NDIA Accountability Project

Impact of NDIS changes on participants with Autism and their carers

‹ PrevPage 1 of 4 · Source p. 1Next ›

Commonwealth Senate Inquiry into National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission Details

I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

I am writing to you as a Carer and Nominee of NDIS Participants. I have grave concerns regarding the proposed changes to this Amendment Bill that has been put before Parliament and the Senate. I believe this Amendment Bill to be detrimental to the well-being of the disabled community in Australia and is only concerned with cost-cutting and cost-shifting. It is not considering the impacts that these changes will have on people’s lives and does not adhere to the very principles that the NDIS was built on.

Our life before the NDS was difficult. There were NO formal supports available to us. State disability services did not consider Autism as a severe disability and therefore there was no funding. We had to learn about living with Autism and pay for therapy supports out of our own pocket and should we be put back into this position, we cannot afford supports due to the increased costs due to the implementation of the NDIS price guide and the cost of living pressures that our country currently faces.

When the NDIS was rolled out in our area, we were able to get in-home support which has made the world of difference. Prior to the NDIS rollout, I would say to therapists, “I wish I could take you home so you can see what life is like and how we can implement strategies first-hand”. People with Autism benefit from therapy but learning first-hand how to implement and manage strategies into their daily life is extremely difficult without ongoing support. Now with ongoing support, the participants I support have a chance to continue their education and to enter the workforce. With ongoing support, they have a chance to become functioning members of society who will eventually give back to society. As participants with Autism, they will always have challenges but by having formalised supports in place, this gives them the reassurance to continue to move forward.

Supports for people with disabilities may change over time, as with all of us, our needs change depending on where we find ourselves in life. The supports of my participants currently have will change as they move into the workforce, but they will still require some level of support regardless. As a nominee for another participant with Autism, I have seen firsthand how they have not been able to maintain mainstream employment and have had to work for themselves. However, maintaining a small business and working alone consumes this participant’s mental energy to the point that their ability to function becomes limited and has greatly impacted their daily living where their health and hygiene have become problematic. NDIS supports have helped this participant to address these concerns

Page 2

and without them, could place them at a significant risk of Autistic Burnout. Should ongoing supports not be provided to participants with Autism, the risk of Autistic Burnout is extremely high. As a society we should be doing everything possible to prevent Autistic Burnout, as recovery from it is very low and will place additional demands on other societal systems.

Autism is the “invisible disability” and as such often gets overlooked as a significant disability. Autism is a not a one size fits all diagnosis. It is a pervasive development disorder and as such is multi-faceted; not one individual with Autism is the same and management strategies differ from person to person. It is my greatest fear that Autism is not seen as “significant enough” to be covered under the NDIS moving forward. This is a huge mistake. People with Autism with the right supports can become functional members of society. The key here is, “supports leads to function”. Without supports, people with Autism will not function and will end up on Centrelink benefits, unemployed, unable to access appropriate health and mental health care, become homeless or be placed in State care from abuse or neglect. This will put pressure on other areas of society that could be avoided if the NDIS is set up in a way to provide adequate, ongoing supports. This is true not only for people with Autism but for ALL disabilities.

I think the proposed NDIS changes misses the mark in a number of areas. Firstly, removing diagnosis from the eligibility criteria makes no sense. If a person has a disability, they are given a diagnosis. Diagnosis does not have to be the only eligibility criteria, but it is an important element to establishing a disability. Secondly, if a medical specialist has given you a disability diagnosis, it should be their responsibility to medically assess whether this is permanent and lifelong. Removing the terms, “permanent and lifelong” from the eligibility criteria is also a mistake as it demonstrates that the disability is not curable and will require ongoing management. By removing diagnosis and replacing “permanent and lifelong” criterias’ with “all treatment options must be exhausted”, basically rules out the majority of people with a disability and suggests that a person with a disability can be cured. This is a grave misconception and is an extremely dangerous assumption to make. I say this, as people living with a disability will be subject to ongoing treatment as part of managing their disability. Whether this is medical or therapy, it is still a form of treatment. This proposed criteria is not adequate and is too narrow in focus and is therefore unacceptable and should not be changed from the existing criteria.

Currently, NDIS requires all participants to undergo a Functional Assessment before any formal reviews or submissions for change to their NDIS Plans can be made. What participants have largely experienced is that these assessments are costly and even though they are covered by the participants plan, the NDIS does not read them nor understand the recommendations in them and have failed to provide adequate plans, which then result in the participant taking the NDIS to the Administrative Reviews Tribunal (ART) to have the decision overturned. There are a number of points to be made here.

