Submission 2721 ` Comment on the ‘Securing the NDIS for Future Generations’ bill 2026 Dear Community Affairs Legislation Committee members, I am writing this as an Autistic young person with moderate support needs (level 2 autism). I am privileged to have parents who can afford to pay for therapy privately and provide caregiving at home. I may apply for the NDIS in the future, but the scheme is intimidating to me, especially with all the negative media coverage about Autistic people. There have been implications that autism can sometimes be neither permanent nor significant, and a lot of blame placed on the Autistic community for making up a substantial proportion of NDIS participants. I had heard about the NDIS cuts and have now read the ‘Securing the NDIS for Future Generations’ bill. I have several comments, concerns and recommendations which I have written below, structured according to the Bill’s schedules and parts. Ultimately, I am concerned that the government is prioritising financial goals over the rights of disabled people. The changes outlined will compromise the NDIS’s ability to provide reasonable and necessary supports and choice and control to participants.
Schedule 1: access and planning measures Part 1: defining functional capacity I appreciate the new definition as it acknowledges that while some of us can function with support from other people, assistive technology and/or modifications, our functional capacity is still limited. I hope this definition is applied appropriately and allows disabled people’s difficulties to be acknowledged and addressed under the NDIS.
Part 2: limit unscheduled plan reassessments Whether a change in support needs is judged as significant, ongoing, substantial, related to an activity and arising from an existing, new or acquired impairment can be very subjective. Likewise, whether someone’s alteration in personal or environmental circumstances is unanticipated, significant and ongoing can be subjective. With big goals to cut around 174,000 NDIS participants and reduce NDIS funding (despite a growing disabled population), it seems likely to me that the threshold for ‘significance’ will rise more and more. I am concerned that the subjective nature of these terms will mean reassessments are regularly refused, particularly if the prior assessments led to a reduction in funding. Please remove these barriers to plan reassessments. People don’t seek reassessment for fun; it sounds stressful and unpleasant and they are most likely asking because they need one.
Submission 2721 `
Part 3: strengthen link between an impairment and need for support Needing an issue to ‘directly’ arise from an impairment may again be used to deny support. I am concerned about who will be making that determination. Many conditions or impairments fluctuate and impact one another, and it may not always be clear enough to determine which impairment/s are ‘directly’ causing an issue. I would like to see a clearer definition of what “directly arising” and just “arising” mean, as well as clarity around who makes the distinction (and if they are appropriately qualified).
Part 4: support determinations Large reductions in funding for a specified group of supports will undoubtedly cause harm. This is clearly a financial decision, rather than a choice to uphold the rights of disabled people. This is evident in 34A(5), which shows the government is willing to let reasonable and necessary supports go unfunded. Social, civic and community participation support funding has been incorrectly framed as frivolous online. Headlines will say NDIS pays for haircuts or going to the movies, but it’s really paying a support worker so disabled people can participate like anyone else. The idea of disabled people living luxuriously from the government’s credit card is a fantasy used to make us a scapegoat for Australia’s problems. Please listen to disabled people who will be impacted by these decisions most. I urge you to realign with the values of the NDIS and make funding decisions based on individual support needs, not government financial goals.
Part 6: reasonable and necessary supports 60(d) demonstrates the core issue of this bill, which is choosing to support disabled people less to save the government money. It is upsetting to see that reasonable and necessary supports (which are already quite restrictive terms) will now only be provided if they are consistent with the financial sustainability of the NDIS. If there are lots of people who need support which is reasonable for the government to provide, we need to prioritise that in the budget! I am glad 73(1B)(b) mentioned that buying equipment can be more value for money, as repeatedly renting an important item can be a waste of money and frustrating for participants. In 73(1E), I am disappointed to see patient outcomes as the third priority for deciding what may be effective and beneficial for them. I prefer the evidence-based practice model where patient preference, clinician expertise and research evidence work together equally. I don’t want to see disabled people’s quality of life sacrificed for the government’s budget, and I hope the principles of choice and control are further considered and honoured in this bill.
Submission 2721 `
Part 8: tightening meaning of permanence to reduce access where an impairment can be treated The disclaimer in 92(25A)(2) will further restrict access to support for vulnerable population groups. It is concerning that people who live in rural and remote areas or are financially disadvantaged do not have their individual circumstances considered when it comes to accessing “all appropriate treatment”. These groups are already at greater risk of illness, injury and disability, and denying support unless they travel great distances or afford expensive treatments may lead to worse health outcomes (and more significant permanent disability). I would prefer the term “reasonable treatment”, as it recognises that individual circumstances can make a treatment unreasonable (even if it is considered appropriate). E.g. a daily treatment program in the city sounds appropriate to the government but would be unreasonable for a single mother from a rural area whose children attend a local school.
Schedule 3: government arrangements Part 2: automation of administrative action The language in this section is quite vague, but it seems like this is authorising the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and various computer programs or algorithms in the NDIS. Using AI and algorithms to make decisions for NDIS participants is dehumanizing and wrong. AI is trained from human data and has picked up our worst prejudices and perpetuates them. The decision making of an AI program or algorithm is less transparent or trustworthy than people who are trained to help us. We deserve to be spoken to by human beings, who have the insight and empathy to help us navigate a challenging system. It is so detached and cold for someone to potentially be denied support by a robot. I recognise the government is unlikely to abandon AI, but it would at least help to require human involvement at every stage. Both to hold it accountable but also to provide some social connection (especially given social, civic and community participation supports are down 50%!). `
Thank you sincerely for taking the time to read my submission. I hope disabled people’s voices are heard and positive changes are made to the bill moving forward.