National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1765
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations
29 May 2026
I write to the committee with two hats;
• as an Occupational Therapist (OT) working as a sole trader with over 15 years of experience in the disability field and, • as a Mum of my beautiful 4-year girl (AB) who is an NDIS participant in the Early Childhood Intervention section of the NDIS.
I am deeply concerned regarding the impact that the proposed legislation will have on myself as a Mum, a business owner and to the many participants, friends and family I know who live with disability.
I live and work in a Monash Modified Model level 4 and service many level 5 communities. As an OT, my experience is in complex physical disabilities primarily with complex home modifications, wheelchair seating and other assistive technology. The impact on rural and regional communities is already felt within the disability community and the proposed Bill will only worsen this impact. As a therapist in the scheme I am extremely burnt out, mostly from non-educated delegates making decisions against therapy recommendations with little to no disability experience which is life changing to my participants. The impact and stress borne on to participants I work with is hard to repeat week on week.
My daughter, AB, is a 4 year old girl who entered the scheme at two years of age due to a severe speech and language disorder impacting primarily her social, communication and learning development. Having access to early intervention support has been amazing for my daughter and has meant that she has made significant gains in her speech clarity, sentence structure and language which has also supported social participation in settings such as kinder. She continues to have significant delays however she continues to make progress which would be halted without targeted supports of a speech pathologist. I am truly grateful of this support and frequently think of the impact of not having this input such as in the proposed thriving kids scheme. Bill Shorten frequently has stated that children with mild and moderate disabilities were not supposed to be on the scheme but at the time of transition I worked in Early Intervention and these are the kids who were provided this support through block funding, when the importance of early intervention was respected.
Since the introduction of the NDIS there have been significant positive changes for people with a disability. This is something we must protect and strengthen.
I DO NOT support the passing of The Bill in its current form as this would be greatly detrimental to the disability community. Passing the Bill in its current form places people with a disability at
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1765
significant risk. I have noted some specific concerns below, but please note this is not an exhaustive list on a set of Legislation that appears to have been developed to take away the rights of people living with a disability.
- Tightening of Reasonable and Necessary Supports a. Value for money: The new legislation removes the need for a NDIS support to achieve ‘the same outcome’ with regard to value for money. When compared to the existing wording which states that a lower cost alternative should achieve a similar outcome. This means that NDIS will not have to consider whether the support is equally safe, effective or sustainable in their decision making.
Case example: I have a client who lives in a rural area (MMM5) who lives next to a pine forest in a high fire risk area. She has MS and lost her ability to walk. This client required a power wheelchair that not only allowed her to mobilise within the house but also allow her to mobilise across her property to enter her fire bunker. The initial NDIS decision suggested that alternate wheelchairs would be appropriate, none of which would have achieved the outcome of being able to be safe in the case of a fire. We were able to have this decision overturned however with the proposed legislation I fear that she would have had to take a chair that would not suit her needs.
b. Effective and Beneficial: Reducing the importance of individual lived experience and clinical reasoning is both unsafe and demoralising for the NDIS participant. Research in the complex disability space is limited due to the high complexity and individualism of each client. Two people with the same disability may not have the same disease trajectory, the same impairments and the same need for equipment or interventions. Reducing the clinical information will lead to poorer client outcomes. Many participants have highly individualised support needs that do not fit neatly into published research evidence. This may disproportionately disadvantage people with rare conditions or complex presentations.
