led providers.

Through FutureTech, I operate within a broader ecosystem of community-based disability supports already experiencing:

  • workforce shortages;
  • increasing administrative burden;
  • rising operational costs;
  • funding uncertainty; and
  • significant emotional strain on founders and staff.

Like many small disability organisations, FutureTech relies heavily on unpaid labour, founder subsidy, and community goodwill in order to remain operational.

For the first two years of operation, I did not take a wage from the organisation. Even now, a substantial proportion of the labour required to sustain FutureTech remains unpaid, including administration, compliance, participant support, policy monitoring, advocacy, fundraising, and significant after-hours work required to keep the organisation operational.

Submission 1985

FutureTech is also supported by substantial unpaid contributions from family and community members. Without this hidden labour, the organisation would not be financially viable under current funding structures.

From discussions with others across the sector, this experience is not unique to FutureTech and reflects broader structural pressures affecting many small disability organisations and lived-experience-led services across Australia.

4.4 Administrative Burden and Policy Instability

A substantial amount of organisational capacity within small disability providers is increasingly being redirected away from direct participant support and toward navigating ongoing policy changes, compliance requirements, uncertainty, and legislative reform processes.

Over recent years, I have spent significant time attempting to understand, monitor, and respond to continual NDIS changes in order to:

  • remain operationally compliant;
  • advise families appropriately;
  • support staff;
  • adapt organisational planning; and
  • prepare for future reforms.

This administrative and policy burden reduces the time, energy, and organisational capacity available for innovation, program development, workforce support, and direct participant outcomes.

The increasing complexity and instability of the system creates particular challenges for smaller providers operating with limited administrative capacity.

4.5 Increasing Crisis Presentations Among Young People

FutureTech was originally established as an early and community-based support model focused on connection, curiosity, belonging, and peer support.

Over time, however, I have increasingly seen the organisation become a critical support point for young people and families experiencing significant crisis.

Submission 1985

FutureTech now regularly supports young people experiencing:

  • severe school disengagement, school refusal, and severe school distress;
  • significant social isolation;
  • mental health deterioration;
  • emotional dysregulation;
  • family breakdown and exhaustion;
  • loss of confidence and community connection; and
  • suicidality and self-harm risk.

Families frequently describe being unable to find supports that their children can meaningfully engage with or environments where they feel safe and understood.

For many young people, peer connection and community belonging are foundational to wellbeing, emotional regulation, and ongoing participation.

Across my work at FutureTech, I have seen young people reconnect with peers, return to educational settings, rebuild confidence, and improve emotional wellbeing after engaging in neuro-affirming, peer-led supports.

These reforms may unintentionally reduce access to supports currently helping many young people maintain stability and remain connected to education, peers, and community.

Analysis of Proposed Legislative Changes and Likely Impacts

The following section outlines key concerns regarding specific elements of the proposed legislation and their likely practical impacts on autistic young people, families, neurodivergent workers, and community-based support systems.

5.1 Tightening of Eligibility Criteria

A central concern regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 is the proposed tightening of eligibility criteria and the broader shift toward reducing the number of participants accessing the scheme.

Submission 1985

These reforms risk disproportionately impacting autistic young people whose disabilities may not always present in ways that are easily captured through narrow functional assessment models, despite those young people experiencing significant barriers to education, wellbeing, and social connection.

Many of the young people I support through FutureTech would likely not appear “high needs” within traditional or short-form assessment environments. However, this does not reflect the complexity or seriousness of the challenges they experience in daily life.

These young people are often:

  • disengaged from school or at significant risk of school refusal and severe school distress;
  • socially isolated and unable to maintain peer relationships;
  • experiencing significant anxiety and emotional dysregulation;
  • struggling with executive functioning and daily participation; and
  • at risk of long-term exclusion without appropriate support.

In many cases, these challenges are not immediately visible within highly medicalised or deficit-focused assessment processes.

One young person supported through FutureTech had become almost completely socially isolated following prolonged school disengagement and anxiety. Through peer-led community supports, they gradually rebuilt confidence, formed friendships, and began re-engaging with educational goals. Under narrower functional assessment models, this young person may not have appeared “high needs” despite being at significant risk of long-term exclusion and mental health deterioration.

A significant concern is that tighter eligibility settings may unintentionally exclude exactly the cohort most likely to benefit from early support.

The long-term human and economic costs of excluding these young people are likely to significantly outweigh any short-term savings achieved through reduced eligibility.

