Submission to the Senate Inquiry on Proposed NDIS Reforms

From an adult male participant with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Level 2, living in Karratha, regional Western Australia

I am an adult male living with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Level 2 in Karratha, regional Western Australia. Autism is a permanent disability, and I will require ongoing support for life. As I grow older, my needs change, and until now the NDIS has provided funding to assist with these evolving needs. The current proposal by the Federal Government means that these supports may be minimised or cut completely.

The NDIS has had a profoundly positive impact on my life. With the right mix of flexible supports, I have been able to study at TAFE and work casually. These achievements were not possible before the NDIS and are only possible now because I receive multiple supports throughout the week to manage daily living, emotional regulation, social interaction, and the demands of work and study. These supports work together. Without them, I would not be able to continue studying or working. The NDIS is not creating dependence, it is enabling participation, contribution, and dignity.

Living in Karratha significantly limits my access to services. Providers are scarce, waitlists are long, costs are higher, and many supports that may exist in metropolitan areas are simply not available here. As it currently stands, providers charge more for their services because we are remote and the cost of living and running a business are considerably higher than in Perth. My allocated 30 hours of support equals approximately 15–20 hours in Karratha. With additional cuts to my plan, these support hours will drop drastically. Any expectation that I could access alternative “available treatments” ignores the reality of regional Australia.

If my NDIS supports were reduced or removed, the impact would be devastating. I would not be able to maintain employment or continue studying. Years of progress would unravel quickly. My anxiety would escalate, my mental health would deteriorate, and my independence would collapse. The consequences would be immediate and severe. When I do not have adequate support, it is not resilience or independence, it is distress, shutdown, and crisis. This would place further financial pressure on my family to ensure I receive the supports I need. With two siblings also diagnosed with ASD, the cost that will fall on my family would be astronomical.

I am deeply concerned about proposed changes to the definition of “permanence”. Autism does not go away. There is no cure. Requiring autistic adults like me to repeatedly prove permanence or to exhaust “all available treatments”, particularly

When Those Treatments Are Inaccessible Or Unavailable In Regional Areas

When those treatments are inaccessible or unavailable in regional areas, places an unfair burden on people with disabilities.

Australia has obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to ensure people with disabilities have equal access to supports and opportunities. Reforms that reduce access, flexibility, or certainty of NDIS supports risk undermining these obligations and disproportionately harm people living in regional and remote communities.

The NDIS is working for me. It is allowing me, as an autistic adult in regional Australia, to study, work, and participate in the community. I urge the Senate to reject reforms that would remove or restrict these vital supports. Doing so would not save money; it would cause irreparable harm.

Direct Response To The Proposed NdIs Amendment Bill And Specific Legislative Changes

I am particularly concerned about the Federal Government’s proposed changes contained in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2024, especially amendments to sections 24 and 25 of the NDIS Act, which relate to access criteria and the concept of “permanence”. The requirement that participants demonstrate all “available and appropriate” treatments have been tried before being considered eligible fails to recognise that there is no cure for autism and that many treatments are either inappropriate, unavailable, or inaccessible, especially in regional areas like Karratha.

The Bill’s language risks excluding people with permanent disabilities based on theoretical access to services rather than real-world availability. Treating supports as “available” in law, when they are not accessible in practice, creates an unreasonable and discriminatory barrier to the Scheme.

I am also concerned about proposed changes to section 34, which governs what supports are considered “reasonable and necessary”. Moves towards tighter rules, reduced flexibility, and greater reliance on predetermined budgets fail to account for how supports interact in real life. My ability to study and work depends on a combination of supports across daily living, social participation, capacity building, employment, and relationships. These supports cannot be separated without causing harm.

The Bill’s emphasis on limiting funded supports and shifting responsibility to mainstream or informal systems ignores the reality that those systems are already inaccessible for autistic people, particularly in regional communities. Removing NDIS

• Supports will not result in those needs being met elsewhere, it will result in withdrawal, mental health deterioration, and crisis.

• These proposed reforms also raise serious concerns in relation to Australia’s obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly the rights to equality, participation, and reasonable support to live independently. Changes that disproportionately impact autistic people and regional participants risk entrenching inequality rather than addressing it.

• The NDIS is currently working for me. The progress I have made in education, employment, and community participation exists only because appropriate supports are in place. Legislative changes that narrow eligibility, redefine permanence, or restrict flexible supports will dismantle these outcomes and cause significant harm.

• I urge the Senate to closely scrutinise these proposed amendments and to reject changes that undermine the original intent of the NDIS: to support people with permanent disability to live full and contributing lives.