National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3383
29 May 2026
Submission to the Senate Inquiry regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
My name is Kate Cox. I have worked as an Occupational Therapist for over 30 years, initially in the field of physical disability, and for the last 21 years in the areas of mental and neurodivergence. I have supported participants of the NDIS through my private practice since 2018.
I understand that many submissions have been received which provide significant detail on the devastating and harmful impacts the proposed changes will have on many of the most vulnerable members of the community. As such, I not repeat this information in detail, but want to add my voice to the well-justified cries of concern.
I respectfully request that the government consider the following actions:
-
Take the time to consult meaningfully and get the process right. ‘Move fast and break things’ should never be the modus operandi of government departments with the safety and well-being of vulnerable people in their hands.
-
Ensure there are other lifeboats in the ocean before you chuck people out of this one. Adequate and accessible alternative supports need to be in place before existing essential supports are withdrawn from participants.
-
Ensure that the assessment process is fair, accurate and evidence-based. A single point-in-time assessment cannot accurately assess the complexities of fluctuating needs or degenerative conditions.
The nature of many participant’s disabilities mean that they are potentially compromised in their ability to provide full and accurate descriptions of their complex needs in what are effectively ‘exam conditions’. Input from other parties, such as informal supports, formal supports and health professionals is essential to ensure a full understanding of the participant’s needs is obtained.
The research for the I-CAN has been conducted on the tool as it is intended to be used: implemented by trained allied health professionals. If the government intends to push ahead with its plan to have non-AHPs administer this test, they must undertake rigorous and extensive research to ensure that the system produces consistently accurate results, before it is unleashed on participants. Debacles such as Robodebt and the current Aged Care algorithms are not just ‘oops!’ moments for governments: they cause real, lasting and potentially life-threatening harm to vulnerable people.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 3383
-
Ensure that mechanisms for review and appeals are available to ensure the safety and well- being of participants. Circumstances change. Human error occurs. Systems fail. Removing the right to request a plan review or to appeal decisions creates an unacceptably high risk of harm to participants.
-
Reconsider the across-the-board cuts to Social and Community Participation Social and community participation is not a luxury add-on. It is fundamental to well-being and quality of life, and central the original intent of the NDIS.
Many participants require most of their supports for community access, such as those with vision impairments and psychosocial disabilities. Cutting only this support category discriminates disproportionately against some groups of participants.
-
Ensure that contracts for Support Coordination are only awarded to not-for-profit organisations. The concept of the private sector ‘finding efficiencies’ in human services is a myth. Private companies have an imperative to maximise profits and they do this by hiring the lowest-paid staff possible (usually the least experienced), reducing services provided to clients and declining to service those with complex needs. Staff turnover is high, further reducing the quality of service. Clients suffer while the executives rake in 6-figure salaries and shareholders cream off their take. Please do not repeat this mistake again.
-
Ensure that small therapy practices are not squeezed out of providing therapy supports. Large private providers have to support whole layers of management and administration, and frequently maximise their profits by employing inexperienced early-career therapists (who they can pay less) and burning them out with excessive KPIs. They will not be willing or able to provide services in all of the small towns across the country, creating systemic inequalities for rural and remote participants. Small, therapist-led practices are able to provide high-value, locally-based therapy services with significantly lower overhead costs than large providers.
Thank you for taking the time to read this submission.