Firstly, Functional Assessments when designed and used properly are a good tool to determine a person’s function of their daily life. It is my understanding that the proposed I- Can Functional Assessment tool which the Federal Government has had developed is a good assessment and has been developed by Allied Health Practitioners. This assessment tool

  • was designed to be implemented by Allied Health Practitioners however, it is not the intention of the Federal Government to use qualified Allied Health Practitioners to conduct this assessment as they have previously announced that they have employed 86 Allied Health Practitioners to “train” non-Allied Health Workers to conduct the Functional Assessment. This is not best practice! In fact, these workers would not have the insight into the complexities of a disability and as such, I don’t think that they would be able to make appropriate recommendations. There is also no transparency from the Federal Government regarding any professional Allied Health Practitioner oversight should a non- Allied Health Care Worker conduct this assessment. I personally think that if a qualified Allied Health Practitioner was to conduct this assessment, the overall long-term costs to the NDIA would be better as less complaints would be made to the Administrative Reviews Tribunal. Currently the NDIA are shelling out millions in legal fees to represent themselves in the Administrative Reviews Tribunal and this could be reduced if the right, qualified Allied Health Practitioners could make thorough assessments and recommendations that not only benefit the participant but also the overall costs to the NDIS.

Secondly, I am concerned about the proposed inclusion of automated decision-making. I believe that this removes the scope for best practice made by qualified Allied Health Practitioners. I do not want to see the NDIS follow the same path as Aged Care where automated decision-making has been applied with no human oversight and where participants are left with insufficient supports.

Thirdly, I do not agree that the Minister should have powers to cut NDIS budgets without sufficient evidence. All NDIS plans should be reviewed first and include an updated Functional Assessment. Cutting NDIS budgets without sufficient evidence, violates the rights of a person with a disability and therefore eliminates inclusion in decision-making.

Fourthly, the Bill proposes that NDIS funding not used, should not be rolled over at the end date of an NDIS Plan. The reason why plans have been rolled over is because NDIS partners cannot keep up with the number of reviews required. Plans are supposed to be reviewed every 12 months, but this does not happen. Funds are rolled over which then keeps them in line with yearly CPI increases which allows participants to access their supports. If yearly reviews cannot occur and a participant’s plan is rolled over and their funding is returned to the previous year’s level with no CPI indexation, then the participants NDIS plan becomes unsustainable. Furthermore, there are times where participants cannot access certain supports within a 12 month timeframe given the waitlists that exist with service providers to access supports.

Fifthly, I do not agree with the proposed changes to the powers given to the Administrative Reviews Tribunal. A person with a disability needs to have the right to challenge decisions, especially if they are unlawfully made or have been given NDIS Plans that are inadequate. By putting limitations around the Administrative Reviews Tribunal whereby they are only allowed to request a further Functional Assessment to be conducted is not an appropriate outcome, especially if the assessment tool has not been implemented appropriately. This approach only creates more barriers to the participant with a disability.

It is frankly disturbing that the Federal Government is saying the NDIS is unsustainable in its current form without discussing this with the disability community. Instead, they have seen it fit to tighten eligibility criteria to reduce the numbers of participants accessing the NDIS who truly need supports. It is also alarming that the Federal Government can say that people can access “foundational supports” outside of the NDIS or access alternative health systems which do not exist or have not yet been established in the timeframes they wish to implement this proposed legislation. There is no forward planning, only passing the buck.

The Federal Government are using the narrative that the NDIS is being wroughted by “fraudsters and crooks”, however other than mandating registration requirements, it seems that they are punishing participants for these blowouts. I would encourage the Senate to compare the numbers of fraud across all Federal Government Departments to see if the figures for fraud in the NDIS are in fact ballooning or whether they are comparable.

Lastly, I would urge the Senate to block this Bill in its current form. It is not written in the spirit that the NDIS was intended. In its current form it is discriminatory and does not consider the rights of people with a disability. It does not provide room for dignity and inclusion. What this Bill currently outlines is that all people with a disability are a burden to society and that they don’t have the right to exist and live their best lives. People with a disability can add value to society if they are supported correctly and we ask that the Senate seriously consider this in their decision-making and encourage the Federal Government to go back to the drawing board and consult with the disability community about how they can best plan for a sustainable future for the NDIS.

Thank you for your consideration.