Submission 202

Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

I am an occupational therapist who has worked with participants of the National Disability Insurance Scheme since the rollout of the initial trial site. Through my clinical work across the disability sector, I have seen firsthand the significant positive impact the NDIS has had on the lives of people with disability, including increased independence, improved participation in community life, and greater access to supports that allow people to live with dignity and choice.

While I acknowledge the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, I am deeply concerned that many of the proposed amendments within the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 risk undermining the foundational principles of the Scheme.

Sustainability cannot be achieved by reducing access to essential supports, narrowing eligibility, or shifting costs onto people with disability, unpaid carers, and already overstretched health and community services.

My primary concerns relate to the following proposed amendments.

• Cuts to Capacity Building and Community Participation Supports

The NDIS Act establishes that the Scheme is intended to support people with disability to pursue their goals and aspirations, facilitate participant choice and control, and provide reasonable and necessary supports based on individual needs.

Capacity building and community participation supports are not optional extras. These supports enable people to develop skills, increase independence, access employment and education opportunities, and participate meaningfully in society.

Reducing funding in these areas is likely to increase long-term dependence and reduce participants’ ability to pursue their goals and aspirations. It also risks increasing social isolation and limiting opportunities for people with disability to engage in work, education, volunteering, and everyday community life.

In practice, I regularly see how these supports reduce reliance on crisis services, improve mental health outcomes, and support sustainable long-term functioning. Restricting these supports may create short-term budget savings but is likely to generate greater long-term social and economic costs.

• Redefining Functional Capacity

Submission 202

I am particularly concerned by the proposed definition of functional capacity, which assesses what a person can do:

• without assistance from other people
• without assistive technology or modifications
• while excluding, as far as possible, environmental and personal circumstances.

Disability does not occur in isolation from environmental, social, financial, geographical, or cultural factors. Excluding these realities from assessment creates an artificial and inaccurate understanding of disability and support needs.

This approach is inconsistent with the social model of disability that underpins both the NDIS and Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

As an occupational therapist, my assessments are based not only on a person’s diagnosis, but on how they function within their actual environment and daily life. Assistive technology, home modifications, support workers, family supports, housing, transport access, trauma history, communication needs, and cultural context all significantly influence a person’s functional capacity and support requirements.

Ignoring these factors risks underestimating disability-related needs and reducing access to essential supports for people with complex or fluctuating disabilities.

Automated Decision-Making

The Bill authorises automated administrative action and decision-making, including the exercise of discretion and evaluative judgement.

I have serious concerns regarding the use of automated systems in:

• functional capacity assessments
• eligibility determinations
• reassessment processes
• support needs determinations and funding allocation.

Disability assessment requires clinical judgment, professional reasoning, and understanding of context, communication, trauma, culture, psychosocial complexity, and fluctuating presentation. These factors cannot be adequately captured through rigid algorithmic or classification-based systems.

The rollout of the Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT) within the aged care Support at Home program provides a cautionary example of the risks associated with this approach. Emerging evidence indicates that nuanced support needs may be overlooked, carer strain underestimated, support allocations reduced below actual need, and review processes difficult to navigate.

Within the NDIS context, where professional judgment and allied health evidence may become constrained by automated systems, there is a substantial risk that complex needs will be under-recognised and underfunded.

Submission 202

Any assessment or funding framework must preserve the ability for qualified clinicians and allied health professionals to exercise professional judgement and provide individualised recommendations.

Ministerial Pricing Powers

The Bill proposes granting the Minister power to set maximum NDIS pricing rates through legislative instrument.

The original 2011 Productivity Commission recommendations emphasised that the Scheme should operate through an independent agency rather than direct political control over operational decisions.

There are already significant workforce shortages across occupational therapy and allied health professions, particularly in regional and complex disability sectors. Pricing decisions made without adequate consultation or independent oversight risk further destabilising the disability workforce and reducing participant access to services.

Capped pricing for assistive technology and home modifications may also reduce provider viability, increase delays, limit access to supports, or force participants to make co-payments despite already living on low incomes.

The sustainability of the NDIS depends not only on financial management, but also on maintaining a skilled and sustainable workforce capable of delivering safe and effective supports.

Recommendations

I respectfully urge the Committee to consider the following recommendations:

• Retain environmental, social, cultural, and personal factors within functional capacity assessments.
• Protect funding for community participation and capacity building supports.
• Remove or significantly limit ministerial powers relating to direct pricing controls and funding reductions.
• Ensure that automated decision-making systems cannot override professional clinical judgement or individualised assessment.
• Preserve participant choice and control as central principles of the NDIS.

Conclusion

Submission 202

The NDIS exists because Australians recognised that people with disability deserve dignity, safety, equality, and full participation in society.

Every day in my clinical work, I see the positive impact that appropriate supports can have on participants’ lives. People are more independent, more connected to their communities, and better able to engage in meaningful activities because of the NDIS.

We cannot return to a system characterised by inadequate services, fragmented supports, and unmet need. Any reform to the NDIS must strengthen the Scheme’s foundational principles ather than weaken them.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.