National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1558
To the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I write as an Occupational Therapist based in South Australia, with experience across NDIS, DVA, workers’ compensation, and medicolegal funding streams. I am writing to express my serious concerns about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026, and to support the Occupational Therapy Australia No OTs, No NDIS campaign.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1558
be reviewed individually not subjected to collective reduction. Applying blanket cuts while simultaneously restricting the ability to seek reassessment is particularly harmful and removes funding without providing any pathway to address the impact. Community participation supports are not discretionary social outings. For my clients, they represent the ability to attend medical appointments, access Centrelink, manage banking, do grocery shopping, and maintain tenancy. Removing or reducing these supports does not save money; it just shifts cost to emergency services, hospitals, and the community sector.
Functional Capacity Assessment And The Role Of Occupational Therapy My third concern relates to the part of the Bill that may allow support decisions to be shaped by rules frameworks standardised tools rather than individualized assessment conducted by qualified professionals functional capacity assessment is not self-report exercise It requires skilled observational analysis substantiate what person can cannot in real-world contexts In clinical experience people both over- under report their difficulties range reasons client with intellectual disability have no insight extent prompting require managing medication safely Client who ready confront full impact condition minimize theirs Equally a client has been told funding depends demonstrating need underestimate actual capacity None presentations accurately assessed through tick-box tool administered questionnaire OT assessment triangulates self-report Clinical observation task environmental context arrive recommendations clinically justified proportionate needs Replacing subordinating this algorithmic rule-based decision-making will result allocation neither serves participants scheme
Automated Decision-Making
The Bills provisions allowing greater use automated tools systems Funding eligibility carry significant risk Australia already seen consequences Robodebt scheme where algorithmic processes produced incorrect harmful outcomes scale adequate mechanism for review Applying similar approach NDIS funding population faces barriers advocacy would serious step backwards Automated tools account fluctuating conditions environment clinical nuance distinguishes genuine from apparent function Human professional oversight must non-negotiable requirement every point
Affordability Treatment Eligibility Requirements
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 1558
My concerns also relate to the part of the Bill that may require people to demonstrate they have exhausted treatment options before accessing the Scheme. This creates a significant equity barrier: Many people with disability do not engage because their condition makes it necessary; requiring proof will systematically exclude some applicants who cannot afford private funding due to affordability issues rather than lack thereof.
Submission 1558
Submission 1558