National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2023
I am writing to express my concern regarding some of the proposed changes to the above bill, and the very real implications it will hold for people with a disability, their carers, and the sector as a whole.
I am an occupational therapist whose work life primarily involves providing intervention services to individuals with complex intellectual disabilities over most parts thereof. For twenty-two years now in this field, I’ve felt proud working within such industry boundaries prior to which time I worked at Department Ageing Disability Home Care under NSW Government’s provider role towards disability supports. The announcement about introduction of NDIS was revolutionary – finally giving these cohorts choice on how they wish spend lives; certainly sold like that way & has indeed been absolute game changer many people.
There are no doubts there need made ensure long term viability sustainability scheme futures come but what cost? Why all proposed changes focus participants providers sectors operate why aren’t we also taking opportunity review managed implemented?
Why don’t take sometime better understand NDIA systems process can be so they can implement them more effectively?
From day implementation one word describes working under NDIS Confusing Processes unclear decisions inequitable (really depends who picks up phone NDIS). Participants being told AT application ‘get looked when get’s look’. In 12 years have not able make some things work better yet? Some specific concerns regarding proposed changed bill follows: Tightening definition permanent’ Disability.’ Bill proposes impairment considered unless appropriate treatment undertaken. Exactly what is considered ‘treatment’ and judge where it deemed as “appropriate” or not And makes call options exhausted therefore title having a
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Submission
Submission: Securing NDIS 2023
Some disabilities are permanent — do not have treatment available… hypoxic damage caused during birth cannot ‘treated’, genetic conditions like Smith-Magenis Syndrome, Down Syndrome. Please reconsider how terminology misleadingly applied expectations placed on continuously proving disability access help needed.
Supports directly arise impairment
I find over simplifies disability fails recognize an individual’s needs support environment around them different every setting determining alone inaccurate.
Changes value Money
Lower cost doesn’t always better outcome example OT colleague smaller AT provider wheelchairs quotes lower than bigger competitors (well established well regarded industry). Outcome service totally dependent small handful individuals which has resulted terrible after sales poor communication participants suffer inadequate item waited up months obtain costly therapy time rectify follow-up potentially re-script/replace participant plan more direct support Cheaper does mean better! Do we really want encourage most vulnerable with complex requirements Temu version equipment?
Effective Beneficial evidence hierarchy Evidence great therapists should uphold evidence-based practice daily work please consider amendment many scenarios research done must lived experience person functional intervention speak volumes when paper exists.
Change whole Person Assessment This suggested change extremely concerning removes the decision making forces into box leaves no space to co-morbidities environmental barriers.
Submission 2023
As OTs [Occupational Therapists] we are constantly considering the person as a whole—they are more than just what’s listed in our diagnoses—so there’s much beyond simply addressing those conditions. There’re lots of other things affecting someone who isn’t just about being sick or having an illness: fatigue, social life problems (like money stuff), trauma experiences, environmental challenges around them, certain health complications at once.