Submission 641 — Australian Rehabilitation & Assistive Technology Association (641 | External submission

Australian Rehabilitation and Assistive

Technology Association (ARATA)

Supplementary Submission to the Legislative

Affairs Committee

National Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for future generations) Bill 2026

09 July 2026

For further information, please contact or .

ARATA would like to acknowledge and thank the many ARATA members who contributed their knowledge and expertise to inform this submission.

Executive Summary The Australian Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Association (ARATA) welcomes the opportunity to provide this supplementary submission regarding the National Disability

Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. The

supplementary submission follows our submission in late May 20261; and the recent release of the Interim report of the Senate Inquiry to the Bill2.

Amendments to the NDIS Bill3 are welcomed, particularly the amendment to section 34A which expressly excludes AT and HM from percentage-based blanket funding reductions by Ministerial Determination.

However, ARATA is concerned that amendments do not fully address the concerns raised in our initial submission, on the likely impact on access to assistive technology (AT) and home modifications (HM).

For many NDIS participants, these supports are essential components of an effective disability support system. They enable people with disability to live safely, maintain independence, participate in their communities, reduce reliance on formal care and avoid preventable injury, hospitalisation and institutionalisation.

ARATA reiterates the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). However, sustainability should not be pursued through reforms that undermine access to supports which are themselves highly cost-effective and preventative in nature. Assistive technology and home modifications frequently reduce downstream expenditure across health systems, aged care, housing, carer systems and emergency services.

This supplementary submission highlights ARATA’s growing concern that assistive technology and home modifications will become less accessible for disabled Australians, should the Bill pass in its current form.

1 Submissions – Parliament of Australia 2 National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 –

Parliament of Australia

3 26064 Watson-Brown.pdf;fileType=application/pdf

ARATA Recommendations Recc Issue Recommended Amendment Reason

The Bill introduces fundamental reforms to Delay passage of the Bill until it is substantially redrafted NDIS eligibility, funding and support delivery Further delay following genuine consultation with people with disability, and requires sufficient consultation, 1 passage of the allied health professionals, the assistive technology and implementation planning, impact analysis Bill home modifications sector, and representative and assurance that access to essential AT organisations. and HM will be maintained. Insert a commencement condition preventing eligibility Alternative systems are not currently reassessments, funding reductions or diversion from the equipped to meet AT and HM demand. NDIS until foundational supports and mainstream systems Sequencing of Previous ARATA and sector research 2 are fully funded, operational and demonstrably capable of reforms demonstrates that access outside the NDIS providing timely access to assistive technology, home is fragmented, inconsistent and difficult to modifications and associated allied health and AT navigate4. prescriber services. Although AT and HM are now excluded from Amend proposed section 34 to extend the current direct funding reductions, reductions to allied Section 34 exemption for AT and HM by protecting Capacity Building – health funding would indirectly undermine

3      Ministerial      Daily Activities funding from blanket reductions where it

access to these supports. Individual Determinations supports AT and HM assessment, prescription, assessment should remain central to all implementation and review. funding decisions. AT and HM costs are driven by clinical need Delete proposed sections 33(2EA) and 33(2EB). and environmental circumstances, not

Section

Alternatively, prohibit funding caps applying to assistive averages. Funding caps would create 4 33(2EA) technology or home modifications where they would reduce inequity, require participants to self-fund funding caps funding below individually assessed need. essential supports, and lead many to forgo equipment or home modifications altogether. Assistive technology and home modifications Participant enable participants to achieve individual

choice and     Retain section 31 and preserve participant-directed         goals, exercise choice and control, and

individualised  planning principles within the Act.                            participate fully in community life.

planning Individualised planning principles should remain embedded in primary legislation. Redraft proposed section 9B so that functional capacity Disability cannot be accurately assessed explicitly incorporates the effects of assistive technology, without considering the environment in which

Functional     environmental accessibility, housing, social supports and   a person lives. Excluding AT and

capacity        other contextual factors. Delay implementation until an     environmental context fundamentally

evidence-based framework has been independently misrepresents disability and risks validated. inappropriate exclusion from the Scheme. Require comprehensive modelling of the assistive Impact The Bill’s Impact Statements do not address technology and home modification needs of participants modelling of how AT and HM needs will be met outside 7 who may lose NDIS eligibility, together with an assessment AT and HM the NDIS despite significant anticipated of the capacity of state and territory systems to meet those needs changes to participant eligibility. needs before eligibility reforms commence. Many AT and HM supports are required Amend proposed permanence provisions so that access to immediately to enable safety, hospital Permanence clinically necessary assistive technology and home 8 discharge, mobility, communication, pressure and treatment modifications is not delayed while participants undertake care and independent living, regardless of ongoing treatment. whether treatment continues. Require all decisions relating to assistive technology, home AT and HM needs arise from complex

Automated     modifications and complex functional support needs to      interactions between impairments,

10    decision-       include individual clinical assessment by appropriately     environments, housing and support systems

making         qualified allied health professionals and prohibit             that cannot be adequately assessed through

inappropriate reliance on automated decision-making. automated or standardised processes alone.

