Autistic participants' functional capacity assessment risks systemic exclusion (Participant experience)

Submission 72

Date: 19 May 2026 Submitter Details:

To:

Committee Secretary

Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs

PO Box 6100, Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Submission to the Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for

Future Generations) Bill 2026

Introduction & Statement of PurposeI Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

While efforts to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the NDIS are understandable, several

foundational changes proposed in this Bill risk creating deep inequities for neurodivergent Australians.

This  submission  provides a  targeted  analysis  of how  specific  provisions  within  the   Bill  will

disproportionately and negatively impact autistic participants.

Autism is a lifelong neurodevelopmental condition where an individual’s functional capacity is inherently

dynamic and deeply  tethered  to  their environment,  executive  functioning  capacity, and sensory

surroundings. By  shifting toward  rigid,  clinical, and context-isolated metrics,  this  Bill inadvertently

penalises autistic individuals for their coping mechanisms (such as masking) and fails to account for the

fluctuating nature of neurodivergent support needs.

The following sections highlight key areas of concern within Schedule 1 of the Bill and offer constructive

recommendations.

1

Submission 72

Key Areas of Concern I

1. Decontextualised Definition of Functional Capacity (Schedule 1, Part 1) New section 9B attempts to evaluate “functional capacity” by isolating an individual from their

environmental and personal circumstances, evaluating what they can achieve without assistance,

assistive technology, or modifications.

• The Reality for Autistic Participants: This provision displays a fundamental misunderstanding of autism. Many autistic individuals can perform tasks successfully only when specific environmental

accommodations, sensory modifications, or structural routines are in place. Assessing a participant in

a vacuum completely understates their real-world disability.

• The Risk: It risks systematically excluding or under-funding individuals who “mask” their difficulties in clinical environments or whose functional capacity collapses when sensory and environmental

safeguards are removed.

2. Restricting Unscheduled Plan Reassessments (Schedule 1, Part 2) New section 48A sets an incredibly high threshold for participant-requested plan reassessments,

requiring proof of a “significant and ongoing” change in functional capacity directly linked to the primary

impairment, or major unanticipated changes in living, education, or work arrangements. It also extends

the Agency’s decision timeframes up to 90 days.

• The Reality for Autistic Participants: Autistic support needs do not follow a linear or static trajectory. Autistic burnout—often triggered by standard life transitions—can cause sudden,

catastrophic drops in functional capacity and adaptive behaviors.

• The Risk: Forcing vulnerable participants to wait up to 90 days for a decision while experiencing severe burnout or a co-occurring mental health crisis will directly lead to unmet needs and increased

crisis risk.

3. Hyper-Binding Supports to a Singular Impairment (Schedule 1, Part 3) Amendments to section 34(1)(aa) mandate that funded supports must arise directly from the specific

qualifying impairment.

• The Reality for Autistic Participants: Autism rarely exists in isolation. It is heavily co-occurring with executive dysfunction, ADHD, severe anxiety, sleep architecture disorders, and gastrointestinal

issues.

• The Risk: If the NDIA adopts a narrow, hyper-literal interpretation of what “directly” arises from autism, critical wraparound therapies and structural supports will be denied, leading to fragmented or

severely reduced support packages.

2

Submission 72

4. The Erasure of Co-Design through Automatic Plan Renewals (Schedule 1, Part 5) New section 50A allows the NDIA to automatically renew “old framework” plans for 12 months with

   identical text and funding levels (minus one-off funding and potential ministerial adjustments),

circumventing individualized reviews.

• The Reality for Autistic Participants: While reducing administrative friction is positive, automatic renewals can function as a trap. Autistic children and young adults undergo rapid developmental shifts

where a plan that worked 12 months ago may be wholly deficient or inappropriate today.

• The Risk: This mechanism locks in potentially inadequate plans and strips away participant voice, preventing proactive, early-intervention adjustments.

5. Onerous “Reasonable and Necessary” and Cost-Shifting Criteria (Schedule 1, Part 6) New section 17B and paragraph 34(1)(g) place heavy emphasis on structural efficiency, equity, and

shifting boundaries to other government systems or community responses.

• The Reality for Autistic Participants: Vital interventions—such as sensory regulation tools, social skills programs, and executive functioning coaching—are frequently misunderstood by traditional

bureaucratic frameworks as “ordinary life costs” or the domain of the school system.

• The Risk: Mainstream schools and community programs are chronically under-resourced to handle complex neurodivergent needs. Tightening these boundaries will trigger an intentional wave of cost

shifting, leaving families to absorb these pressures or go without.

6. Proving “Permanence” via Exhaustion of Treatment (Schedule 1, Part 8) Amendments to the permanence criteria require participants to prove they have exhausted all

appropriate, evidence-based treatments before an impairment is deemed permanent.

• The Reality for Autistic Participants: Autism is a lifelong neurodevelopmental condition. However, because autistic individuals can build skills and show behavioral variations over time through targeted

interventions, there is a dangerous administrative risk that “improvement” will be conflated with “cure”.

• The Risk: Autistic adults, late-diagnosed individuals, or those with lower formal support needs may face immense administrative barriers proving their permanence, or could be denied ongoing access

simply because they show marginal gains through intervention despite ongoing substantial needs.

Potential Long-Term Systemic ConsequencesI

If enacted without robust safeguards, these amendments risk creating a highly exclusionary system that

disproportionately harms the most vulnerable segments of the autistic community. Autistic individuals

from regional, remote, culturally diverse, or lower socioeconomic backgrounds will struggle to obtain the

hyper-specific, costly clinical evidence required to fight these rigid new thresholds.

3

Submission 72

The downstream consequence of reducing early intervention and flexible support will not save the

government money; it will merely shift the financial burden onto state mental health wards, crisis housing,

and acute family breakdowns.

Recommendations for the CommitteeI

1. Amend Section 9B (Functional Capacity): Ensure that the legislative definition of functional capacity explicitly requires the NDIA to assess an individual within their natural, real-world

environments, taking full account of sensory processing vulnerabilities and the impact of cognitive

masking.

2. Introduce an “Autistic Burnout” Clause in Part 2: Provide an explicit pathway for urgent, unscheduled plan reassessments when a participant experiences documented autistic burnout or

major developmental/life transitions, exempting them from the rigid 90-day waiting period.

3. Broaden the Impairment Linkage Rules: Ensure that the legislative rules accompanying Section 34(1)(aa) explicitly recognize common neurodivergent comorbidities (e.g., ADHD, anxiety,

executive dysfunction) as inherently linked to the primary presentation of autism.

4. Mandate Participant Consent for Renewals: Amend Section 50A to ensure that an automatic plan renewal cannot occur without the explicit, written opt-in consent of the participant or their

nominee, ensuring participant voice is maintained.

5. Establish Clear Boundaries for Mainstream Interfaces: Provide clear, binding guidelines preventing the NDIA from cutting autism-specific developmental and behavioral therapies under

the assumption that state-based education or health systems can absorb those roles.

4