National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2769
I am an autistic NDIS participant in my early 20s. I am writing this submission because the NDIS is not a convenience — it is what keeps me functional, safe, and able to participate in society. The proposed changes would put that at serious risk.
My lived experience
With appropriate supports in place, I can manage basic routines, study, and engage with my community in a limited but meaningful way. Without them, my functioning does not simply decline — it collapses. Small increases in daily demand can trigger autistic burnout and shutdown, leaving me unable to maintain routines, communicate clearly, leave the house, or manage personal care. These are not temporary setbacks. They represent a profound and predictable loss of capacity that can take weeks or months to recover from, if recovery is possible at all.
My supports do not give me abilities beyond what is typical. They prevent a deterioration that, without intervention, is inevitable.
The human cost of blanket cuts
The proposal to reduce participant numbers and restrict funding through broad eligibility tightening is not a technical adjustment — it is a decision that will cause real and serious harm to real people.
My support needs fluctuate depending on sensory environment, fatigue, stress, and cumulative pressure. I may appear to be coping in a structured setting, but that stability exists only because supports are in place. Removing them does not reveal my true capacity. It destroys the conditions that make any capacity possible.
For me, losing NDIS access or having my funding significantly reduced would mean autistic burnout, physical and mental health deterioration, and a loss of independence I may not recover. It would mean increased anxiety, sensory overwhelm, sleep disruption, and withdrawal from education and community life. It would mean that my ability to move toward independent living — something I cannot currently do without support — would be gone entirely. These are not hypothetical risks. They are well-documented, predictable consequences of removing preventative disability supports.
Flawed assumptions causing systemic harm
The reliance on terms like “mild” or “moderate” autism reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the condition. These labels do not correspond to a linear scale of need. An autistic person can appear highly capable in one environment and experience severe disability in another. That is not inconsistency — it is the nature of the condition. A system that uses these categories to gatekeep funding will systematically exclude people whose disability is real but not always visible.
Standardised needs assessments carry the same risk. A snapshot cannot capture fluctuating, invisible disability. For autistic people, masking and short-term compensation routinely conceal the true level of support required. Assessing someone on their best day — or in an unfamiliar, high-pressure assessment setting — and using that to determine ongoing support is not accurate. It is dangerous.
Blame shifted onto the wrong people
These reforms treat participants as the primary driver of cost pressure. Disabled people are being required to repeatedly justify and prove their needs, while provider pricing, planning inconsistencies, and administrative failures receive far less scrutiny. This is a fundamental failure of accountability.
For autistic people with fluctuating or invisible disabilities, the burden of continuous justification is not merely frustrating — it is actively harmful. The stress, uncertainty, and surveillance created by these reforms will itself contribute to the deterioration they claim to be preventing.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2769
A transition built on nothing
I am gravely concerned by the proposal to move people off the NDIS onto state-based foundational supports that do not meaningfully exist. Existing community services are already overstretched, inaccessible, and unable to meet the needs of people with complex or fluctuating disability. Removing NDIS participants on the promise of future replacement systems is not a transition — it is abandonment dressed in policy language.
People will fall through the gap. Their health will deteriorate. The long-term human and economic cost will be far greater than what these cuts are projected to save.
Conclusion
Without the NDIS, I cannot live independently. I cannot reliably pursue education. I cannot maintain the baseline stability that makes participation in society possible. That is the reality this Bill puts at risk — not for a small number of edge cases, but for many thousands of people whose lives depend on these supports.
I urge the committee in the strongest possible terms to reject this Bill in its current form. Any reform to the NDIS must be grounded in genuine consultation with disabled people, accurate understanding of disability, and an unwavering commitment to individual need — not budget targets.