- Changing the definition of ‘permanent disability’ and treatment Access to the NDIS is already severely difficult for many who have complex and severe disabilities. The proposed changes identify the need to have tried all ‘appropriate treatment’ but does not define what this looks like in practice. This does not consider what is reasonable and accessible for someone and removes all body autonomy in making choices over treatments. Rural and regional participants will be more significantly impacted as treatments may not be available in their area. Additionally, financial constraints mean that other participants may be unable to access treatment due to living on the disability support pension. I have a client currently who travels 3 hours each way from rural to metropolitan Victoria every 3 weeks for an IV infusion that must be completed at a tertiary hospital. She has the supports and finances to be able to do so, but others who live in the same town or more rurally may not have the same capacity. In this context of a progressive disease, the other participant should not be denied access to the NDIS because access to appropriate treatments is not available to them.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1765
Further clarification of what constitutes ‘appropriate treatment’ must be included and this should not be impacted by financial access or client location. I am concerned about the requirement for participants to have exhausted all “appropriate treatment” before impairments are considered permanent especially in the context of financial constraints and rural and regional living. Many people with lifelong disabilities continue to engage in therapy and/or medical intervention to maintain function, reduce the speed decline or improve quality of life. Ongoing treatment should not prevent access to disability supports.
- The impact on informal supports and ‘parental responsibility’ The NDIS use the notion of ‘parental responsibility’ as a reason not to provide necessary supports frequently. The changes in the legislation appear to strengthen their argument without considering the intensity, frequency, complexity, duration, carer sustainability and specialised nature of supports (eg. nursing level supports.) The Bill is instead focusing on the type of support provided including but not limited to supervision, personal care, transport and daily assistance. Examples of participants where it would be catastrophic not to consider what is reasonable for a parent to provide with regard to intensity, complexity, duration and specialisation of supports include;
- An early primary school child who requires two people to bath her due to high seizure risk, full support requirements for support in the bath, transfers and severe safety risks. This same child is supported by siblings under 10 to allow their single Mum to go to the toilet or cook a meal.
- An early primary school child who has low sleep needs, complex physical disability and high medical complexity sleeps only 2 hours per night which means the single parent severely lacks sleep.
- A pre-teen who wants to participate in football training with his peers but NDIS have stated this is normal parental responsibility despite the same Mum being able to drop off the child’s younger sibling to participate independently.
In each of these scenarios, without taking the additional information into consideration the legislation would allow this to be seen as a ‘parental responsibility.’ These proposed changes do not take in to account the intensity of support, the age in which a support may still be required, carer burnout and the management of a family as a whole.
The bill must differentiate between ordinary parenting tasks and disability-related care intensity and complexity. It must ensure decisions consider the impact of siblings and family well-being, sustainability of informal carers and cumulative impact of caring demands. At no time, should children as young as 6 be required to provide intensive supervision and lifesaving interventions including assisting in the management of their sibling seizing because NDIS deem support is not necessary and within the bounds of parental responsibility.
- Assessing impairments as individual components of a person
The proposed bill shifts from whole of person to individual impairment categories. Disability does not present as a consistent and predictable set of functional issues. Two people with the same diagnosis can present with different impairments. If supports must be attributed to one recognised impairment, participants with complex and intersecting needs may be disadvantaged and support provided would not be reflective
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1765
of their actual functional performance and disability impacts. In clinical practice, support needs are from the interaction of multiple impairments, environmental barriers and participation demands.
