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

Submission 1956

Submission regarding proposed changes to the NDIS Bill

I oppose the proposed changes in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 because they risk weakening the accuracy of participant assessment and reducing access to essential supports.

My concerns relate particularly to sections 31, 34A, and 9B, because these provisions affect how participant needs are assessed, interpreted, and translated into funded supports in practice.

Drawing on more than 40 years of experience as an occupational therapist working across mental health, intellectual disability, and autism over the lifespan, I am concerned that the proposed changes may weaken the quality and accuracy of assessment for NDIS participants. I currently work providing care to clients under NDIS funding plans.

Why accurate assessment matters

Many of my clients with autism, mental ill-health, and intellectual disability have limited insight into how their disability affects daily living and may struggle to explain the support they need to function safely and effectively.

The impact of disability is broad and far-reaching. It can affect a person’s ability to manage their home, take medications safely, maintain adequate nutrition, look after their health, and build or sustain supportive connections beyond the home.

In my experience, many clients also find it difficult to articulate broader goals, including participation in community life as active and visible members rather than remaining isolated at home.

Because assessment is the first step in determining an appropriate support package, it is essential that it captures an accurate picture of the person across home, community, and other key environments.

Risks of inadequate support

Many of the people I support are highly vulnerable when accessing the community and do not respond well to change or uncertainty. These proposed changes are already creating significant anxiety for participants and families about whether future support needs will be properly recognised.

Without adequate funding for community access and related supports, the likely consequences include:

• increased isolation
• reduced access to medical review
• poor medication compliance
• greater behavioural distress and dysfunction
• more frequent presentations to local emergency departments
• long-term admission to specialist mental health facilities
• greater difficulty discharging people home because of insufficient support

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

Submission 1956

The need for face-to-face clinical assessment A further concern is that many clients and families minimise or hide the extent of their struggles because of shame and stigma, which can significantly affect the accuracy of functional assessment. This is why personalised, face-to-face assessments by trained clinicians remain essential.

Conclusion and broader impact

These are among the most vulnerable members of our community, and public policy must protect the rights, safety, and wellbeing of those who cannot easily advocate for themselves. Accurate assessment is therefore not a procedural detail, but a critical safeguard.

The issue is not simply whether support is available, but whether it is sufficient in intensity, frequency, complexity, and sustainability over the long term. Many families are already exhausted by the level of care they provide year after year, and reductions in formal support will intensify that burden.

Reducing formal supports does not eliminate support needs. It shifts responsibility onto families who are frequently already providing care beyond what is sustainable.

When support is reduced, the consequences do not disappear. Instead, they often re-emerge as carer burnout, hospital admissions, family breakdown, homelessness, surrendering the care of the child to the state, increased police involvement, safeguarding concerns, school disengagement, and crisis-driven intervention.

A further concern is that people may increasingly be assessed only on what they can do in the absence of supports, assistive technology, environmental modifications, or contextual considerations. This approach risks underestimating both the reality of their daily functioning and the level of support required to keep them safe, well, and engaged in ordinary life.

Many people participate in therapy not because they are improving rapidly, but because therapy helps them to:

• maintain function
• slow or prevent decline
• remain safe
• continue participating in everyday life

If these supports are reduced or withdrawn, many people are likely to lose capacity, withdraw from community life, and require more intensive intervention later.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge that the Bill retain personalised, face-to-face clinical assessment and preserve access to adequate ongoing supports, including therapy and community participation, so that participant needs are assessed accurately and funded appropriately.

In summary, this submission argues that accurate, face-to-face clinical assessment is essential to ensuring that NDIS participant needs are properly understood and funded. If assessment is narrowed or supports are reduced, the likely result will be greater pressure on families, increased risk to vulnerable participants, and higher long-term costs to health and community systems. A sustainable NDIS must therefore preserve both rigorous assessment and adequate ongoing support.