Submission 1985

Autistic disability often presents in ways that are highly contextual, fluctuating, and difficult to accurately capture within narrow or standardised assessment environments. Many autistic young people may appear articulate, capable, or comparatively functional during short assessment interactions while still experiencing profound barriers in their daily lives.

Through my work at FutureTech, I regularly support young people who may appear outwardly capable yet are:

- unable to attend school consistently;
- experiencing severe anxiety and burnout;
- unable to maintain friendships or social participation;
- struggling with emotional regulation; and
- dependent on significant informal family support.

A major concern is that functional capacity assessments may privilege observable or easily measurable impairment while failing to adequately capture:

- masking and compensatory behaviours;
- fluctuating disability;
- cumulative burnout;
- sensory overload;
- social exhaustion; and
- executive functioning difficulties.

This risk is particularly pronounced for autistic young people who have spent years learning to mask distress, suppress support needs, or appear compliant in professional settings despite experiencing substantial internal struggle.

I am also deeply concerned regarding the proposed large-scale reassessment process from 2028 onwards. The prospect of widespread reassessment is already creating fear and instability among families who are uncertain whether supports their children currently rely upon will continue to exist.

Repeated reassessment processes risk placing autistic young people and families into cycles of continual re-justification of disability and need. This is emotionally exhausting, retraumatising, and administratively burdensome for both participants and carers.

There is a significant risk that reassessment models focused primarily on deficit and functional impairment may fail to recognise the importance of supports that maintain stability, participation, and wellbeing over time.

Submission 1985

The “All Appropriate Treatments” Permanence Test

I am deeply concerned by the proposed strengthening of permanence requirements and the expectation that participants demonstrate they have pursued “all appropriate treatments” before being considered eligible for ongoing support.

This approach appears to reflect an increasingly medicalised understanding of disability that may not appropriately account for the realities of autistic experience, eurodivergence, or fluctuating disability.

For many autistic people, there is no singular treatment pathway that resolves disability-related barriers. Support needs are often lifelong and relate not only to impairment itself, but to the interaction between disability and inaccessible social, educational, sensory, and community environments.

A significant concern is that the “all appropriate treatments” approach may create unrealistic or harmful expectations that autistic people and families continually pursue therapies, interventions, assessments, or clinical pathways in order to justify ongoing support needs. Particularly when there is emerging evidence that many ‘gold standard’ interventions are harmful to autistic people.

This risks creating:

- increased pressure on families to pursue costly or inaccessible interventions;
- inequitable outcomes for families with fewer financial or professional
   resources;
- delays in accessing support; and
- increased participant exhaustion and burnout.

It also risks reinforcing the harmful idea that autistic people must continually attempt to “improve,” “recover,” or demonstrate treatment compliance in order to justify participation and support.

Across my work, I have consistently observed that many autistic young people benefit most not from endless cycles of clinical intervention, but from environments that support stability, participation, connection, and wellbeing.

A support system should not require disabled people and families to continually prove they have exhausted every possible avenue of treatment before being considered deserving of support.

Submission 1985

Reduction of Social and Community Participation Supports

One of my most significant concerns regarding the proposed reforms is the planned reduction in funding and access to social and community participation supports.

The majority of young people supported through FutureTech currently access supports through social and community participation funding categories. These supports are not supplementary or recreational in nature. For many young people, they are the primary mechanism through which they are able to:

  • safely connect with peers;
  • build confidence and social capacity;
  • engage with learning environments;
  • reduce isolation; and
  • participate meaningfully in community life.

Many autistic young people are unable to engage successfully in mainstream social environments, traditional extracurricular activities, or therapy-only approaches. Peer-led community supports often provide the first environments in which they feel safe, understood, and able to participate meaningfully.

Social and community participation supports are often discussed publicly as though they are optional or non-essential. In practice, social isolation, educational disengagement, and exclusion from community life are often central manifestations of disability for autistic young people.

I am deeply concerned that reductions to these funding categories may disproportionately impact autistic young people whose needs are primarily social, emotional, relational, and participation-based in nature.

Without access to these supports, many young people risk:

  • worsening mental health;
  • increased school disengagement;
  • family breakdown and exhaustion;
  • long-term social exclusion; and
  • greater future reliance on crisis and intensive support systems.

Reducing access to early and participation-focused supports risks creating significantly greater long-term human and economic costs across education, mental health, family, and crisis systems.

