Submission 1870 — Name Withheld — NDIS Future Generations Bill

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1870

Senate Submission Parent of children with disability & Paediatric Occupational Therapist

Introduction I am writing as both a parent of 5-year-old twins accessing the NDIS and as a paediatric Occupational Therapist with 17 years’ experience supporting young children and their families. Every day I see how essential the NDIS is for children’s safety, developmental trajectories, occupational participation and family wellbeing. I am concerned that several proposed legislative changes will reduce access to necessary supports and increase long-term risk for children and families. Below, I outline my concerns in relation to the nine proposed legislative changes.

1. Redefining Functional Capacity Assessing children without their usual supports, routines, co-regulation, assistive technology or environmental adaptations creates an artificial and clinically inaccurate picture of functional capacity. In practice, children often demonstrate higher performance in structured assessments than in naturalistic environments due to masking, predictability, and adult scaffolding. Recommendation: Functional capacity must be assessed in real-world contexts, considering environmental fit, sensory demands, fatigue, safety, and the sustainability of occupational performance over time.

2. Tightening the Definition of “Permanent” Disability Many lifelong developmental disabilities require ongoing therapeutic input to maintain function, prevent regression and support participation. Families frequently face financial, geographic or waitlist barriers to accessing treatment, which should not be interpreted as a lack of “appropriate treatment.” Recommendation: Ongoing therapy should not delay recognition of permanent disability. Definitions of “appropriate treatment” must be clear, realistic and accessible.

3. Supports Must Arise “Directly” From Impairment Children’s support needs arise from the interaction between impairment and environment, including sensory processing demands, behavioural regulation needs, safety risks, housing suitability and participation barriers. A narrow interpretation risks excluding legitimate disability-related supports that enable safe and meaningful engagement in daily occupations. Recommendation: Recognise the social model of disability and the role of environmental and contextual factors in shaping support needs.

4. Changes to “Value for Money” Lower-cost supports are not always clinically appropriate, safe or sustainable. Cheaper alternatives often fail to meet functional goals, increase caregiver burden, reduce participation or lead to crisis intervention. Recommendation: Value for money must consider long-term outcomes, safety, prevention, sustainability, and the cost of failed interventions, not just upfront expenditure.

5. “Effective and Beneficial” Evidence Hierarchy Many children do not fit neatly into research populations. Paediatric OT practice relies heavily on clinical reasoning, functional assessment, environmental analysis and individualised intervention planning. A rigid evidence hierarchy risks disadvantaging children with rare, complex or fluctuating presentations.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1870

Recommendation: Maintain strong weighting for participant-specific evidence, lived experience, functional assessment and clinical reasoning.

6. Increased Reliance on Informal Supports and Parents Families of children with disability often provide care that far exceeds “ordinary parenting,” including constant supervision, behavioural co-regulation, sensory support, safety monitoring and high-intensity personal care. This level of care is not sustainable without formal supports and contributes to caregiver burnout, reduced workforce participation and family stress. Recommendation: Recognise the intensity, frequency and complexity of disability-related care and avoid shifting further burden onto families.

7. Whole-of-Person Assessment Children’s needs cannot be separated into isolated components. Occupational performance is influenced by the interplay of sensory processing, communication, behaviour, motor skills, emotional regulation and environmental demands. A narrow assessment approach risks missing the cumulative functional impact of multiple impairments. Recommendation: Maintain a holistic, whole-of-person assessment framework that reflects real-world functioning.

8. Controlling Scheme and Plan Inflation Cost-control measures must not restrict access to early intervention, which is time-critical for developmental outcomes. Delays or reductions in support often lead to increased long-term cost, regression in skills and greater reliance on crisis services. Recommendation: Ensure inflation controls do not limit timely, needs-based supports or early intervention principles.

9. Funding Cuts, Caps & Ministerial Powers Broad ministerial powers or funding caps risk reducing transparency, predictability and equity. Children with disability require stable, consistent access to supports to maintain progress and safety. Recommendation: Safeguard participant-centred, evidence-based decision-making and ensure funding decisions remain transparent and clinically justified.

Closing Statement As both a parent and a clinician, I urge the Senate to ensure that the NDIS remains grounded in real-world disability experience, not administrative simplification. Children and families need a scheme that recognises context, complexity, sustainability and dignity. Thank you for considering this submission.