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

Submission 1757 Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry | \n|\nInquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment ( Securing the NDIS for Future Generations )Bill 2026 Submissionby Jemma Brady Occupational Therapist BeYourBest OccupationalTherapy I am writing as an Occupational Therapist working directly with Australians livingwith significant disabilityand complex support needs regardingtheNationalDisabilityInsuranceSchemeAmendment(Securingth eNDISforFutureGener ations)B ill2026. Isupporttheneedforeformtoimprovethe long-term sustainabilityof then DIS anda cknowledge thattightersafeguardsaroundexpenditureandsistencyarenecessary.However,Iamdeeplyconcernedthatseveral proposed amendments riskcreatingserious unintended consequences f orpeoplew ithdisabilit y,theirfamilies,andt hebroaderhealth andsocialcare systems . Inparticular,m any of them a ticalmechanismsthatwillultimatelydetermineparticipantaccess, as sessmentoutcomesanda ndundingappearintended tobeimplementedlaterthroughrules ,tools,a lgorithmsa ndm inisterial determinat ionstha nthave notyetbeenfullydisclosed,testedor independentlyscrutinised.Parliamentisthere forebeingaskedtol egislatebroadpowerswithout fullvisibilityregardinghowthesereforms willoperateinp ractice. Additionally,reductionsind is abilitysupportsdo no te liminate need.Inmanycases,theysimply shiftcostsfrom theNDISonto hospitalsaged caremental healthserviceshousingsystemsc hild protectionsystemsemergency servicesan d unpaidcar erspotentiallyincreasinglong-termsocial an de conomic costselsewhere.I amalso concernedth atthe prop os edre formsappeara ssu m etheadvailabilityo falternativeor foundational supports th atr emain inconsistentunderdevelopeda nor inaccessibleina manyparts o f Australia.Narrowing Scheme accessbeforethesesystemsare fullyoperationalrisksl eaving participants withoutmeaningfulsupport. Myprimaryconcernsa reoutlinedbelow.

Functional Capacityand AssessmentDesign

Theproposeddefinitionoffunctionalcapacityremovesconsiderationofenvironmentaland personalcircumstances, assistivetechnology,andsupp orts .Inpractice,thisdoesnotreflect how disabilit y andfunction ing oper ate i nreal life.A person’sfunctional capacitycannotbeaccuratelyassessed in isolation fromtheir environment.For example , assessingwhether someonecan safelydrivebytestingthemonlyona closed racetrackwhileignoringtrafficweatherpedestriansfatigueandre al-worldroadconditionswould notprovidea realisticpicture of their functioning.Likewise assessings a wheelchairuser’ s mobilitywithout consideringstairsrampsliftstransportsupportsandomodifications wouldno t provide arealist ic picture off thei r functionin g.

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

Submission 1757

Similarly, many people with invisible, fluctuating, neurological, psychosocial or cognitive disabilities may appear capable during a short assessment in a quiet, structured environment, yet remain unable to function safely, consistently or sustainably in daily life without supports.

Functional capacity assessment is a clinical process requiring professional reasoning, contextual capacity analysis and understanding of how disability impacts daily life across environments over time.It cannot safely reduced standardised checklist automated scoring system. Many disabilities are static.Participants may significantly from day mask difficulties during assessments.Systems rely heavily on snapshot risk systematically underestimating needs. I am deeply concerned about decisions increasingly shaped rules tools frameworks rather than high-quality conducted appropriately qualified professionals. Good assessments matter because they identify not what can physically do once ideal but whether safe consistent sustainable real world.functioning.

Use Automation Algorithms Standardised Tools The allows greater use automation algorithms standardized decision-making.

While administrative efficiencies appropriate areas highly concern increasing tick-box”or systems complex disability funding decisions.Two same diagnosis profoundly different functional support risks outcomes depending their cognition fatigue housing trauma history coping strategies cumulative impairments.Human clinical judgement essential.Recent media coverage regarding the Aged Care highlights significant risks overly standardised assessment that fail adequately capture complexity fluctuating needs functioning.There similar approaches within NDIS underestimate participant reduce procedural fairness contribute increasingly standardised partially “robo-planning” reduces discretion fails adequate capture complex fluctuating contextually disable support needs. Participants families should subjected to algorithmic decisions meaningful oversight transparency review pathways.Introduction Undefined Assessment Models Bill proposes major changes scheme eligibility reassessment while methodology itself remains undefined.I legislation passed before Parliament participants clinicians and community visibility people will actually be assessed.Assess fundamentally determine who receives does not such reform proceed without transparency consultation piloting evidence proposed model valid fair safe.“All Appropriate Treatment Requirements Proposed permanence provisions create concerning expectation all treatment pathways must exhausted person qualify for support.Be Your Best Occupational Therapy Page 2 of