Submission 1985

The proposed reductions also place organisations such as FutureTech at significant risk. FutureTech currently employs 20 neurodivergent adults and has supported more than 150 young people and families. A substantial reduction in social and community participation funding would place the organisation’s future viability in serious jeopardy, alongside the supports and employment pathways it currently provides.

Ministerial Powers Under Section 34A

I hold serious concerns regarding the proposed expansion of ministerial powers under section 34A, particularly the capacity for supports and funding decisions to be altered or reduced without adequate procedural safeguards or accessible review pathways.

These changes risk significantly undermining participant trust and confidence in the NDIS.

Families connected to FutureTech are already reporting high levels of fear and uncertainty regarding plan reviews, reassessments, and funding changes. Expanding powers that enable supports to be reduced or altered without robust and accessible appeal mechanisms is likely to intensify this fear further.

A major concern is not only the direct impact of funding reductions themselves, but the behavioural consequences these reforms may create within the system.

When participants and families fear engaging with the system, they are more likely to:

  • avoid seeking support;
  • delay reassessment requests;
  • underutilise funding despite unmet needs;
  • disengage from planning processes; and
  • experience increasing distrust toward the NDIS.

This creates a system dynamic in which people become reluctant to advocate for their needs due to concerns that doing so may result in negative consequences.

For autistic young people and families already experiencing significant stress, burnout, and administrative burden, the weakening of review rights may further increase feelings of instability and powerlessness.

A support system intended to improve participation and wellbeing should not leave disabled people and families fearful of engaging with it.

Submission 1985

5.6 Reduced Review Rights and Unscheduled Reassessments

I am deeply concerned regarding the proposed expansion of unscheduled reassessment processes and the apparent reduction in accessible review rights available to participants.

Many autistic young people and families already experience the NDIS as administratively exhausting and difficult to navigate. Increased reassessment powers risk intensifying this burden considerably.

For many families, preparing for reviews or reassessments involves:

  • gathering extensive documentation;
  • obtaining costly reports;
  • repeatedly recounting distressing experiences;
  • justifying support needs;
  • managing uncertainty regarding outcomes; and
  • navigating complex and inaccessible administrative systems.

Through my work, I have seen many families already operating at or beyond capacity due to caregiving demands, school disengagement, financial stress, mental health pressures, and limited support availability.

Frequent or unpredictable reassessment processes risk creating continual instability for families who are already struggling to maintain safe and sustainable support arrangements.

There is also significant concern that reduced review rights may leave participants with limited ability to challenge decisions that substantially affect their wellbeing, participation, safety, and long-term outcomes.

For autistic young people in particular, continuity and predictability are often essential components of effective support. Systems characterised by continual reassessment and uncertainty risk undermining precisely the conditions many autistic young people require in order to participate successfully.

5.7 Risks of Automated Decision-Making and Algorithmic Processes

I hold significant concerns regarding the increased use of automated decision-making systems and algorithmic processes within the NDIS, particularly where these processes may occur without meaningful individual review or accessible appeal pathways.

Submission 1985

Disability support systems involve highly complex human circumstances that cannot be accurately captured through standardised metrics, automated systems, or simplified functional indicators.

Autistic disability in particular is often contextual, fluctuating, and influenced by environmental factors. Many autistic young people experience support needs that may not be immediately visible within narrow data-driven or standardised decision-making frameworks.

A major concern is that automated systems risk:

- oversimplifying complex disability experiences;
- reinforcing existing systemic biases;
- failing to account for fluctuating capacity;
- prioritising administrative efficiency over human outcomes; and
- reducing opportunities for contextualised decision-making.

I am especially concerned about the impact this may have on autistic young people whose presentations may appear inconsistent or situational depending on environment, stress levels, sensory load, and support availability.

There is also significant risk that increased reliance on automated systems may further distance participants and families from meaningful human engagement within the NDIS process.

Disability support decisions should not be reduced to purely algorithmic processes without robust safeguards, transparency, individualised consideration, and accessible avenues for review.

Incorrect decisions within disability systems are not administrative inconveniences. They directly affect wellbeing, education, participation, mental health, family stability, and safety.

5.8 Impacts on Self-Management and Neurodivergent Employment

I am also concerned about the potential impacts of reforms on self-management arrangements and the increasing pressure toward provider registration requirements.

Many families connected to FutureTech value self-management because it allows them to access smaller and more flexible supports that may not fit traditional service models.

