National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1019
NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I write this submission as both a registered psychologist working with adult NDIS participants and as an Australian taxpayer who supports the need for a sustainable, accountable, and ethically delivered disability support system. My submission is therefore through the lens of psychology and psychosocial disability.
I acknowledge that reform of the NDIS is necessary. Greater oversight, improved accountability, and stronger regulation of service providers are long overdue. However, I hold significant concerns regarding the practical and ethical implications of the proposed amendments, particularly for existing participants with psychosocial disability and complex support needs.
My concern is not with reform itself, but with reforms that appear to prioritise cost containment without sufficient regard for the real-world consequences to vulnerable participants who already have limited supports, minimal financial resources, and few to no alternative pathways to care.
I am particularly concerned about proposals that appear to increase expectations for participants to “exhaust treatment options” prior to accessing disability supports. Many individuals with psychosocial disability have already engaged in extensive treatment over many years. The issue is often not a lack of treatment effort, but the enduring functional impact that remains despite treatment.
In practice, many participants affected by these changes cannot simply be “referred elsewhere.” Public mental health services are already under immense strain, waitlists are extensive, and many participants do not have the financial capacity to privately fund psychology, occupational therapy, support coordination, or psychosocial supports if funding is reduced or removed.
Many participants with psychosocial disability do not primarily struggle with physical task performance or functional mechanics in the same way as individuals with predominantly physical disability presentations. Rather, they frequently experience difficulties related to emotional regulation, trauma, interpersonal functioning, executive dysfunction, chronic mental illness, social isolation, and maintaining stability within daily life and relationships.
Accordingly, psychosocial disability often requires nuanced and multidisciplinary supports that reflect the complexity of these presentations.
While occupational therapists play an important and valuable role within the NDIS, I am concerned by what appears to be an increasing tendency toward narrow functional models of support for psychosocial participants. In many cases, psychology, social work, or integrated multidisciplinary care may represent more clinically appropriate or complementary interventions depending on the participant’s specific needs and circumstances.
For many participants, psychologically informed supports and therapeutic relationships represent important stabilising factors that assist with safety, engagement, emotional regulation, and community participation. Abrupt reductions in access to these supports may risk destabilising vulnerable individuals who often have limited alternative supports available.
I am also concerned about increasing reliance on standardised systems, automation, and rigid reassessment processes for individuals whose presentations are inherently complex, fluctuating, and difficult to capture through simplified administrative models. Psychosocial disability often does not fit neatly within checkbox-style frameworks.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1019
There are additionally concerns regarding the consistency and clarity of decision-making currently occurring within the NDIS system. Participants frequently receive conflicting information from planners, delegates, and reviewers, many of whom appear overburdened and insufficiently supported to navigate increasingly complex policy changes. This creates confusion, instability, and distress for vulnerable participants and their families.
I have also observed concerning inconsistencies in provider accountability and continuity of care within the current system. In some cases, vulnerable participants experience prolonged periods of poor communication, fragmented coordination, or inadequate follow-up from funded supports. These gaps highlight the need for stronger regulation, oversight, and accountability mechanisms for registered providers and support coordinators.
Many participants with psychosocial disability do not have strong informal support networks, coordinated care teams, or reliable case management. In these circumstances, rapid or poorly implemented funding restrictions may contribute to destabilisation, regression and deterioration in mental health and overall functioning, increased hospital presentations, homelessness risk, and carer burnout.
When broader systems fail, clinicians are increasingly left acting as de facto case managers, crisis coordinators, and risk monitors simply to maintain participant safety and continuity of care. As psychologists, we are guided by ethical principles including beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and respect for people’s rights and dignity. I am concerned that reforms implemented without adequate safeguards risk placing both participants and treating clinicians in increasingly strained and ethically complex situations.
I encourage the Committee to consider:
• stronger regulation and oversight of providers and support coordinators, • greater investment in multidisciplinary collaboration and care coordination, • safeguards against overreliance on automated or standardised decision-making, • improved training and support for planners and reviewers, • recognition of the distinct nature of psychosocial disability within planning and funding frameworks, • more clinically informed triaging and support allocation processes that appropriately match participants to the most relevant disciplines and interventions for their needs, • and protections to ensure existing participants are not destabilised by abrupt reductions in support without viable alternative systems in place.
A sustainable NDIS is essential. However, sustainability cannot be achieved by shifting vulnerable Australians into already overwhelmed public systems or by reducing supports without adequate safeguards and replacement structures.
Reform must balance fiscal responsibility with ethical responsibility.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.