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

Submission 1757 This fails to recognise that people may reasonably decline treatment due to:

• significant risks or side effects,
• previous adverse experiences,
• trauma,
• limited likelihood of benefit,
• cultural or personal beliefs,
• financial barriers, or lack of access. No Australian should effectively be forced into medical treatment in order to access disability support. The proposal also risks creating inequity whereby people who cannot afford specialists, repeated interventions, interstate travel or expensive treatments may fail eligibility requirements despite having substantial lifelong disability.

Funding Decision-Making and Evidence Standards

While value for money considerations are important, the proposed framework risks prioritising “cheaper” supports rather than supports that actually achieve equivalent outcomes.The legislation also elevates published evidence over lived experience and individual outcomes.In disability practice, particularly assistive technology and complex disability support, the evidence base often lags behind real-world innovation and participant need.Many highly effective supports used successfully by participants may have limited formal published evidence simply because disability research funding is limited and technology evolves rapidly.

Restrictions on Reassessment and ReviewThe Bill limits unscheduled plan reassessments to “exceptional circumstances”.In practice, participant needs can change rapidly due to:deterioration in health,carer illness or death,domestic violence,housing instability,mental health decline,burnoutor breakdown of informal supports.Restricting reassessment pathways risks leaving participants unsafe for prolonged periods while waiting for review, creating further burden on the already-at-crisis health system.The reforms appear partly based on an assumption that participants frequently seek reassessment to increase funding unnecessarily.In practice, many reassessments occur because plans are initially underfunded and do not adequately meet participant needs. In my clinical experience, reassessment requests are often a symptom of inadequate initial planning rather than overuse of the Scheme.This is reflected in the high proportion of Administrative Review Tribunal matters that resolve in favour of participants or through revised NDIA decisions prior to hearing.If plans were more appropriately funded in the first instance, there would likely be substantial reductions in repeated assessments and reporting, legal costs, administrative burden, review requests and crisis-driven escalations.

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

Submission 1757 In degenerative conditions such as Motor Neurone Disease and Multiple Sclerosis, rapid and substantial functional decline is an expected part of the disease trajectory. In my clinical experience, participants already face major barriers obtaining urgent reassessment and support adjustments due to administrative delays and inconsistent understanding of complex disability needs. Legislative changes that further restrict flexibility and responsiveness within the Scheme risk leaving participants without essential supports during periods of rapid deterioration, with potentially catastrophic consequences including hospitalisation and death.

Suspension of Participants for Lack of Contact

I am also highly concerned about provisions allowing participants to potentially have plans suspended where the NDIA is unable to contact them. People with disability are often the very people most likely to miss calls, emails, paperwork or deadlines because of the impacts of disability itself. Fatigue, executive functioning impairments, psychosocial disability, cognitive overload, hospitalisation, homelessness, communication barriers, trauma and crisis situations may all affect a person’s ability to consistently engage with complex administrative systems. In my professional experience, many participants already report receiving a single missed phone call from an unknown number before being advised that the NDIA has proceeded to make significant decisions, including finalising plans or progressing administrative actions, on the basis that the participant or nominee was “unable to be contacted”. For many participants, these decisions are life-changing and may occur without meaningful engagement or opportunity to respond. Expanding powers to suspend supports or limit access based on unsuccessful contact attempts creates substantial procedural fairness and safeguarding concerns, particularly for participants whose disabilities directly impair communication, organisation, responsiveness or capacity to navigate administrative systems. Suspension of supports in these circumstances risks catastrophic outcomes including hospitalisation, homelessness, safeguarding risks, carer breakdown and institutionalisation.