Submission 1985

For many autistic young people, consistency, trust, and flexibility are critical factors in whether supports are successful. Families often choose smaller providers and peer-led organisations because these supports are more responsive and better aligned with their children’s needs.

Increased barriers to self-management or expanded registration requirements risk reducing participant choice and limiting access to smaller lived-experience-led organisations.

This concern also has significant implications for neurodivergent employment.

FutureTech currently employs 20 neurodivergent adults, including peer mentors with lived experience who provide important connection and role models for young people. Many of these staff have experienced substantial barriers within traditional employment environments and have found meaningful and sustainable work through neurodivergent-led community-based models.

If reforms reduce the viability of self-managed supports or small providers, there is significant risk that:

  • neurodivergent employment pathways will shrink;
  • lived-experience-led workforces will decline;
  • participant choice and flexibility will reduce; and
  • autistic young people will lose access to supports they currently rely upon.

The disability sector should be investing in the growth and sustainability of neurodivergent-led organisations and peer workforces rather than unintentionally creating barriers that place these models at risk.

Submission 1985

In practice, many parents of autistic young people are already functioning as:

  • full-time carers;
  • Advocates;
  • educators;
  • emotional co-regulators;
  • case managers;
  • behavioural support workers;
  • administrators; and
  • crisis responders.

Increasing expectations that families absorb even greater levels of support responsibility risks placing already exhausted families into unsustainable situations.

A significant concern is that redefining disability-related supports as ordinary parental responsibility may fail to recognise the substantial additional labour required to support autistic young people with complex emotional regulation, educational, sensory, and participation needs.

This issue is particularly concerning for families experiencing:

  • school refusal, severe school distress, and educational disengagement;
  • significant emotional dysregulation;
  • mental health deterioration;
  • social isolation;
  • family burnout; and
  • limited access to community supports.

Across my work at FutureTech, I have regularly encountered families who are already beyond exhaustion and struggling simply to maintain safety, stability, and connection for their children.

Many parents have reduced work hours, left employment entirely, or experienced significant financial and emotional strain due to the intensity of caring responsibilities.

Shifting greater responsibility onto families without adequate support risks:

  • increasing family breakdown;
  • increasing mental health pressures;
  • worsening educational disengagement;
  • reducing workforce participation among carers; and
  • shifting costs elsewhere across health, education, and social systems.

Submission 1985

Access to peer connection, mentoring, social participation, and supportive community environments cannot simply be replaced through parental effort alone.

Long-Term Human and Economic Consequences

A consistent concern throughout these proposed reforms is the extent to which short-term cost reduction measures may unintentionally create significantly greater long-term human, social, and economic costs.

I have seen the positive impact that early, community-based, and neuro-affirming supports can have on autistic young people and families. I have also seen the consequences when these supports are absent.

Without appropriate support, many autistic young people experience:

  • escalating school disengagement;
  • deteriorating mental health;
  • family breakdown and exhaustion; and
  • long-term exclusion from education, employment, and community participation.

Many of the supports currently at risk are helping young people maintain stability and remain connected to education, peers, and community.

Disability policy should not focus solely on reducing immediate expenditure without adequately considering:

  • long-term participation outcomes;
  • educational engagement;
  • family sustainability;
  • workforce participation;
  • mental health impacts;
  • crisis system costs; and
  • the broader social and economic consequences of exclusion.

The long-term costs of withdrawing support from autistic young people and families are unlikely to disappear. Instead, there is significant risk these costs will simply be redistributed across:

  • education systems;
  • emergency and mental health services;
  • families and unpaid carers;
  • homelessness and crisis supports;

Submission 1985

  • unemployment systems; and
  • broader social services.

Effective disability reform should aim not only to reduce expenditure, but to create sustainable systems that improve long-term wellbeing, participation, inclusion, and community outcomes for disabled Australians.

6. Impact on Families and Carers

6.1 Caregiver Exhaustion and Burnout

Through my work at FutureTech, I have increasingly encountered families experiencing profound levels of exhaustion, burnout, and emotional strain while attempting to navigate both disability support systems and the day-to-day realities of supporting autistic young people.

Many parents connected to FutureTech are already operating beyond sustainable capacity. In addition to ordinary parenting responsibilities, they are often simultaneously functioning as:

  • carers;
  • advocates;
  • emotional co-regulators;
  • educators;
  • administrators;
  • case managers; and
  • crisis responders.

