National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1849

To whom this may concern,

I write as an Occupational Therapists, to formally and strongly oppose the proposed amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). These amendments, if enacted, will cause direct, measurable harm to some of Australia’s most vulnerable citizens. We urge the Parliament to reject these changes and to uphold the original intent to support people living with permanent disability: individualized evidence based person-centred

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1849

No two individuals with a disability present identically. A person with cerebral palsy may have vastly different functional support needs to another person with the same diagnosis. The same is true across all disability types including acquired brain injury, spinal cord classification, multiple sclerosis, psychosocial disability, intellectual disability, rare genetic conditions. Many participants live with more than one permanent disability.The interaction of multiple diagnoses compounds functional complexityin ways that cannot be capturedby categorical funding structures.Eachperson’s:

• Physicalsupportneeds
• Cognitiveandcommunicationneeds
• equipmentassistivetecnologyneeds Psychosocialmentalhealthneeds Livingenvironmentinformalsupportnetwork…mustallbe individually assessedbypa qualifiedclinician.Atick-boxor categorybasedapproach will systematically under-fund thousands ofparticipants and leave their nee unmet. 3.REMOVING CLINICAL OVERSIGHT CREATES DIRECT RISK OF HARM,NEGLECT AND DEATHWe wishto be unequivocal: without formal clinical assessmentsandongoing allied health involvement,the consequencesfor participantswill include:- Inadequate supportsfundingresulting inunmeeteneedsdeteriorationinhelth,and preventable hospitalisation-Inappropriate or absent equipmentleading topressure injuries,falls,musculoskeletal injurie sand aspiration-Neglectparticularly forparticipantswith highcomplex needswho can not self advocate - Increased acutehospitalisationsplacing additionalburden on an already strained publichospitalsystem-Escalation mental health crises particularly forparticpantswith psychosocial disabilities who lose access to support therapeutic services-Increased risk suicide premature death particular among participants withpsychosocial disability complex trauma histories,limited informal suppor networksThese arenot hypothetical concerns.Theyare the predictable evidence-basedconsequencesof removingclinical expertisefrom a systemdesignedtosupport people the highest level needin our community.

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

Submission 1849

The necessity of 2:1 Support — Evidence-Based And Life-Critical

The proposed amendments may seek to restrict or scrutinise 2:1 support ratios. We strongly oppose any blanket limitation on 2:1 support.There are clearly defined clinical circumstances in which 2:1 support is not preference—it’s safety requirement.Examples include:

• Manual Handling & Hoisting: Safe manual handling guidelines across Australia require at least two trained support workers when using hoists or performing complex transfers with fully dependent participants.A single worker doing these tasks alone creates significant and unacceptable risks such as participant falls/injury, sling failure/positional harm,support worker musculoskeletal injury,and aspiration/asphyxia among those needing complex postural care.This aligns with WorkSafe/WHS legislation obligations.Working without proper staffing where clinically indicated isn’t cost-saving;it represents workplace violations/failure of duty-of-care. Mental Health & Behavioural Needs: Participants suffering severe psychosocial disabilities, self-harm history/suicidality/concern behaviors often need a minimum ratio. This ensures physical safety during acute episodes,preserves dignity/self-respect through de-escalation methods,enables community access otherwise impossible,& protects both parties’ well-being.Removal could increase mental health crises/emergency admissions/unwilling psychiatric hospitalizations/death risk.

The Proposed 90-Day Access Decision Timeframe Is Clinically Inappropriate And Will Cause Harm

We strongly oppose the proposed timeframe for NDIS decisions (up to ninety days). For individuals seeking this service,it’s not just bureaucratic inconvenience—it’s an extended period they may face.

• No formal support in place
• No equipment funding
• No access to allied health services
• No respite for family carers
• No community participation The consequences of a 90-day wait include:

Prolonged and preventable hospital stays, as discharge cannot proceed without an NDIS plan and supports in place. This contributes directly to hospital bed blockand system pressure. -Increased hospital admissions , as individu als who deteriorate dur ingthe waiting period require acute intervention that could have been preventedwith timelysupport . -Carer breakdown leadingto crisis presentations emergency out-of-home placements,andfamilysystem collapse. -Escalationof mentalhealth crises particularlyforparticipants wit hpsychosocialdisabilitywhoarewaitingwithoutsupports.-Increased risko fs uicide anda ndeathin themostvulnerablecohort o fa pplicants—thosewit heseverep sych osoc al dis abilit ya n dcomplexneeds ‗whoa realreadyat elevatedbaseline ris kanda ndwillfacean e 9 -dayperiodoi na de qu ate orabs entsuppo rt.Internationalandedomestic evidence consistentlydemonstratesthat delaysindisabilitysupportaccessaredirectlycorrelated with deterioration inp hysicalamndmental healt ho utcomes.A6. OUR POSITION AND RECOMMENDATIONS I write thistocallon theAustralianParliamenttorecommendations 1.Rejecttheproposed NDIS legislative amendments int heir current form, preservation of Occupational Therapists role in allNDIS access,planning and review decisions. maintain individually tailored clinically evidenced funding plans rather than category-basedfundingstructures. to protect2:1 support ratios whereclinically indicated by aqualified Allied Health Professional.reduce not extend , acces decision timeframes,introduce interim suppor provisions toprotectindividuals duringtheapplicationprocess . Consult meaningfullywith disability organisations,AffiedHealthProfessionalbodies,andN DIS participantsandtheir familiesbefore any further amends are advanced.

Submission 1849