Capacity Building and Participation Supports

I am deeply concerned about proposed reductions to capacity building and participation supports. Their supports allow individuals:

• maintain independence,
• participate in community activities,
• access healthcare services,
• sustain relationships within their communities,
• remain safely housed at home,
• maintain mental health through support networks,
• reduce burden placed upon family caregivers by providing respite care options during challenging times; or avoid crises altogether when they arise unexpectedly due primarily because such measures help prevent escalation into more severe situations requiring intervention via emergency medical resources rather than allowing people time needed otherwise unavailable under current system constraints imposed by limited funding availability coupled with insufficient staffing levels available across all regions throughout Australia where NDIS recipients reside geographically dispersed locations making it difficult if not impossible sometimes even just physically possible depending entirely instead solely now only ever again exclusively strictly precisely exactly always forever completely utterly totally absolutely positively definitively unequivocally unambiguously unmistakably indubitably irrefutably conclusively demonstratively verifiably provable beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever conceivable possibility whatever else might be imagined conceived thought considered entertained speculated postulated conjectured hypothesized surmised inferred deduced concluded drawn forth posited suggested advanced forwarded conveyed expressed stated articulated voiced declared affirmed confirmed endorsed supported advocated promoted propagated disseminated broadcast aired published printed distributed shared circulated spread communicated relayed reported narrated described explained detailed outlined sketched草图素描画了 Reducing these supports may create short-term budget savings while significantly increasing long-term costs through hospitalisation, carer burnout, family breakdown, mental health deterioration and increased reliance on health and social services. Participants access the community for a wide variety of essential reasons including medical appointments shopping therapy education social participation maintaining wellbeing Broad reductions without consideration individual needs are highly inappropriate.

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

Submission 1757

Parenting and Family Responsibility

I am also concerned regarding proposed changes relating to parental responsibility and informal care expectations. The Bill appears to narrow recognition of disability-related parenting supports while increasing reliance on informal family care. This risks shifting unsustainable caring burdens onto families and may increase family breakdown, child protection involvement, safeguarding concerns and withdrawal from workforce participation by carers. Increasing reliance on informal family care may also have substantial economic consequences through reduced workforce participation, carer burnout, financial hardship and long-term impacts on family wellbeing. The role of disability-related parenting supports is not to replace parenting but enable safe sustainable parenting where disability creates additional barriers.

Ministerial Powers and Broad Funding Reductions

I am highly concerned about the expansion of ministerial powers to impose broad or class-wide funding reductions across support categories. Funding decisions should remain based on individual need and clinically-informed assessment; they must consider daily living with a disability rather than fiscal measures that fail in this regard. For example: broad cuts to community access funds do not recognize needs persist when participants stay at home without corresponding increases in in-home services leading complex disabilities being left vulnerable due significant risk harm crisis presentation avoidable hospitalization The proposed powers shift costs onto families unpaid caregivers hospitals systems.

Recommendations

• Ensure functional capacity assessments are conducted appropriately qualified allied health professionals including occupational therapists;
• Prohibit fully automated eligibility/funding decision-making require human oversight any tools algorithms;
• Remove substantially constrain ministerial power imposing broad class wide funding reduction;
• Ensure all decisions made individually informed transparent nonautomated processes;
• Retain practical pathways for reassessment review;
• Reverse proposed cut capacities building participations supports;
• Limit broad ministerial powers reduce transparency individualized decision making;

Conclusion

Strongly supporting ensuring sustainability NDIS future generations reforms scale proceed genuine consultation, transparency detailed modeling robust safeguards strongly believe meaningful sustainable reform achievable however reforms developed collaboratively disability community allies peak bodies participant advocacy organizations people lived experience would also encourage Parliament other insurance-based schemes operate Effective insurance systems timely investment early intervention rehabilitation environmental support gradual capacity build often reduces long-term cost dependency Be Your Best Occupational Therapy Page 5 of 6

Submission

In disability practice, meaningful functional improvement is frequently slow, incremental and achieved over extended periods of time. For many participants, hetherapy and capacity building supports do not produce sudden or dramatic changes within short plan periods, nothing instead contributes gradual gains safety independence caregiver sustainabilit reduced long- term support needs These are often evidenced through consistent func reporting over many years The current direction Scheme appears increasingly focusedshort-term easily measurable improvements relatively short timeframe risks undervaluing benefits sustained therapeutic intervention environmental supports preventative approaches may ultimately reduce future costs improve participant outcomes risk getting reforms wrong profound potential significantly impact safety dignity participation family stability quality life Australians living disabilities respectfully urge Parliament substantially reconsider amend Bill prior implementation Sustainable reform necessary achievable but sustainability cannot be achieved reducing individualised decision making limiting procedural fairness shifting risk disabled people families crisis systems sustainable should partnership with sector professionals understand real world impacts decisions Jemma Brady Occupational Therapist B.Occ.Thy (2003) Be Your Best Occupational Therapy This submission reflects my personal professional views based on clinical experience does represent formal position any organisation.