Submission 2820
I am writing today as a disabled Australian currently trying to access the NDIS. I live with Level 2 Autism and ADHD, with Autism being the primary driver of my impairment.
The NDIS is intended to provide support to individuals with permanent and significant disabilities. However, I am concerned that the proposed Bill risks excluding disabled Australians like myself from accessing the supports they need due to reasons other than the nature of their disability. This is why, in its current state, I do not support this Bill.
For me, the impacts of my disabilities prevent me from working or studying. I am forced to rely on the Disability Support Pension as I lack support from my family. This means my capacity to fund supports that could help me work and participate in society is limited to the occasional psychologist session.
With this in mind, I hope the committee will take into consideration my following concerns, lived experience, research and recommendations when deciding on whether to amend, reject or pass the bill.
Some things I bring up are based upon the research I have done. So where appropriate, I have referenced that had the most impact on what I said to ensure there is not a long list of websites at the end of this submission.
Eligibility Change: “Appropriate Treatment” Requirement
Concern #1 - Inability to access Treatment The Bill requires individuals to undertake “appropriate treatment” before being deemed eligible for the NDIS.
However, not all disabled Australians have the same ability to access treatment. Many are unable to afford it, or are unable to access it due to location.
This may lead to individuals getting denied because of an inability to access treatment rather than their disability’s permanence. As taken from the NDIS website [source 1], this contradicts the idea that “a disability related to.. [or] caused by a permant impairment… that will significantly impact your life…[and] you’ll likely need NDIS supports for your whole life”.
For real life case evidence : the NDIA v Davis [2022] [source 2] found that an inability to accesstreatment should not prevent access to the NDIS. If a known and appropriate treatment is inaccessible to a participant due to financial or location means, then their access to the scheme should not be prevented as the treatment is not available to the participant.
Recommendation
With this in mind, I hope the committee considers amending the Bill to ensure that an inability to access treatment due to cost and location does not affect eligibility.
Reasoning is because an inability to access treatment should not define the permanence of a singular person’s impairment.
Concern #2 - Risk of harm and insufficient evidence leading to loss of choice The Bill broadly defines “appropriate treatment” as evidence-based treatments that would alleviate some impairment. However, this could lead to pressuring individuals into undergoing treatments that could pose a risk.
The following example will relate specifically to behavioural intervention with Autism, but the same principle might apply for different disabilities.
Submission 2820
From my research [source 3, source 4], compliance-based approaches, such as Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA), are widely used and supported by evidence. The goal of this treatment is to reduce impairment by increasing positive behaviours while reducing negative ones. However, there is also evidence and lived experience accounts that suggest these approaches may lead to masking, burnout, trauma and other unintended side effects. The main reason is because these approaches focus on suppressing Autistic traits - even harmless ones like stimming.
Even though I did not go through ABA as a child, I had similar experiences where I was taught by my family how to behave and act normal. This led to intense masking as I grew up, which contributed to worsening my level of impairment. I regularly get burnt out and become unable to do anything if I have to go long periods masking and pretending to put on a different me. This was especially problematic when it came to work, and was one of the reasons why I could not sustain employment.
In comparison, there are neuroaffirming approaches to help reduce some level of impairment. These approaches focus on accommodation, communication, support and emotional regulation rather than suppressing autistic traits and applauding neurotypical traits. [Source 4]
From personal experience, this is the approach my psychologist takes to help support me. We focus on how I can change my environment, ways I can regulate my emotions, and much more. And I can say it has helped to some extent, much more than masking and suppressing my autistic traits did.
Even though there is the same or more benefit from neuroaffirming approaches, they do not have the same level of evidence as compliance-based approaches.
This creates a few risks to disabled individuals: 1 . Individuals might be pressured to try treatments that have the potential to cause some harm. This is because they might lose the autonomy to choose not to pursue the treatment as it could jeopardise their chances to obtain access to the NDIS. 2 . Individuals might be pressured to undergo multiple, different treatments to try and alleviate the same impairment. This is specifically in the case where that person has already undergone treatment that has shown some benefit, but that specific treatment doesn’t have the same amount of evidence as others.
In my examples, I explain this through both compliance-based approaches and neuroaffirming approaches for behavioural intervention. However, this could be the case for other permanent disabilities.
