Submission 1415

To whom it may concern,

I am an occupational therapist working in a paediatric clinic and a small business owner providing services to children with disability and their families. I am also the parent of an adult daughter with major disability who is an NDIS participant. I oppose key parts of this Bill because they risk reducing supports, increasing reliance on narrow assessment processes, limiting review pathways, and further destabilising the services that families in our community depend on.

My concerns are not abstract. In my daughter’s case, significant intellectual impairment confirmed by WISC assessment and physical impairment, both previously accepted and diagnosed by her paediatrician when she was a child, were effectively removed or disregarded in NDIS decision-making without consultation or warning in the past week. She also has ASD level 3, yet despite clear evidence, including an occupational therapy report, when we applied for Supported Independent Living (SIL) her existing supports were suddenly reduced to make her ineligible for SIL, and we were informed that, despite the reports we have provided for the past five to six years, her assessor considered that she could live independently with little support. There was no evidence provided to justify that conclusion. We are now in a prolonged battle to restore supports that had already been secured to help her work towards living out of home safely and with appropriate support. Many families do not have the background or resilience to engage in these sorts of battles; for us this is the second time.

This reflects a broader and deeply troubling pattern. Detailed OT reports are of little value if decision-makers lack the knowledge to interpret functional evidence and instead rely on assumptions that are inconsistent with disability, development and real-world support needs. In paediatric practice, I have seen similar comments made to families, including suggestions that young children with Down syndrome and severe physical impairment “will recover”, as though lifelong disability and its functional impact are temporary or self-resolving. These decisions are not only clinically unsound; they are harmful, dismissive and destabilising for families.

This Bill is especially concerning in that context because it would increase reliance on standardised, “evidence-based” assessments of functional capacity and reduce the space for occupational therapists to exercise professional judgement. It is likely to disadvantage people whose needs are complex, fluctuating, cumulative or not easily captured by standardised

Submission 1415

tools, particularly when assessors do not have the skills, remit or time to properly understand functional evidence.

I am also deeply concerned about the proposed reductions from 1 October 2026, including a 10% cut to capacity building daily activity supports and a 50% cut to social, civic and community participation supports. These supports are central to building independence, sustaining routines, enabling school and community participation, and reducing pressure on families and carers. The broad application of an arbitrary percentage reduction is disrespectful and unfair, particularly for families and individuals who have fought hard to justify their needs and have their supports increased to a reasonable level, only to have them cut again.

For OT businesses, these changes create a real risk of unsustainable service models and closure. Many of us have built services around clear and unmet community need, yet unpredictable reforms, disregard for professional evidence, lack of transparency, limited accountability and poor review pathways make long–term planning increasingly difficult. This comes on top of a seven–year freeze on NDIS therapy price limits for Allied Health including OTs, the halving of travel funding for essential home visits, and a wave of media commentary that routinely demonises and scapegoats allied health providers without any evidence of wrongdoing. Occupational Therapy Australia’s 2025 NDIS Provider Survey shows more than half of OT businesses failed to make a profit last year, 14% are already planning to close, and a further 50% are actively considering exiting the sector within three years, with at least 8% of OTs having already left the NDIS market since the last pricing decision. Other sectors undergoing policy–driven restructuring, such as manufacturing and agriculture, routinely receive adjustment assistance; disability service providers and allied health small businesses deserve the same recognition and planning.

These new systems are undermining our profession and the businesses we created to support our communities. Government policy settings encouraged clinicians to create NDIS-focused businesses to meet demand, yet the same providers are now expected to endure major structural changes and funding reductions with no dedicated transition support.

I urge the committee to amend this Bill to protect professional assessment and treatment by occupational therapists, ensure transparent and accountable decision-making, preserve fair

Submission 1415