For many families, accessing appropriate supports already requires substantial unpaid labour, including coordinating services, navigating NDIS processes, managing school communication, gathering reports, and continually advocating for their child’s needs across multiple systems.

These pressures are often intensified by long waitlists, inaccessible services, ineflexible educational environments, and difficulty finding supports that autism young people can meaningfully engage with.

In my experience, many families are already functioning in survival mode.

Submission 1985

A major concern is that these reforms will further increase pressure on families by reducing access to the supports currently helping maintain stability, connection, and safe support arrangements.

Educational Disengagement and Homeschooling Pressures

A significant number of young people supported through FutureTech are either disengaged from education entirely, experiencing chronic school distress, or at substantial risk of school refusal and severe school distress.

In many cases, families report being unable to access educational environments their children can safely and sustainably participate in without significant emotional harm.

As a result, many parents have:

  • reduced work hours;
  • left employment entirely;
  • transitioned into homeschooling arrangements;
  • become primary educational supports; or
  • significantly altered family functioning in order to maintain their child’s safety and wellbeing.

These arrangements rarely reflect genuine free choice. More often, they emerge because families have exhausted other viable options.

For many young people, community-based supports such as FutureTech become some of the only environments where they continue to experience:

  • peer connection;
  • confidence;
  • belonging;
  • engagement with learning; and
  • positive community participation.

I am deeply concerned that reducing access to these supports risks worsening educational disengagement and increasing pressure on families already carrying substantial educational and caring responsibilities.

Financial and Employment Impacts on Families

The proposed reforms also risk creating substantial financial impacts for families supporting autistic young people.

Submission 1985

Many parents connected to FutureTech have already reduced workforce participation due to the intensity of caring responsibilities and the lack of accessible or appropriate supports available for their children.

Some families report:

  • leaving employment entirely;
  • reducing to part-time work;
  • declining career opportunities;
  • experiencing significant financial instability; or
  • absorbing substantial out-of-pocket costs in order to access supports their children can meaningfully engage with.

I have also increasingly encountered families continuing to pay privately for supports despite severe financial pressure because they fear engaging with NDIS review processes or no longer trust the system to provide consistent support.

These reforms risk transferring even greater financial and caring pressures onto families without adequately recognising the cumulative impact this creates.

While reforms are often framed in terms of reducing government expenditure, sufficient attention appears to have been given to the extent to which costs may instead be transferred onto:

  • unpaid carers;
  • families;
  • schools;
  • informal support systems; and
  • community organisations.

6.4 Emotional Impact of System Instability

One of the strongest themes emerging through my work is the emotional impact that instability, uncertainty, and continual reform processes are having on disabled people and their families.

Many families describe feeling unable to plan safely for the future due to continual uncertainty regarding reassessment, funding, and support continuity.

Submission 1985

This instability is not abstract. It directly affects:

  • family wellbeing;
  • mental health;
  • parenting capacity;
  • educational engagement;
  • community participation; and
  • the ability of families to maintain sustainable support arrangements over time.

For autistic young people in particular, stability and predictability are often essential components of wellbeing and participation.

Systems characterised by continual uncertainty risk undermining precisely the conditions many autistic young people require in order to thrive.

Disability reform should not only consider financial sustainability, but also the psychological consequences created when disabled people and families no longer feel secure within the systems intended to support them.

Impact on Neurodivergent Employment and Lived-Experience-Led Organisations

7.1 Importance of Neurodivergent-Led Support Models

Through my work at FutureTech, I have seen the unique value that neurodivergent-led support models can provide for autistic young people and families.

Many of the young people who engage with FutureTech have spent years feeling misunderstood, excluded, or unsafe within traditional educational, therapeutic, and social environments. For many, engaging with neurodivergent mentors and peer workers is the first time they have encountered adults who genuinely understand their experiences without judgement or pressure to mask who they are.

This sense of understanding and safety is often foundational to whether young people are able to participate meaningfully.

Submission 1985

Neurodivergent-led organisations often provide forms of flexibility, accessibility, and lived understanding that are difficult to replicate within more traditional service models.

These approaches should not be viewed as peripheral to the disability sector. They are an important part of building systems that genuinely support participation, welbeing, and inclusion for autistic people.

Peer Workforce Pathways and Employment

FutureTech currently employs 20 neurodivergent adults, many of whom have experienced significant barriers within traditional employment settings.