- Ability for participants to access unscheduled reviews and timelines. There are many concerns relating to this area a. Extending the decision timeframe from 21 days to 90 days: The NDIA is already blowing out the timeframe as per the current legislation with decisions being made most often at the 6-month mark. 6 Months is too long in the context of constantly changing and progressive conditions. The 21-days must be retained and there must be accountability for the NDIA to make decisions within this timeline. Not doing so is severely impacting participants. b. NDIA are making plans as a standard 5-year long plan and this includes for people with a complex progressive condition. I have had multiple clients say, ‘I probably won’t even be here by then’. This is their reality of a life limiting condition where function will gradually progress. Providing plans with gradually declining supports, especially in the context of progressive conditions necessitates the unscheduled reviews as planning was done incorrectly in the first instance. Other examples are children who may be 16-years of age being provided a 5 year plan despite a significant upcoming transition from schooling to community based supports. Delegates are not making inappropriate plans, ignoring the allied health evidence and this is what is necessitating most of the unscheduled reviews for participants I support. c. This legislation does not address a key issue currently within the NDIA which is that decisions are being made by delegates who have very little disability knowledge and decisions are being made which neglect the recommendations set out by qualified allied health professionals. The NDIA continually underfund plans which necessitates the high influx of unscheduled review requests. A participant with Parksinons Disease is supported by their 82-year-old husband. He is suffering from his own medical health conditions and experiencing extreme carer burnout. He requires immediate support for increased care supports for his wife who is functionally declining. There is limited therapy funding and inadequate support worker funding. A decision taking 3 to 6 months is too long and the subsequent risk is that the family unit will breakdown with the participant being admitted as a social admission to hospital. This same person is currently awaiting funding for a suitable recliner which supports her posture to be safe to eat and not fall out. Whilst waiting for a decision, this costs $320/week. 3 weeks would equate to $960, 3 months would equate to $3,840 and 6 months, which is the typical timeframe would cost the NDIA $7,680. It is unreasonable to extend this timeframe and doing so would result in poor participant outcomes and high costs for the NDIS. For another participant, NDIA did not make a decision about a power wheelchair for 12 months. During this time, it cost the NDIA $450/week to hire a power wheelchair $23,400 for ongoing hire and the overall cost of the chair also went up $4000. This high expenditure caused by delayed reviews is costly to the tax payer.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1765
My concern is that extending reassessment decision timeframes from 21 days to 90 days may leave participants without appropriate supports during periods of crisis, deterioration or carer breakdown. Additionally limiting situations where unscheduled reviews can take place will be severely detrimental to participants, particularly in contexts where plans were inadequate and ill-informed in the first instance.
- Funding cuts and Ministerial Powers
The Bill provides the Minister with the ability to independently make decisions about broad funding reductions for specified groups. This means that it can be determined through the planning process that a participant requires a specific level of funding based on their disability and support needs but allows the Minister to place a blanket ceiling or percentage reduction to cap the amount of supports that can be provided. Placing caps on funded supports that have been determined reasonable and necessarily goes against the original intent of the scheme. Additionally, this can reduce the level of support to below pre-NDIS support levels effectively removing the notion of ‘nobody worse off.’
It should never be appropriate that the decisions within the NDIS are the decision of one sole individual whether this is capped funding amounts, capped support hours or capped support pricing. There must be stringent and robust procedures in place for decisions to be made that maintain the safety of people with a disability.
The IHACPA report on pricing in the NDIS has still not been released despite being advised to by the senate. This has to indicate that the recommendations set out in the report did not meet the Minister and/or Governments intentions for support pricing. If the Government will not provide the independent advice that they sought, how can they be trusted to make critical decisions that have a direct safety impact on participants.
- Community Participation cuts Linked with the previous point, the Minister has noted his plans to reduce social and community participation funding. This is deeply concerning and will have severe ramifications for people with a disability and their families.
- When community participation is cut, the support is often shifted to alternative supports. For example, someone with an intellectual disability will still require 1:1 support whether this be at home or in the community. If someone is unable to go with support to do the grocery shopping, the support person must still attend to do the shopping.
The biggest shift since the NDIS has been fully implemented is that people with a disability, people in wheelchairs and who have support needs are now actively a part of the community, able to do their shopping, enjoy leisure activities or attend essential medical appointments. By cutting these supports, the Government is effectively saying that they wish not to see people with a disability in the community. This is a stepping stone of the movement back towards institutionalisation once again. People with a disability have the right to access the community just like you and I. Everyone was impacted when we experienced lockdowns in the context of COVID-19. Now the Government is effectively choosing cohorts of the population that they wish to restrict to their homes.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1765
The impact on rural and regional areas
o Impact to participants
Rural and regional participants already face significant barriers accessing the NDIS, and the proposed legislative changes will widen the existing metro regional gap. Long waitlists for essential therapies are common due to chronic workforce shortages, limited specialist providers, and the fact that many clinicians have stopped travelling to outer-regional areas because of the existing travel funding constraints.
