It is Friday afternoon. I have been home all week. There is something on tonight that I have been looking forward to, and for once, I have the energy to go. I get dressed. Then I check my remaining support hours. Going tonight would leave me short of assistance for an appointment next week. I put my comfortable clothes back on and tell the friend expecting me that I cannot make it. I spent the evening at home, knowing I was ready to go and that I needed help I could not afford. That is a scenario I fear as my NDIS plan comes up for renewal and I face a 50% reduction in my social and community participation budget. The government is progressively introducing this reduction as affected plans are created, reassessed or renewed.[1] I am frightened of what repeated decisions like that could do to me. After enough cancelled plans, I could stop getting ready. Eventually, I might stop looking for things to attend because getting interested would mean setting myself up for another disappointment. I know how much it matters to have something in my week that I genuinely want to do. Having the support to get there affects whether I can build a life I enjoy. I do not want appointments to become the main reason I leave my house. My life matters to me beyond the tasks required to keep it functioning. Choice and control are central principles of the NDIS, alongside independence and participation. Yet a predetermined reduction to an entire funding category leaves me wondering how much influence my actual circumstances will have.[2] A reduction in funding will affect people differently and does not automatically mean everyone loses half their current support hours. What matters to me is whether the funding left will be enough for the life I am trying to live.[1] That includes **autonomy**. I want enough flexibility to accept an invitation when I am well enough to go. Disability already demands planning. I resent the prospect of having to ration participation even further. The social model of disability recognises the barriers created by inaccessible environments and social attitudes. Individual assistance can help remove those barriers. Referring someone to a community activity does not establish that they can access it or that it meets their support needs.[3] I want to choose activities I am interested in. Being directed towards whatever program happens to be available would not give me the same freedom. Functional capacity assessments also need scrutiny. The NDIA uses them to help determine the supports someone needs. I want those assessments to account for what happens outside the appointment.[4] Energy fluctuates. Someone may complete a task and need hours to recover. An assessor needs to understand what that effort costs and whether the person can sustain it alongside everyday demands. Familiarity matters too. Managing a known environment tells us little about navigating an unfamiliar one. The assistance someone needs can change with the circumstances. Existing support also needs to be recognised. If assistance helps someone arrive organised and participate confidently, their presentation should not be treated as evidence that the assistance is unnecessary. I hate the thought of having to explain my hardest experiences in enough detail to convince a stranger, while knowing that communicating clearly could itself be misunderstood. I want evidence from everyday life to count, including what happens afterwards when I have pushed myself through something. The government has acknowledged that its developing functional capacity assessment approach must consider fluctuating and episodic impairments. That needs to be reflected in funding decisions.[1] I also want far greater scrutiny of providers who exploit participants. Claiming payment for support that was never delivered is fraud, as the NDIS Commission makes clear. Participants should not bear the consequences of someone else treating their funding as an opportunity to extract money.[5] Poor quality support needs attention as well. Providers should take responsibility for relevant training and supervision. Paying for assistance should not require a participant to repeatedly explain basic requirements to workers who have been sent without adequate preparation. I expect competence from support coordinators and local area coordinators too. NDIA planners have different responsibilities, but their decisions also require a genuine understanding of disability. When someone does not understand a participant’s needs, they need to investigate before deciding what is enough. The NDIS Commission’s practice standards recognise informed choice and control, including participants’ rights to express themselves and to make decisions. I want those rights to carry weight when support is being funded and delivered.[6] I accept that public money requires accountability. I want dishonest providers investigated and inadequate services addressed. Cutting a participant’s assistance does not resolve either problem. As my renewal approaches, I am angry that I have to think about which parts of my life might become harder to access. I am already doing the work of living with disability. I want support that gives me room to enjoy being alive. I want to get dressed for something I am looking forward to and actually leave the house. #NDIS #DisabilityRights #ChoiceAndControl