For many neurodivergent people, mainstream workplaces can present substantial challenges due to:

  • sensory environments;
  • rigid communication expectations;
  • inflexible work structures;
  • lack of psychological safety;
  • stigma and discrimination; and
  • insufficient understanding of neurodivergent needs.

Peer workforce models provide opportunities for neurodivergent adults to contribute their skills, lived experience, creativity, and expertise within environments that are more flexible, affirming, and sustainable.

Importantly, these employment pathways also create meaningful outcomes for the young people accessing support.

Through FutureTech, I have seen autistic young people benefit from seeing neurodivergent adults:

  • employed meaningfully;
  • valued for their strengths;
  • contributing to community;
  • leading programs;
  • mentoring others; and
  • existing authentically without pressure to mask who they are.

For many young people, these relationships provide hope and possibility regarding their own futures.

Submission 1985

Several FutureTech mentors previously experienced significant barriers to traditional employment. Peer workforce opportunities have allowed them to contribute meaningfully within environments that better understand and accommodate neurodivergent needs while also providing important role modelling for younger participants.

I am deeply concerned that reforms which reduce the viability of peer-led and community-based supports may unintentionally reduce employment pathways for neurodivergent adults themselves.

7.3 Sustainability Challenges for Small Providers

Like many small and lived-experience-led organisations, FutureTech operates within an increasingly fragile and difficult funding environment.

While small providers often deliver highly relational, flexible, and community-responsive supports, they frequently do so with:

  • limited administrative infrastructure;
  • significant founder subsidy;
  • high levels of unpaid labour;
  • ongoing funding uncertainty; and
  • substantial emotional and operational pressure.

As outlined earlier in this submission, I did not take a wage from FutureTech for the first two years of operation. Even now, a substantial proportion of the labour required to sustain the organisation remains unpaid.

This includes not only administration and compliance work, but also:

  • family support;
  • crisis response;
  • advocacy;
  • workforce mentoring;
  • program development;
  • policy monitoring; and
  • continual adaptation to ongoing reform processes.

There is a significant disconnect between public narratives regarding inefficiency within the disability sector and the lived reality of many small providers operating at or beyond sustainable capacity simply to maintain services for vulnerable young people and families.

Submission 1985

I am deeply concerned that reforms increasing administrative burden, uncertainty, or barriers to participation may disproportionately destabilise smaller community-based organisations while reducing the diversity and flexibility of available supports.

7.4 Risks Created by Registration and Self-Management Changes

I also hold significant concerns regarding reforms that may increase barriers to self-management or place additional pressure on small providers to move toward registration models that may not be viable or appropriate for all community-based organisations.

Many families connected to FutureTech rely on self-management arrangements because they allow access to smaller and more individualised supports that may not exist within larger traditional service systems.

For many autistic young people, support effectiveness is closely connected to:

- consistency;
- trust;
- flexibility;
- sensory accessibility; and
- the ability to engage authentically.

There is significant risk that reforms reducing self-management flexibility or increasing registration barriers may unintentionally narrow the diversity of available supports and reduce participant choice.

This risk is particularly concerning for neurodivergent-led organisations and peer workforce models that may operate differently from larger, highly standardised providers.

Disability reform should aim to preserve diverse support ecosystems and strengthen participant choice rather than unintentionally creating conditions that favour only larger or more administratively resourced organisations.

7.5 Hidden Labour Within the Disability Sector

A substantial amount of work sustaining disability support systems currently remains invisible, unpaid, and unrecognised.

Submission 1985

This includes work performed by:

  • parents and carers;
  • disabled founders;
  • peer workers;
  • community members; and
  • small provider teams operating beyond funded capacity.

Through FutureTech, I have seen the extent to which many organisations rely on unpaid emotional support, advocacy, after-hours crisis response, community coordination, and informal care in order to keep young people safe and connected.

In many cases, this work exists because formal systems are already unable to adequately meet the needs of autistic young people and families.

There is a serious risk that reforms focused primarily on cost reduction may fail to recognise the extent to which disability systems are already being subsidised through unpaid work carried by disabled people, families, and community organisations themselves.

The sustainability of the disability sector cannot be understood purely through formal funding allocations while ignoring the hidden work currently holding many systems together.

Concerns Regarding Consultation and Implementation

8.1 Consultation Fatigue and Unpaid Labour

I hold significant concerns regarding the pace, scope, and implementation approach of recent NDIS reforms and the extent to which consultation processes are relying upon unpaid contributions from disabled people, families, advocates, and community organisations already operating beyond capacity.

