NDIA Accountability Project

Client's death due to lack of psychosocial disability support

‹ PrevPage 1 of 5 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission to the Senate Inquiry — National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

1 June 2026 Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs PO Box 6100, Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 RE: Submission to the Senate Inquiry — National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Dear Committee Secretary, I am writing as a practising occupational therapist (OT) with five years of clinical experience, working across two small providers in Brisbane. I work with a broad range of participants, including people with autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, physical disabilities, acquired brain injuries, and psychosocial disability. While I understand the importance of NDIS sustainability, I am deeply concerned that the Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026 will cause serious and disproportionate harm to the people I support. I feel I can offer meaningful insight into the risks and injustices that already exist within the system, and what this Bill could mean for vulnerable people in real life. Sustainability cannot be achieved by reducing access to essential supports, narrowing eligibility, or expanding ministerial powers without accountability. These measures will not fix the scheme. They will transfer the cost onto disabled people, unpaid carers, and an already overstretched health system. Ongoing access and eligibility I am concerned about proposals to tighten access to the NDIS, including placing the burden on disabled people to demonstrate they have exhausted every treatment option. Significant barriers to access already exist, and they are already placing people at risk. I want to share an example that comes to the front of my mind when considering this issue. I had a client with severe psychosocial disability who was unable to access

NDIS Support

NDIS support that she would have benefited from for many years. I met her shortly after she was granted access the scheme after she had a limb amputated due to complications arising from a suicide attempt. Despite the circumstances of her application, she was only accepted on the scheme for her physical disability. With the cumulative impact of long-term mental health deterioration without support and a new physical disability, she was in a very vulnerable place when I met her. The limitations in her plan also meant that she could not access the type of support she actually needed to address her psychosocial disability (e.g., psychology, appropriate support hours). The last time I saw her, she told me that she couldn’t wait any longer and didn’t know what else she could do to get help. She died by suicide while waiting for her appeal to be heard. I feel very strongly that there could have been another outcome if she had timely access to the appropriate supports when she needed them. This is not an isolated story, and I feel that this is likely to become more common with the proposed changes.

The people who need this support do not have the resources, time, or capacity to methodically work through every possible treatment option before they can access support. There are immense cultural, geographical, financial and accessibility concerns that need to be taken into account which make many treatment options inappropriate or completely inaccessible. I ask the Committee to consider whether they would find that level of scrutiny acceptable if it were applied to themselves. At its core, this is a proposal that penalises the most vulnerable.

The client I described is not the only person who has told me that loss of supports would leave them considering suicide as the only option. This has become increasingly common in recent months, particularly since the introduction of this Bill. I urge the Committee to consider the widespread impact that this has on the community. It is essential that access and ongoing eligibility is fair, transparent and equitable. This includes established and evidence-based foundational supports in place for people who do not meet access or ongoing eligibility criteria.

Assessments of functional capacity and support needs

I also hold concerns about functional capacity and support needs assessments being conducted without qualified health professionals or recognition of participant context.

  • Disability is complex.

As health professionals, we have clinical training, registration, and accountability when completing care or assessment. These are the safeguards that protect the people we work with. Under the proposed Bill, the agency could make these determinations without appropriate clinical training or liability when things go wrong. There is no standardised assessment tool that can safely or accurately capture support needs, particularly one that has not been clinically validated or developed in genuine consultation with the community. I also worry about the conflict of interest for an agency incentivised to reduce costs cannot be trusted to make these assessments in the best interests of participants.

I have similar concerns regarding the use of automation in eligibility and planning decisions. Who is accountable when someone is harmed as a result? Health professional evidence must remain central to these processes. It is essential for preventing harm and supporting safe outcomes.

Ministerial powers

I have concerns that the proposed ministerial powers would allow percentage-based funding reductions to be applied without individual reassessment, without consideration of participant safety, and without analysis of functional impact. A blanket mechanism like this cannot distinguish between a participant with unused funding and one whose plan already represents the bare minimum required to keep them safe.

When I think about this issue, I think about my clients who would be at risk. For example, I have a client with spinal cord injury who already rations his catheter products to stretch his consumables funding. This has contributed to recurring kidney infections. Further cuts, applied without review or consultation, could result in hospitalisation or death. I also have many clients with 24-hour support needs who cannot be left alone. Overarching cuts to funding place them at risk of injury, neglect and death. Similarly, the cost of the support transfers to the hospital system and unpaid carers who are already stretched to their limits.

I feel strongly that there needs to be appropriate oversight, individual decision-making and rights to appeal to make sure that people are safe.

Therapy funding

I also want to advocate for the ongoing provision of capacity building supports. The

proposed cuts would impact participants in a measurable way. Allied health supports

improve lives, build functional capacity and support safety. This is not work which can

be replaced by a support worker or removed.

I regularly encounter situations where disabled people are at risk. This can be due to

inappropriate support plans, unsafe equipment, manual handling issues and task- based risks. It is the role of registered professionals to recognise these risks, provide advice and improve outcomes.

I also service many clients who require capacity building supports to improve or maintain their capacity day to day. When this support is not available, this can have significant impacts for their lives. The example that comes to mind for me, is my client with complex psychosocial disability who had psychology removed and OT support significantly reduced in her plan. Since this happened in August, her function has deteriorated significantly. Her informal support arrangement broke down, she has experienced homelessness and has had significant increases in behaviours of concern. I feel strongly that she relied on these supports to maintain her function and safety.

I feel strongly that capacity building support is important and meaningful to ongoing function and independence.

Recommendations

I could detail my concerns at much greater length. My key recommendations for the Committee are as follows:

  • Delay implementation until there has been meaningful consultation and a genuine assessment of impact on participants.
  • Ensure foundational supports are in place and adequately funded before any restrictions to NDIS access are introduced.

  • Remove or substantially limit ministerial powers to impose broad funding reductions.

  • Prohibit fully automated eligibility and planning decisions and ensure robust safeguards for any partially automated processes.

  • Protect community participation and capacity building supports.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry. I am available to provide further information or to appear before the Committee if required.

Yours sincerely,

Occupational Therapist