Submission 2310

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

Practitioner Submission to the Senate Inquiry on the Bill

Author:

• Role: Occupational Therapist – Community Practice
• Location: Brisbane QLD

Introduction

I am an occupational therapist working in community practice with individuals living with lifelong and complex disabilities. My work focuses on supporting people to remain safe, maintain function, and participate meaningfully in everyday life.

Contrary to the narrative often presented about NDS providers, my current wage is significantly lower than my previous role in State Parliament. I am not motivated by financial gain, but by a commitment to human dignity, inclusion, and equity.

While I recognise the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, I share the concerns raised by OTSi and others such as OTA, Spinal Life Australia, disability advocates, and NDIS participants themselves that the proposed amendments prioritise cost reduction over participant wellbeing and risk undermining the Scheme’s foundational principles. The Bill should not proceed in its current form. Meaningful consultation with disabled people and the sector is vital prior to implementation.

There are a number of key provisions within the Bill that require substantial amendment, particularly within Schedule 1. These include the proposed repeal of section 31, which underpins participant-centred planning, the introduction of section 34A enabling broad funding reduction powers, and changes to functional capacity (section 9B), alternative supports (section 25B), and permanence requirements (Items 88–94).

I share the same concerns as OTSi and other stakeholders regarding amendments to reassessment and suspension processes, as well as expanded powers relating to automation, pricing, and transitional arrangements across Schedules 2–5. Across these provisions, the Bill has been developed without sufficient consultation or impact analysis. I call for meaningful, co-designed engagement with people with disability, clinicians and the broader sector, particularly in relation to funding reduction powers, pricing decisions, automation, and implementation of the new planning framework. I agree with OTSi and recommend that

Submission 2310

the Bill be delayed to allow for comprehensive consultation, human rights assessment, and the development of appropriate safeguards to mitigate foreseeable risks.

Furthermore, rather than adopting broad, system-wide approaches to reducing participant supports—an approach that risks harm to people with disability—greater attention should be directed toward the efficiencies within the NDIA itself. There is growing concern that systemic inefficiencies within the Agency contribute to significant financial loss. Key contributors include administrative complexity and the substantial legal costs associated with contesting participant plans. I recommend that a thorough and independent review and audit of the NDIA be undertaken to identify inefficiencies and ensure that public funds are used to support participants, to ensure their safety and enable their participation in the community.

Key Concerns

1. Shift Away from Individualised, Person-Centred Care The proposed reforms move the NDIS away from its core principle of individualised, participant-centred planning and toward a more standardised and fiscally driven model. In practice, disability cannot be understood in isolation. As an occupational therapist, I assess how individuals function within their environments, including their supports, home context, and community barriers. Removing these factors risks inaccurate assessments and inappropriate funding decisions.

2. Narrowing of Functional Capacity The proposed definition of functional capacity excludes assistive technology, supports, and environmental context. This does not reflect real-world functioning and risks underestimating the needs of people with complex, fluctuating, and invisible disabilities.

3. Permanence and Treatment Requirements Requiring individuals to undertake “all appropriate treatment” before being considered eligible raises serious concerns. Many people cannot access treatment due to cost, location, or system barriers. Others make informed decisions not to pursue certain treatments. These individuals should not be excluded from support.

4. Reduction in Therapy Supports Therapy plays a critical role in maintaining function, preventing deterioration, and reducing long-term costs across health and social systems. In my daily work, my colleagues and I regularly complete unbillable hours to ensure participants receive essential supports. This reflects a committed workforce—not system misuse. While issues of misuse should be addressed, broad narratives suggesting widespread exploitation do not reflect the reality of a workforce that is largely committed and working hard to support participants.

Submission 2310

Funding Reduction Powers

The introduction of broad powers to reduce funding without individual reassessment risks unsafe and inequitable outcomes. Supports should remain based on individual needs rather than broad fiscal measures.

Safeguarding Risks

Changes to reassessment and suspension processes may result in participants losing supports due to communication barriers or disability-related challenges. This creates significant safety risks and undermines the protective intent of the Scheme.

Workforce Perspective

There is a public narrative suggesting that many providers are exploiting the NDIS. In my experience, this is not accurate. I observe clinicians consistently going above and beyond, often delivering unpaid work to ensure participants receive the care they need. This narrative risks damaging trust in a workforce that is deeply committed to supporting vulnerable people.

Conclusion

The proposed amendments represent a significant shift away from the original intent of the NDIS. While sustainability is important, it must not come at the expense of safety, dignity, and participation. From a frontline perspective, these reforms risk increasing harm, shifting costs to other systems, and reducing quality of life for people with disability.

Any “cost cutting” of the NDIS should, at a minimum, begin with a comprehensive audit of the NDIA itself. In addition to concerns regarding proposed reductions to participant supports, consideration should also be given to the efficiency of the NDIA. There is growing recognition that systemic inefficiencies within the Agency, including administrative complexity and legal costs associated with plan disputes, may contribute to avoidable expenditure. An independent review and audit of the NDIA could assist in identifying opportunities to improve efficiency and ensure effective use of public funds.

Recommendations

• Delay implementation until meaningful consultation and impact assessments are completed.
• An independent review and audit of the NDIA should be undertaken to identify inefficiencies and reduce unnecessary expenditure.
• Retain individualised, participant-centred planning.
• Ensure functional capacity reflects real-world environments.
• Protect access to therapy and capacity-building supports.
• Limit broad funding reduction powers.
• Strengthen safeguards and procedural fairness.

Submission 2310

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

Occupational Therapist (AHPRA registration no: redacted)

Brisbane QLD.`

4