4 The Australian Assistive Technology Equity Studies

Recc Issue Recommended Amendment Reason

Preserve access to independent merits review through the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) for eligibility, and Participants must retain accessible, assistive technology and home modification funding independent review mechanisms where 11 Review rights decisions. Make all Rules governing eligibility decisions affect access to essential assistive reassessment Category A Rules and also subject to technology and home modifications. Parliamentary scrutiny. Establish independent monitoring of the impact of the Ongoing oversight is required to identify Monitoring and reforms on participant access to assistive technology, changes in access to essential supports and

12    safeguarding  home modifications, allied health assessment services and

ensure reforms do not compromise outcomes safety outcomes, with regular public reporting to participant safety or independence. Parliament.

3. Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………2
Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………..3
Contents………………………………………………………………………………………4 4. About ARATA…………………………………………………………………………….. 5
ARATA Response to Amendments to Section 34………………………………………..5
Continuing Concerns with Key Provisions of the Bill…………………………………….7
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..……..10 4

About ARATA The Australian Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Association (ARATA) is the national non-profit peak body representing assistive technology (AT) stakeholders. ARATA works to advance access to rehabilitation and assistive technologies and promote practices that ensure positive outcomes from their use for people of all abilities. ARATA includes a membership of both National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants and NDIS providers, as well as other AT stakeholders across all experiences of individual AT use, provision of AT advice (e.g. via health professionals), AT supply, AT product development, and AT research and education in Australia and internationally.

ARATA provides a national forum for information sharing and liaison between people who are involved with the use, selection, customisation, supply, research and ongoing support of rehabilitation and assistive technologies. The Association promotes, develops, and supports the national rehabilitation and AT community of practice as well as contributing as a founding organisation to the Global Alliance of Assistive Technology Organizations (GAATO).5

Through its membership, ARATA represents the interests and opinions of the full range of AT stakeholders in Australia. ARATA maintains that roles for all AT stakeholders must be considered, centred around the goals and needs of people who use AT in their own lives, and their informal supporters, including family members and carers, who may engage with the NDIS.

ARATA Response to Amendments to Section 34 ARATA welcomes the Government’s amendments to proposed section 34 of the National

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

2026, particularly the explicit exclusion of assistive technology (AT) and home modifications (HM) from Ministerial Determinations that would otherwise enable blanket funding reductions across support categories.

This amendment represents a significant improvement to the Bill and acknowledges the essential role that assistive technology and home modifications play in enabling safety, independence, communication, participation, and quality of life for people with disability. By excluding AT and HM from percentage-based category-wide funding reductions, the amendment provides an important safeguard against broad funding decisions that fail to consider individual participant circumstances.

However, while ARATA welcomes this change, we remain concerned that it does not fully resolve the risks identified in our original submission.

5 History | GAATO

5.1 The Ongoing Risk Through Capacity Building – Daily Activities

Funding

Although assistive technology and home modifications have been protected from direct blanket funding reductions, access to these supports remains critically dependent on Capacity Building – Daily Activities (CBDA) funding, which continues to be subject to Ministerial Determinations under proposed section 34.

CBDA funding supports the allied health professionals responsible for assessing, prescribing, implementing and reviewing assistive technology and home modifications, including occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech pathologists and other authorised AT prescribers. Without access to these clinical services, participants cannot obtain timely assessments, appropriate prescriptions, equipment trials, environmental assessments, training or ongoing review.

Consequently, any reduction in CBDA funding has the potential to substantially undermine access to AT and HM in practice, despite those supports being excluded from direct funding reductions under s34. The effectiveness of the section 34 amendment is therefore contingent upon maintaining adequate access to the allied health services that enable AT and HM to be safely and appropriately prescribed.