Over recent years, I have spent substantial unpaid time attempting to:

  • understand ongoing reforms;
  • monitor policy changes;
  • analyse legislation;
  • support families to interpret changes;

Submission 1985

  • adapt organisational planning;
  • engage in consultations;
  • participate in working groups; and
  • advocate for the needs of autistic young people and families.

This work occurs alongside direct service delivery, organisational management, and frontline support responsibilities.

Many disabled people, carers, and lived-experience-led organisations are being asked to continually contribute expertise, feedback, advocacy, and crisis response without sufficient recognition of the cumulative burden this creates.

I am increasingly concerned that consultation processes risk becoming inaccessible to the very people most affected by reforms due to:

  • exhaustion;
  • financial pressure;
  • time constraints;
  • burnout;
  • caregiving responsibilities; and
  • continual policy instability.

Meaningful consultation requires more than opportunities for feedback after major decisions have already been substantially shaped. It requires:

  • accessible timeframes;
  • genuine co-design;
  • transparency;
  • appropriate resourcing; and
  • meaningful integration of lived experience into decision-making processes.

Implementation Uncertainty and System Instability

A major concern throughout these reforms is the level of uncertainty currently being experienced by participants, families, providers, and workers regarding how proposed changes will operate in practice.

Many families connected to FutureTech report feeling unable to confidently understand:

  • what supports may remain available;
  • how reassessment processes will operate;
  • whether current supports will continue;

Submission 1985

  • how functional assessments will be implemented;
  • what foundational supports will realistically exist; and
  • how future eligibility decisions may be made.

This uncertainty is already affecting behaviour and decision-making among both families and providers.

Continual instability within disability systems creates significant psychological and practical consequences for autistic young people and families who often rely heavily on predictability and consistency.

I am particularly concerned that the cumulative effect of ongoing reforms, unclear implementation pathways, reassessment fears, and changing eligibility frameworks may contribute to widespread disengagement and mistrust across the disability community.

For many autistic young people and families, prolonged uncertainty itself can become destabilising.

8.3 Risks of Policy Disconnect From Frontline Reality

Through my work across disability, education, and community sectors, I have become increasingly concerned by the disconnect between high-level policy discussions and the day-to-day realities experienced by autistic young people and families.

Many policy discussions appear to frame supports primarily through:

  • cost;
  • compliance;
  • impairment thresholds; and
  • system sustainability metrics.

While sustainability is important, these approaches may insufficiently recognise:

  • social and relational dimensions of disability;
  • the importance of belonging and community connection;
  • the cumulative impacts of exclusion and isolation;
  • the realities of autistic burnout and masking;
  • the role of preventative supports; and
  • the long-term social and economic consequences of unmet need.

Submission 1985

There remains significant risk that autistic young people whose needs are less visible, fluctuating, or contextual in nature may be underestimated within systems focused heavily on measurable functional impairment.

This is particularly concerning because many young people who appear comparatively capable externally are often those working hardest to mask distress until crisis has already occurred.

I am deeply concerned that policy settings focused too narrowly on immediate cost reduction may unintentionally dismantle supports currently helping autistic young people remain connected to education, peers, family life, and community participation.

Need for Genuine Lived Experience Leadership

Throughout my involvement in disability advocacy and policy spaces, I have consistently seen the value of genuine lived experience leadership in improving understanding, policy design, and implementation outcomes.

Lived experience is not supplementary to disability reform discussions. It is essential.

Disabled people, families, peer workers, and community-led organisations often hold forms of practical knowledge that cannot be fully captured through data, modelling, or high-level policy analysis alone.

Through FutureTech, I regularly witness:

- how young people engage differently in neuro-affirming environments;
- the impacts of peer connection and community inclusion;
- the realities of family exhaustion;
- the consequences of inaccessible systems; and
- the kinds of supports that help young people maintain stability and
  connection.

Disability reform processes must move beyond symbolic consultation and toward genuine partnership with disabled people and lived-experience-led organisations.

This includes recognising lived experience not only as personal testimony, but as a legitimate and valuable form of expertise capable of informing better policy and system design.

Submission 1985

Without meaningful lived experience leadership, there is substantial risk that reforms may unintentionally create systems that appear administratively efficient while failing to meet the actual needs of disabled people in practice.