Recommendation
With this in mind, I hope the committee considers how to amend the bill to ensure that: 1 . Refusing treatment does not invalidate a disability’s permanence and thus NDIS eligibility. 2 . Broader ranges of treatments are recognised as appropriate treatments. Especially if the treatment was tried for the individual and saw success in alleviating some level of impairment.
Concern #3 - Early Intervention Redundancy
The proposed requirement in the Bill that an applicant must try all available treatment options makes the Early Intervention funding redundant.
As quoted from the NDIS website [Source 1], a person may be eligible for the NDIS if they “have an impairment… that’s likely to be permanent… [and] early intervention supports… will reduce your need for support in the future”.
Introducing the proposed change will delay how long it takes for a disabled individual to get the support and/or treatment.
Submission 2820
Bringing back the prior concerns, this delay can take a lot longer due to financial or location means, and the need to amass the funds and travel costs.
This delay could lead to increasing an individual’s needs for support and long-term impairment, thus leading to an increase in overall costs.
I also have the personal experience to add to this. While different circumstances are at play, my friends, who were diagnosed with autism a lot earlier in life and had proper supports in place, are
able to complete both work and school or University. Both did well with ATAR andextracurriculars. In my case though, while I was able to similarly succeed, I struggled a lot. After graduating high school, when any support I had - like a structured environment - got removed, I completely crashed. Even though I succeeded, without much support, I am currently unable to do anything. And I know had I not found my psychologist and went longer without seeing her, I would be even worse. I know I would have definitely lost my friends due to my problems with social communication, and I would be constantly emotionally disregulated.
Even though I am a case of misdiagnosis leading to not being able to access supports later in life, I hope this example shows the difference in how delaying support could lead to additional problems.
Recommendation
With this in mind, I hope the committee considers how to amend the bill to ensure that the Early Intervention funding does not become useless. That it is still accessible, and that individuals with permanent impairment do not have to go years in delaying getting supports.
Overlapping Disabilities
Concern #4
The Bill proposes undoing the “whole-of-person” approach, focusing only on supports that “directly arise” from a singular impairment.
Many disabled people have overlapping disabilities that result in permanent impairment, some of which are caused by non NDIS conditions.
In my case, my Autism is the primary driver for my impairment, but the interaction between my Autism and ADHD worsens my executive dysfunction, increasing my level of need. This is especially prominent when I experience autistic burnout or overwhelm, where I become unable to do anything or start any task. A lot of the time, what this looks like is that I am stuck in place, visibly distressed, because I am overwhelmed and I become unable to force myself to move or do something to help the current situation. In this case, one form of impairment is caused by the NDIS condition (Autism), but is worsened by a non NDIS condition (ADHD).
When it came to treating my ADHD, I became so frustrated how all my problems were not solved. And it was my psychiatrist who had to tell me that because I experience multiple problems caused by a combination of disabilities, one solution won’t alleviate all the problems. Instead it will be multiple supports working together to alleviate my overall impairment. Medication being one of them.
And this could be the case for many other individuals with overlapping disabilities. When it comes to funding the supports that could aid them, trying to determine if the need for it “directly arises” from a singular impairment will be hard. This is because there are cases where the impairment arises from multiple disabilities.
Removing this approach might risk:
Submission 2820
1 . Misrepresenting an individual’s lived experience and their needs by saying a problem is caused by one condition when it is caused by multiple. 2 . Leaving participants with supports that are not useful or effective. 3 . Excluding people who have complex or multiple conditions.
It is, however, reasonable to expect that the funded support will be for an impairment that is for at least one NDIS condition. Like how it would be unreasonable for me to want funding to see my psychiatrist, which would solely be to alleviate problems caused by ADHD - there is little that medication can do to help Autism.
This is what was found in the CEO of the NDIA v Easthame case [2026], which is overtuned by the Bill. The decision was made that it is reasonable to allow funding for a support under the condition it is for at least one impairment that qualifies for NDIS access. Furthermore, it is sufficient that the participant’s impairment is a ‘contributory cause’ for needing the impairment, and it doesn’t need to be the ‘sole cause’. [Source 5]
Recommendation
With this in mind, I hope the committee considers amending the bill to ensure that individuals with overlapping disabilities are not disadvantaged when it comes to accessing the NDIS. That the “whole of a person” approach remains, or that funding supports takes into consideration interacting conditions.