ARATA remains concerned that the current drafting continues to permit broad funding reductions to CBDA for reasons of “financial sustainability”, creating a significant indirect risk to access to AT and home modifications.

5.2 Individual Assessment Must Remain Central

The NDIS was established on the principle that reasonable and necessary supports are determined according to an individual’s circumstances, goals and assessed needs. This principle should continue to apply to any funding decisions affecting therapy, assistive technology and home modifications.

ARATA considers that any exercise of Ministerial powers under section 34 should require individual assessment of participant need, clinical evidence and consideration of risk before funding reductions are made. Blanket percentage-based reductions cannot adequately account for the diversity and complexity of participant needs and risk undermining both participant safety and the individualised nature of the Scheme.

Continuing Concerns with Key Provisions of the

Bill

While ARATA welcomes the recent amendments to section 34, several other aspects of the Bill continue to raise significant concerns for the assistive technology and home modifications sector.

6.1 Functional Capacity Assessments

ARATA remains concerned about the proposed definition of “functional capacity” in proposed section 9B of the NDIS Bill, which may significantly narrow eligibility for the NDIS on the premise that methods and assessments that are not yet developed or proven, hold capability to fairly and reliably fulfil this function.

The proposed approach risks fundamentally misrepresenting how disability occurs in real life by excluding assistive technology, environmental context and support systems from assessment processes. Functional capacity cannot be accurately understood in isolation from the environment in which a person lives. Disability arises through the interaction between a person’s impairment and environmental barriers, and contemporary disability policy, clinical practice and the social model of disability all recognise this interaction.

ARATA welcomes recommendation 9 of the NDIS Joint Standing Committee Inquiry on the Integrity of the NDIS, which calls for functional capacity assessments to be completed by clinicians, who are registered with relevant professional bodies6.

These proposed functional assessments are also expected to play a central role in reassessing eligibility for an estimated 240,000 current NDIS participants. ARATA is particularly concerned that neither the Bill nor its supporting Impact Statements adequately consider how the substantial assistive technology and home modification needs of people who may exit the Scheme will be met through alternative systems.

To date, no modelling has been provided regarding the likely demand for AT and HM outside the NDIS arising from eligibility reassessment, nor has there been analysis of whether state, territory or other service systems possess the capacity, funding or infrastructure to meet this demand.

ARATA’s previous work has consistently demonstrated that access to assistive technology outside the NDIS is highly fragmented, inconsistent and difficult to navigate across jurisdictions7. Those challenges exist under current demand conditions and are likely to be significantly exacerbated if large numbers of people lose NDIS eligibility following functional capacity reassessment. Without robust modelling and system readiness, there is a substantial risk that people requiring essential assistive technology and home modifications will experience prolonged delays, unmet need and declining functional outcomes.

6 Integrity of the National Disability Insurance Scheme – Parliament of Australia

7 The Australian Assistive Technology Equity Studies

6.2 Permanence and Treatment Requirements

ARATA welcomes the clarity that amendments to the scope of “appropriate treatment” have been included within the Bill. However, concerns remain that the proposed permanence and treatment provisions may delay access to essential assistive technology and home modifications by requiring participants to undertake “all appropriate treatment” before impairments are considered permanent and the person is eligible for the NDIS, and individualised assistive technology and home modifications can be accessed under the Scheme.

6.3 Automated Decision-Making

Despite minor amendments to the Bill enabling a degree of transparency on the use of automated decision making within the administration of the NDIS, ARATA remains concerned about Bill powers enabling increased reliance on automated decision-making, potentially where clinical expertise is merited.

Complex assistive technology and home modification needs frequently arise from the interaction of multiple impairments, environmental barriers, family supports, community participation requirements and changing clinical circumstances. These complexities cannot be adequately captured through automated processes or standardised assessment tools alone.

Clinical judgement, environmental assessment and individualised allied health expertise remain essential to determining appropriate AT and HM support needs. The Bill should ensure that automated processes do not replace professional clinical assessment where complex support needs are evident.

6.4 Review Rights and Independent Oversight

Given the significant implications of NDIS eligibility decisions for access to assistive technology and home modifications, ARATA considers it essential that participants retain robust review and appeal rights.

In particular, review pathways for NDIS eligibility decisions should continue to include access to independent merits review through the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). The Rules governing eligibility, reassessment and review processes should be made Category A Rules to ensure meaningful Parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.

