National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill Submission

Introduction

I am writing formally opposing several elements proposed changes to the NDIS Bill May 2026). As Senior Occupational Therapist working directly with across acute subacute settings I have significant concerns that reforms reduce participant safety increase long-term system costs limit meaningful participation.

Definition Functional Capacity The proposed definition functional capacity does not align WHO framework excludes environmental personal social factors inappropriate risks inaccurate assessments underestimation needs Assessments Inappropriately Qualified Individuals Assessments completed appropriately qualified professionals (e.g occupational therapists poor understanding incorrect supports reassessment increasing costs contributing hospital admissions due inadequate supports ### Reassessment Existing Participants Reassessing all participants wasting government resources efforts focusing assess new applications determining eligibility ### Cappping Supports Staff Ratios Cappping supports unsafe realistic requires consistent access community essential activities like obtaining food reducing participation contributin hospitalisations bed blocks

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill Submission

Section Headings:

5. Restricting Funding to Low-Cost Items The funding restriction on low-cost items is inappropriate because it does not meet individual requirements.
6. Exclusion of Lived Experience: Limitations that exclude lived experience from recommendations overlooks essential insights into real-world function, which can lead to misaligned support services for people living with disabilities or other conditions requiring specialized care;
7. Inappropriate Assessment Tools (I-CAN): Tools such as I-CAN are unsuitable across all participants due their complexity needs,
8. *Proposed Planning Model: This model mirrors failed My Aged Care changes leading unlikely improved outcomes;
9. Removal of Plan Review Rights: Removing rights to request a review diminishes participant autonomy within system accountability; 10.Lack Choice in Providers & Plan Management Removing choice providers plan managers contradicts core NDIS principle control; 11*.Pricing Controlled Minister:* Pricing decisions should be independent. Minster-controlled pricing reduces trust and transparency;

Conclusion

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 1519

These proposed changes will increase risk, reduce independence, and create higher long-term costs. The NDIS should instead focus on qualified assessments, flexible funding,
and
maintaining participant choice and control.