Other Concerns
Concern #5 - 90 Day No response rule
The Bill proposes if the NDIA requires information from a participant, that they must take reasonable steps to ask for information, and wait 90 days for a response. A lack of response will allow the NDIA to suspend a person’s plan, and a further 90 days will allow the NDIA to remove the participant from the scheme.
However, the Bill does not require the NDIA to consider a person’s accessibility needs, or if the suspension could pose risk to the participant.
The risk lies within the approach the NDIA takes to contacting the participant, and if that approach is inaccessible for the individual.
The provided example of a reasonable approach is writing to the individual. In this case, it might leave room for: 1 . Error and delay with the mail being received, 2 . The mail never being received, 3 . Mail potentially being an inaccessible form of communication to the participant, either due to disability or location.
Overall, it puts a lot of consequences on missing one attempt to ask for information, which said attempt might not be accessible to the participant.
Recommendation
With this mind, I hope the committee considers amending the bill to ensure: 1 . That the method of communication is accessible for the participant. 2 . Multiple attempts of communication were attempted.
Concern #6 - Functional Capacity Assessments
The Bill proposes introducing a definition for functional capacity testing, and that there will be set criteria and tools to set this.
Submission 2820
While not specifically mentioned, this might lead to the implementation of standardisedassessments.
I can understand that this could help improve consistency, but changing the approach from the current one of relying on medical reports could introduce risk of misrepresenting an individual’s disability.
For example, this is a similar case with Autism. The initial assessments for Autism were created based on the visible deficits and behaviours in white boys. This created a strict set of criteria needed to be fulfilled to obtain a diagnosis. However, this criteria led to missed diagnoses in high masking individuals or individuals whose behaviour did not strictly conform to those behaviours.
In my case, I already learned how to mask when I was young, thanks to my family in their attempts to support me. This led to an inaccurate diagnosis. It was only recently when I underwent an assessment with my psychologist, someone who specialises in Autism and has extensive knowledge on my condition, was I able to get an accurate diagnosis.
The concern I have lies with what the tools and criteria will be, and who will be using them. Many disabilities are hard to capture the full range of impairment from a singular assessment, and if not
done by someone who has appropriate knowledge of the disability, could lead tomisrepresentation of the disability.
This might risk individuals getting limited support because their disability does not neatly apply to a singular set of criteria.
Recommendation
With this in mind, I hope the committee considers reverting this change in the Bill, or ensuring that an accurate representation of the individual’s functional capacity is able to be obtained. This would be in either allowing medical reports to aid in the assessment, ensuring that the assessment is specific for the disability, and/or that it is done by a medical practitioner.
Ending Note
Overall, I understand that it is important for the NDIS to remain sustainable, with the recent budget changes. However, these changes should not come at the cost of the livelihood of disabled Australians, risking their ability to function and participate in society.
Both factors of sustainability and the risk it might impose onto disabled Australians should be considered when reviewing this bill.
For these reasons, I have concerns about the Bill and do not support it. I worry it could cause harm and exclude those who require support.
When deciding on amending, rejecting or approving this bill, I hope the committee takes into consideration my concerns, lived experience, and recommendations.
Thank you for your time and consideration in reading this submission
Submission 2820
Sources
Source 1 : NDIS eligibility requirements https://www.ndis.gov.au/applying/eligibility-requirements/what-are-ndis-eligibility-requiremen ts
Source 2 : Summary of NDIA v Davis [2022], where “Known, Available and Appropriate” Treatments is clarified https://www.moray.com.au/insights-media-events/publications/government-directions/october 2022
Source 3 : Statement from Reframing Autism (a charity run by Autistic people) discussing the harms behind Applied Behavioural Analysis through lived experience. https://reframingautism.org.au/position-statement-on-therapies-and-interventions/
Source 4 : A framework for neurodiversity-affirming interventions for autistic individuals (2023) published by Matthew D Lerner and Ava N Gurba from the Department of Psychology, Stony
Brook University, and Dena Gassner from School of Social Work, Adelphi University
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10430771/
Source 5 : An article going over the CEO of the NDIA v Eastham case (2026) https://www.gtlaw.com.au/insights/federal-court-clarifies-ndis-support-funding-criteria