NDIA Accountability Project

Opposing NDIS changes due to inadequate supports and risk of hospitalisation

‹ PrevPage 1 of 3 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission 1519

Submission in Response to the Proposed Changes to the NDIS Bill (May 2026)

Submitted by: Senior Occupational Therapist

Introduction

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

  • Definition of Functional Capacity

The proposed definition of functional capacity does not align with the World Health Organization (WHO) framework. It excludes environmental, personal, and social factors. This is inappropriate and risks inaccurate assessments and underestimation of participant needs.

  • Assessments by Inappropriately Qualified Individuals

Assessments not completed by appropriately qualified professionals (e.g. Occupational Therapists) will result in poor understanding, incorrect supports, and the need for reassessment. This increases costs and contributes to hospital admissions and bed block due to inadequate supports.

  • Reassessment of Existing Participants

Reassessing all participants is a waste of government resources. Efforts should instead focus on assessing new applicants entering the NDIS to determine eligibility.

  • Capping Supports and Staff Ratios

Capping supports is unsafe and unrealistic. Participants require consistent access to the community for essential activities such as obtaining food and medication. Limiting this increases risk, reduces participation, and contributes to hospitalisation and bed block.

Submission 1519

5. Restricting Funding to Low-Cost Items

Funding only low-cost items is inappropriate. Participants require suitable equipment that reduces risk of injury and maximises independence and function.

6. Exclusion of Lived Experience

Restricting recommendations to research-only disregards lived experience, which is essential to understanding real-world function and needs.

7. Inappropriate Assessment Tools (I-CAN)

Tools such as I-CAN are not suitable for all participants and risk disadvantaging individuals with complex needs.

8. Proposed Planning Model

The proposed planning model mirrors failed My Aged Care changes and is unlikely to produce improved outcomes.

9. Removal of Plan Review Rights

Removing the right to request a plan review reduces participant autonomy and accountability within the system.

10. Lack of Choice in Providers and Plan Management

Removing participant choice in providers and plan managers contradicts the core NDIS principle of choice and control.

11. Pricing Controlled by the Minister

Pricing decisions should be independent. Minister-controlled pricing reduces trust and transparency.

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.