Recommendations

Based on the concerns outlined throughout this submission, I recommend the following:

Recommendation 1

Maintain access to social and community participation supports for autistic young people, recognising these supports as preventative, participation-enabling, and essential to long-term wellbeing outcomes.

Recommendation 2

Ensure functional assessment models appropriately account for:

  • fluctuating disability;
  • masking;
  • autistic burnout;
  • social and relational barriers; and
  • invisible disability experiences.

Recommendation 3

Avoid large-scale reassessment processes that create instability, retraumatisation, and unnecessary administrative burden for autistic young people and families.

Recommendation 4

Retain robust, accessible, and independent review and appeal rights for all participants impacted by funding or eligibility decisions.

Recommendation 5

Ensure automated decision-making systems are subject to:

  • meaningful human oversight;
  • transparency requirements; and

Submission 1985

  • accessible review pathways.

Recommendation 6

Avoid policy settings that redefine disability-related support needs as ordinary parental responsibility without appropriately recognising the substantial additional caring labour performed by families.

Recommendation 7

Preserve self-management flexibility to ensure participants can continue accessing smaller, community-based, and lived-experience-led supports.

Recommendation 8

Recognise, protect, and invest in the role of neurodivergent-led organisations and peer workforce models within the disability ecosystem.

Recommendation 9

Reduce unnecessary administrative burden on participants, carers, and small providers, particularly in relation to reassessment, reporting, and compliance processes.

Recommendation 10

Ensure reform implementation processes are:

  • gradual;
  • transparent;
  • appropriately resourced; and
  • co-designed with disabled people and lived-experience-led organisations.

Recommendation 11

Provide clear and accessible guidance to families regarding plan usage, reassessment processes, and future eligibility changes in order to reduce fear, confusion, and uncertainty within the system.

Submission 1985

Recommendation 12

Ensure future disability reform processes include genuine lived experience leadership and recognise lived experience as a legitimate form of expertise within policy development, implementation, and evaluation.

10. Conclusion

This submission has outlined significant concerns regarding the likely impacts of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 on autistic young people, families, neurodivergent workers, and community-based supports.

One of the greatest risks within these reforms is that they may unintentionally exclude or destabilise support for autistic young people whose needs are less visible, fluctuating, or difficult to capture within narrow functional assessment models.

Many of the young people I support through FutureTech are not struggling because they lack intelligence, potential, or motivation. They are struggling because they are isolated, overwhelmed, exhausted, and attempting to navigate systems that often fail to meaningfully recognise or respond to their needs.

Through community-based and peer-led supports, I have repeatedly seen these same young people:

  • reconnect with peers;
  • re-engage with education;
  • rebuild confidence;
  • develop self-understanding; and
  • begin imagining positive futures for themselves again.

These outcomes are not accidental. They are the result of environments where young people feel understood, valued, and able to participate authentically.

I am deeply concerned that reforms focused too heavily on short-term cost reduction may unintentionally dismantle many of the supports currently helping autistic young people remain connected to education, community, and family life before situations escalate into crisis.

Submission 1985

I am also concerned that continual reassessment, administrative complexity, and ongoing instability risk creating a disability system that people increasingly fear engaging with rather than rely upon for support.

The sustainability of the NDIS is important. However, sustainability cannot be measured purely through immediate financial reduction without also considering:

  • long-term participation outcomes;
  • mental health impacts;
  • educational engagement;
  • family wellbeing;
  • workforce participation; and
  • the broader human and economic consequences of unmet need.

Effective disability reform should not only aim to reduce expenditure, but to build systems that genuinely enable disabled people to participate, contribute, belong, and thrive within their communities.

The young people most at risk under these reforms are often not those with the most visible disabilities, but those whose struggles are easiest to underestimate until crisis has already occurred.

There remains an opportunity to ensure these reforms are implemented in ways that protect preventative supports, preserve community participation, recognise lived experience expertise, and reduce unintended harm to autistic young people and their families.

I strongly urge the Committee to carefully consider the long-term human and social consequences of these reforms alongside any projected financial savings.

Thank you for considering my submission,

Rebecca McCash, Dip. Gov​ Founder & CEO FutureTech Association Australia Inc​ Member of Catalyst 2023, Institute of Company Directors and Social Enterprise Council of ACT and NSW​ City of Sydney Inclusion Advisory Group Member​ Neurodiversity Education Officer, Department of Education