In Victoria, participants in MMM4 and MMM5 regions are already waiting months or years for basic and specialised allied health services. My current wait-time for providing therapy is 1 to 2 years. There are very few therapists who provide support for home modifications, complex wheelchair seating and assistive technology. It is not only Occupational Therapy that is limited and has long waitlists. For a participant in a MMM3 area there were no neurologically trained physiotherapists within 45 minutes of her home. For Speech Pathologists with training in complex communication and swallowing the wait times are also significant.
The gap in services available mean participants are left without required interventions to maintain safety, independence and quality of life. Proposed changes whereby unspent funds can be considered in future planning is detrimental to those in regional and rural areas as they can wait a full plan period before being able to access a therapy place.
The impact of the location where someone lives and access to what NDIS consider appropriate treatments may impact the ability of people with a disability in rural and regional areas to gain access to the NDIS.
Decisions made regarding in person supports and assistive technology are not currently taking the context of where someone lives as highlighted in the example above where fire bunker access was essential but not appropriately considered by the NDIS.
o Rural Workforce Sustainability
The sustainability of the rural disability workforce is already at crisis point, and the proposed legislative changes will further destabilise an already fragile system. Therapists in regional and remote areas face excessive travel demands, long waitlists, and complex caseloads without the financial viability to continue servicing these communities. Current travel payment restrictions means that it is no longer viable for me as a clinician and colleagues to service rural communities. This means entire geographical areas have lost access to specialised supports. Many areas have no therapy supports available at all.
If the Bill is passed, a key concern is that it does not provide any protection of safe-guarding that travel funding will not be further impacted. If there was any further reduction in funding for travel for therapy supports I would have stop travelling outside of my immediate shire and this would have a sudden impact on at least 30 NDIS participants who live greater than 30 minutes from my town. Other therapists would also restrict travel and the implications will be catastrophic.
Workforce shortages lead to burnout, high turnover, and an over-reliance on a small number of clinicians who are already stretched beyond capacity. The demands placed on therapists for report writing and over-explaining support requirements of participants only to be subsequently overturned is leading to high levels of stress amongst clinicians.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1765
Over the past year, I have seen a significant shift in providers working within the area as service have withdrawn and waitlists have lengthened once again.
The proposed legislation must target rural workforce sustainability. Instead the Bill risks accelerating the collapse of regional service provision, leaving rural participants with fewer choices, poorer outcomes and significantly reduced access to the supports the NDIS was designed to guarantee.
Summary
The proposed NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill poses significant and unacceptable risks to people with disability, their families, and the workforce that supports them. As both an experienced Occupational Therapist and a parent of a young NDIS participant, I have seen the strong outcomes this system can provide. I have also seen the extreme lows, carer and participant stress and harm caused when decisions are made when ignoring clinical informed advice. Decisions made by people who do not understand disability, and without regard for individual circumstances. The proposed bill in its existing form strengthens the NDIA’s ability to deny supports.
The Bill also extends decision timeframes, restricts access to unscheduled reviews, and grants the Minister broad powers to impose funding caps. These changes are concerning and will have significant consequences to the disability community.
Workforce shortages, long waitlists, lack of specialist providers, and inadequate travel funding already limit access to essential supports. Under the proposed legislation, these inequities will increase further. Entire communities risk losing access to therapy altogether, and participants may be denied supports simply because they live outside metropolitan areas.
The NDIS was built on principles of equity, dignity, autonomy, inclusion and nobody being worse off. This Bill undermines those foundations. It shifts the scheme away from individualised, needs-based support and towards a cost-containment model that places people with disability at significant risk.
The NDIA must work in a true co-design model, not one where the consultation occurs with people and organisations who will stand to benefit significantly with proposed changes.
The Bill must not pass in its current form. The speed in which the changes to legislation should be slowed to allow true consultation.
Occupational Therapist