Submission on the NDIS Amendment Bill

Name:

I am a: Disabled person and Clinician (Developmental Educator & Relationships and Sexuality Educator)

1. My connection to this issue

I am an autistic and adhd Developmental Educator and relationships and sexuality educator. I have worked within the NDIS for the last 9 years in a variety of roles from support work to my current role as a Developmental Educator, my work centres on supporting people with intellectual, psychosocial, sensory, and communication disabilities to build skills, stay safe, and participate meaningfully in their communities.

2. My overall view of this Bill

I have serious concerns about this Bill, particularly its hard-and-fast rules, lack of alternative mainstream pathways, and the limited avenues for participants to advocate if they receive inadequate funding. There has also been a distinct lack of communication and co-design with disabled people, the very people whose lives will be most affected.

The Bill represents a shift toward rationing, cost-cutting, and standardisation, including expanded powers for the Minister to reduce funding categories and increased use of automated decision-making. These changes risk undermining safety, autonomy, and long-term outcomes for participants.

3. My main concerns

4. Loss or reduction of supports

What my concern is

The Bill introduces rigid rules and narrow eligibility pathways that risk reducing or removing essential supports for people whose needs do not fit neatly into prescriptive categories. Many participants, particularly those with fluctuating, psychosocial, intellectual, or neurological disabilities, may lose access to supports that currently keep them safe, connected, and progressing toward their goals.

The proposed power for the Minister to apply percentage cuts across entire support categories (for example, an 80% reduction to capacity-building supports) is especially alarming. This approach cannot account for individual need and will inevitably create risk.

Why it matters to me

As an autistic and ADHD Developmental Educator who has worked across the NDIS for nine years, I have seen firsthand how easily people fall through gaps when systems prioritise rules over lived experience. My clients rely on flexible, relational,

Page 2

Rights-Based Supports

rights-based supports to build skills, regulate, communicate, and participate meaningfully. When supports are reduced, the impact shows up as regression, isolation, increased risk, and preventable crises. This Bill will disproportionately harm the very people the scheme was designed to uphold.

Community Participation

What my concern is

The Bill narrows what is considered “reasonable” community participation, reframing it as optional rather than essential. It fails to recognise that community access is a core component of safety, wellbeing, and independence.

Why it matters to me

My work focuses on connection, belonging, identity, and relationships. For many disabled people, community participation is where they practise communication, build friendships, reduce vulnerability, and develop confidence. Restricting this area will have long-term consequences for safety, wellbeing, and autonomy. As a neurodivergent clinician, I know personally how vital it is to have environments and supports that make participation possible.

Crisis situations and “not contactable” rules

What my concern is

The Bill introduces punitive rules around participants being “not contactable,” which may lead to withdrawal of supports during periods of crisis, shutdown, burnout, or instability. These rules do not reflect how disability presents in real life.

Why it matters to me

Many people I support experience shutdowns, executive dysfunction, trauma responses, or communication barriers during stress. These are not signs of disengagement; they are signs that support is needed more. As an autistic and ADHD practitioner, I understand how easily someone can become unreachable during overwhelm. Removing supports at the exact moment a person is least able to advocate for themselves is dangerous and will increase crisis presentations, hospitalisations, and long-term system costs.

I oppose this Bill as it currently stands. It does not uphold the rights, safety, or dignity of disabled people. It prioritises cost-cutting over lived experience, and it introduces mechanisms, including broad funding cuts and increased automation, that will create harm across the system. A scheme that claims to be financially sustainable must first be socially sustainable. That requires genuine co-design, transparency, and respect for disabled people’s expertise in our own lives.

4. My suggestions (five key recommendations)

1. Restore rights-based principles

Reinstate explicit references to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities so the scheme remains grounded in autonomy, choice, and personalised support rather than cost-containment.

2. Remove broad ministerial powers to cut supports

Withdraw the proposed power allowing the Minister to apply percentage cuts across entire support categories. Any major funding changes must require parliamentary scrutiny and disability-led consultation.

3. Assess functional capacity in real-world contexts

Amend the definition of functional capacity so assessments consider a person’s environment, sensory load, communication needs, and the presence or absence of supports & not hypothetical performance in isolation.

4. Consider overlapping disabilities holistically

Ensure planning and eligibility processes recognise the combined impact of multiple conditions. Many participants have intersecting cognitive, psychosocial, sensory, and physical disabilities that cannot be separated into neat categories.

5. Prohibit unsafe automation in decision-making

Guarantee that automated tools cannot replace professional judgement. Require human oversight, transparent reasoning, and accessible appeal pathways for all automated or algorithm-assisted decisions.