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

To the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry,

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

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed amendments to the National Disability

Insurance Scheme Act as they stand in their current form.

I am an occupational therapist who has worked within the NDIS provider market for

approximately five and a half years, supporting Autistic children, young adults, and their

families in regional Victoria. My work involves assessing functional capacity, providing

therapy and capacity-building supports, collaborating with schools and community services,

and helping families navigate the practical realities of disability across contexts. This role

provides me with direct insight into both the amazing benefits of comprehensive holistic

disability supports and the significant challenges that arise when support needs are unmet.

The views expressed in this submission are informed by my professional experience working

closely with NDIS participants and families with a broad range of complex support needs.

There are many submissions detailing concerns with specific amendments/clauses of the

Bill. My views align with concerns raised and proposals made by the Occupational Therapy

Society for Invisible Disabilities (submission # 32). Rather than focusing on individual

clauses, I wish to comment on the broader direction and underlying principles reflected in the

proposed amendments.

My primary concern is that the amendments represent a landmark shift in the values  underpinning the Scheme. Without robust legislative safeguards and meaningful limits on  ministerial discretion, the proposed changes risk making people with disability increasingly  vulnerable to changing government priorities and fiscal pressures. Rather than strengthening  certainty and security for participants, the amendments create mechanisms through which  eligibility, supports, and expenditure settings can be adjusted over time to prioritise

• alignment with political agenda rather than the individual needs of both current and

prospective participants.

Having read the Explanatory Memorandum, I am concerned that the central objective of the

amendments is not the long-term protection of supports for people with disability, but rather

the provision of unprecedented flexibility for governments to manage NDIS expenditure

without proportional accountability.

Disability costs money. There is no avoiding this if we consider the lives and dignity of

disabled people to be as valuable as those living without a disability. Reducing frontline

expenditure will not reduce need, it will only increasingly fail to meet the need and place

pressure on public health infrastructure. Disability-related needs do not disappear when

funding is reduced. Instead, unmet need is displaced elsewhere throughout society. The

consequences include increased pressure on public health services; greater demand on

emergency departments and hospitals; increased educational disadvantage; increased

pressure on schools; reduced workforce participation among carers; subsequent

superannuation, retirement and late stage quality of life losses; greater reliance on income

support systems; increased child protection intervention and poorer long-term outcomes for

people with disability, their families and their communities; exponentially disproportionate

consequences for Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, CALD and other marginalised

communities in all aforementioned domains. Cost shifting is not cost saving when it involves

dramatic rapid expenditure reduction; it simply transfers responsibility from one system to

other less resourced ones at greater long term social and economic expense.

The NDIS undoubtedly represents a significant public investment. However, it also delivers

life-changing outcomes and generates substantial long-term social and economic benefits. It

impacts millions of Australian lives, either directly or indirectly and to propose such

transformative legislation without proportionate opportunity for rigorous scrutiny and public

discussion is at best, irresponsible and at worst grossly negligent.

As an occupational therapist working with Autistic people from ages 6-36, I have a unique

perspective on the value of early intervention in this space. Autistic adults who grew up

before the availability of the NDIS and the broader disability supports that exist today in

many respects are supported to learn similar functional, self-management, self advocacy

and participation skills as the young children I work with. A key difference is that the

consequences of unmet developmental needs in adulthood come with significantly higher

stakes.

Where developmental needs are not adequately addressed in childhood, Autistic individuals

each adulthood with substantial foundational skill gaps. This can result in either a lifelong

need for higher-intensity therapy and support services, or a situation where support needs

remain unmet because the individual lacks the financial means to access assistance

privately. In both cases, opportunities for participation, independence, education, employment, and quality of life are diminished.

Over the past five years working within the NDIS, I have observed that very few families with Autistic children are able to sustain full-time employment for all adult household members. In most cases, one parent or caregiver (usually the mother) is required to partially or completely withdraw from the workforce in order to manage the substantial care, advocacy, and administrative demands associated with supporting their child.

Similarly, many of the children I work with are unable to sustain full-time school attendance due to the complexity of their support needs. Families are already navigating significant challenges, and there is considerable anxiety about how these may escalate if supports are further reduced or if their children are exited from the Scheme.

This is why I am particularly concerned about the amendments that could result in many of my client’s being removed from the Scheme or having access to supports significantly reduced. The long-term impacts of unmet support needs extend far beyond budget cycles and persist throughout a person’s lifetime. I am deeply concerned about the welfare and long-term wellbeing of those who will be affected by these amendments.

I view the NDIS as essential social infrastructure. As both a taxpayer and an allied health professional, I gladly contribute my tax dollars toward ensuring that Australians with disability can access the same dignity, opportunities, and community participation that most Australians take for granted.

Reducing or displacing disability support costs does not eliminate disability-related needs. It simply shifts those costs onto individuals, families, communities, and other under resourced public systems. A sustainable NDIS must balance fiscal responsibility with its fundamental purpose: enabling Australians with disability to live safe, meaningful, and dignified lives.

The proposed amendments risk undermining the ability of the NDIS to remain fit for purpose over time. I urge the committee to delay passage of the bill until each amendment has been thoroughly scrutinised, appropriately risk assessed, independently evaluated for compliance

Submission

with relevant human rights conventions, held up against the needs of the people the scheme

is designed to meet and amended accordingly.

Sincerely,

Occupational Therapist

Submission 31.06.26 Page 4 of 4