ARATA also supports the establishment of independent oversight mechanisms to monitor the operation of review and appeal pathways as eligibility reforms are implemented. Maintaining transparent, accessible and independent review processes will be critical to ensuring public confidence in the Scheme and protecting participants whose access to essential AT and HM depends upon eligibility decisions.

6.5 Preserving Choice and the Individualised Nature of the Scheme

ARATA remains concerned that several provisions within the Bill risk shifting the NDIS away from its foundational principles of participant choice, control and individualised support.

Assistive technology is fundamentally an enabler of individualised lives. Appropriate AT and home modifications allow participants to pursue their own goals, live safely in their chosen communities, participate in education and employment, maintain relationships, communicate effectively and exercise autonomy.

Funding arrangements and legislative frameworks should continue to support individual assessment and participant choice rather than increasingly standardised approaches that fail to recognise the diversity of participant needs and life circumstances.

6.6 Section 33(2EA): Funding Caps

ARATA remains particularly concerned by proposed section 33(2EA), which enables funding caps to be applied to classes of supports.

Proposed section 33(2EA) represents a significant departure from the current demand driven, entitlement-based design of the NDIS by enabling maximum funding amounts to be imposed on classes of supports, irrespective of an individual’s assessed reasonable and necessary support needs.

Together with the new funding determination powers under section 34, proposed section 33(2EA) shifts the Scheme away from funding supports based solely on individual assessed need towards a framework in which funding may be constrained by broader fiscal and sustainability considerations.

While funding caps may appear administratively efficient, they present significant risks for assistive technology and home modifications, where costs are driven by individual clinical need, environmental circumstances and technical requirements rather than average expenditure. If funding caps are set below clinically assessed need, participants will effectively be required to self-fund the difference in order to obtain essential supports.

Assistive technology and home modifications cannot usually be partially purchased or scaled back without compromising safety or effectiveness. Funding caps therefore risk creating substantial inequity between participants with similar needs but differing financial capacity. Participants who cannot meet funding gaps may simply forgo essential equipment or home modifications altogether, resulting in avoidable risks to safety, independence, and community participation.ARATA underscores that assistive technology (AT) and home modifications (HM) are cost-effective investments that improve participant safety, independence and long-term Scheme sustainability. Appropriate AT and HM can reduce reliance on higher-intensity supports, lower manual handling risks for participants and carers, and enable people to remain living safely at home, delaying or avoiding the need for more costly supports such as Supported Independent Living (SIL) or Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA). Restricting access to these supports may increase both participant safety risks and long-term costs to the NDIS.

Funding for assistive technology and home modifications should continue to reflect individually assessed reasonable and necessary need rather than predetermined financial limits.

6.7 Plan Reassessments and Access to Complex Assistive

Technology

ARATA is concerned that the Bill’s emphasis on more restrictive plan reassessment pathways across extended timeframes does not adequately recognise the unique nature of assistive technology (AT) and home modifications (HM) needs. Unlike many ongoing supports, the need for complex AT or HM often cannot be accurately predicted at the commencement of a plan.

Current NDIS administrative processes also contribute to the need for unscheduled plan reassessments, as more rigid plans and funding periods do not consistently allow sufficient time or funding for comprehensive assessment, equipment trials and costing of complex AT and HM.

Rather than simply restricting reassessments, the Bill should recognise that plan reassessment requests are often a consequence of the way AT and HM are funded. ARATA recommends a more flexible pathway whereby funding for major AT and home modifications can be considered on the basis of individual clinical need as it arises, without requiring participants to satisfy increasingly restrictive plan reassessment thresholds and extended timeframes. Such an approach would support timely access to essential supports while reducing unnecessary administrative burden for participants, clinicians and the NDIA.

Conclusion ARATA welcomes recent amendments to the NDIS Bill, however we remain concerned that amendments do not fully address the concerns raised in our initial submission, on the likely impact on access to assistive technology and home modifications arising from the Bill.

ARATA recommends that the Bill be substantially amended to ensure that access to assistive technology and home modifications remains grounded in individual assessment of need, allied health expertise, participant choice, environmental accessibility principles and independent review, rather than broad funding controls or standardised eligibility mechanisms.

Further, ARATA points to the need for analysis, including cost-analysis, and system preparation to ensure access to assistive technology outside the NDIS for those 240,000 people who will lose access to the NDIS over the next 4 years as a result of the NDIS cuts.

These safeguards are essential to preserving equitable access to the assistive technology and home modification supports that enable people with disability to live independently, participate fully in their communities, and achieve the outcomes the NDIS was established to support.