National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Submission

Good Morning, I would like the opportunity to respond to the NDIS Amendment bill for inquiry. The new legislation places participants at significant harm due to cuts in daily activity skills building funds which reduces their independence with daily living tasks such as banking grocery shopping haircuts consequently isolating them further society. This limits unscheduled plan reassessments to exceptional circumstances placing people without essential care support risking injury reduced independence social isolation months time using I-CAN assessment tool determining funding allocations converting classification data into ceilings represents fundamental shift affecting reliability validity this essentially affects integrity planning delegates accepting automated outputs without meaningful discretion methodological transparency creating significant risks concern that NDIA implementation may alter conditions administering interpreting contextualising undermining integrity recommendations mitigate risk associated include clear articulation how ICAN PECQ outputs translated funding amounts release worked examples across low medium high complexity scenarios including 24/7 supports independent validation demonstrating budgeting methodology accurately reflects real-world cost delivery confirmation planners retain genuine discretion depart from generated budgets where complexity, risk or evidence warrants adjustment proposed Bill moves away diagnosis-based access scheme instead focuses on assessing capacity impact will not consider person’s environment context assistive technology home modifications they use accurate measure of functional

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

Submission 2054

• The new definition of ‘functional capacity’ will result in incorrect assessments regarding individuals’ disabilities.
• This could lead participants receiving supports which do not reflect their circumstances accurately due to an increase in automated decisions being made under this legislation;
• There’s lack clarity on assessor qualifications & independence; NDIA-employed assessors may have no professional standards governing them, or independent complaint mechanisms exist: Assessments might rely predominantly structured data entry rather clinical reasoning; Nuanced complexity may be inadequately identified articulated; High-risk indicators missed; Functional needs classified inaccurately due probing or contextual analysis.
• Structural conflict interest arises if NDIA employs same agency funding decision makers directly impacting budget determination.
• a Closed-loop system exists where participant cannot challenge assessment outcome independently, repeating tool-generated results limits tribunal review scope. The proposed New Framework Planning model increases automation standardisation undermining individualised rights-based foundations of NDIS. Any reform shifting towards algorithmic or tool-driven outputs must carefully scrutinized ensuring foundational principles not eroded. Concerns that existing skilled workforce within disability sector is insufficiently recognized and utilized by the proposed assessment models.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 2054

developing a new workforce model within the NDIA, there is a significant opportunity to leverage this existing capability. These proposed changes to the Bill are likely to result in the following unwanted consequences:

• Shift pressure onto unpaid carers and mainstream systems, disproportionately impacting working women and increasing stress and strain on families.
• Increase workforce instability as small providers will no longer remain viable due to funding cuts.
• Make rural/regional service delivery more difficult so that it essentially alienates these participants from accessing essential services which places them at risk of harm, Place NDIS participants at harm shifting risks back upon themselves their family members communities These proposed changes affect me personally because they reduce my future planning sustainability increase stress uncertainty also impacts clients I work with daily having explain significantly reduced funds access supports require. NDIS cannot be achieved through measures reducing access weakening safeguards increasing hardship transferring costs disabled people families other systems Many profound human rights implications exist here. The Committee should change bill ensure no reductions occur occupational therapy capacity building or community participation supports urge reforms strengthen evidentiary foundations decision-making preserve whole-of-person understanding disability protect role allied health evidence maintain procedural fairness safeguarding protections avoid repeating failures contributing participant harms inequitable outcomes increased exploitation risk The Committee recommends delaying implementation pending meaningful consultation impact assessment removing substantially limiting Ministerial powers impose broad funding cuts retaining environmental personal factors within functional capacity assessments protecting right refuse treatment without losing Scheme access strengthening safeguards around plan suspension contact prohibiting fully safeguarding partially automated eligibility decisions ensuring Category A Rule status for key definitions funders conducting comprehensive human rights gender First Nations socioeconomic impact assessments.

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

Submission 2054

####### ######## #########

Ensuring foundational supports exist and are adequately funded before restricting NDIS access:

• I would also encourage the Committee to adopt Occupational Therapy Australia’s recommendations.
• express support for the “No OT”, “No NDIS” campaign.

Thank you for your time in reading my submission.

Kind regards,