National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 723
1June 2026
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I am a physiotherapist and Director of a rural physiotherapy company providing services to people with disability across regional and rural communities. I have worked as a physiotherapist for 19 years across public health, large metropolitan health services, rural health services, community- based disability services and private practice. My experience spans government, non-government and private sectors.
Throughout my career I have worked with people living with complex physical disabilities, neurological conditions, progressive diseases, chronic health conditions and multiple comorbidities. I have supported individuals across acute care, rehabilitation, community health and disability service settings and have observed the interaction between health, disability and social support systems over nearly two decades.
Importantly, I have worked before, during and after the introduction of the NDIS. This experience has provided me with a unique perspective on how disability support systems have evolved in Australia and the significant impact that individualised disability funding has had on the lives of people with disability.
I support the objective of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS. The scheme has transformed the lives of many Australians by providing greater independence, dignity, autonomy and participation in community life. However, I am concerned that several reforms proposed in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 risk reducing access to support for people with disability without adequately addressing the structural factors that have contributed to growth in scheme expenditure.
In my professional opinion, many of the cost pressures facing the NDIS arise from longstanding system design issues (including unclear rules on how support worker time can be spent), market failures, inconsistent planning processes, delays and lack of responsiveness from the agency around funding decisions. Sustainable reform should address these underlying drivers while preserving access to reasonable and necessary supports for people with disability.
Concerns Regarding Functional Capacity Assessments
The proposed shift of functional capacity assessment raises significant concerns, if this solely drives the funded support needs identification process. I agree there should be stricter and clearer definitions around eligibility to the scheme.
EveryBody Therapy Page 1 of 7 Jessica Kuek Physiotherapist
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 723
While functional capacity is an important consideration, disability is rarely experienced as a single impairment in isolation. Many participants live with multiple interacting conditions, chronic health issues and comorbidities. The cumulative impact of these conditions is often far greater than the effect of any one diagnosis considered independently.
As a clinician, I am concerned that a single standardised assessment process by unskilled and unfamiliar person may fail to adequately recognise the complexity of disability as it presents in real-world settings. Disability is influenced not only by physical or cognitive impairments but also by environmental barriers, social circumstances, access to services, family supports and opportunities for participation. It also leaves the scheme open to prospective participants providing misleading information to describe a “worse” functioning capacity with their personal goal of getting onto the NDIS.
I am particularly concerned that Parliament is being asked to legislate significant changes before assessment tools, eligibility thresholds and safeguards have been fully developed, independently evaluated and subjected to meaningful public scrutiny.
Concerns Regarding the Definition of Permanent Disability
I am concerned about the proposed definition of permanent disability and the requirement that “all appropriate treatment options be exhausted” before an impairment is considered permanent.
This approach may disproportionately disadvantage people living in rural and regional Australia, of lower socioeconomic status or unable to access some treatments for legitimate reasons.
In many communities, specialist services are unavailable locally. Participants may be required to travel hundreds of kilometres to access assessments or treatment. Long waiting lists, workforce shortages and financial barriers frequently limit access to care. The theoretical existence of a treatment option does not mean that treatment is practically available.
The proposed definition creates a risk that people will be denied access to disability supports because treatments exist somewhere, even if those treatments are inaccessible due to geography, cost or service availability.
The requirement that an impairment cannot be considered permanent if treatment may alleviate symptoms is also concerning. Many disabilities are lifelong but fluctuate in severity. A small improvement in function should not be used to deny recognition of a person’s ongoing disability and support needs.
Risk of Standardised, Impairment-Based Funding Models
Put plainly, moving towards automated, standardised support packages based primarily on assessed impairments is not only a step backwards in disability policy, it risks creating a discriminatory system that fails to recognise the diverse and individual ways disability affects people’s lives.
People with disability are not a homogeneous group. Two individuals with the same diagnosis or impairment may have vastly different functional needs, goals, living circumstances, support
EveryBody Therapy Page 2 of 7 Jessica Kuek Physiotherapist
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 723
networks and barriers to participation. A system that relies predominantly on standardised assessments and impairment-based funding risks treating people as categories rather than individuals.
The discriminatory impact is likely to be particularly significant for people with complex disabilities, multiple comorbidities, fluctuating conditions, psychosocial disabilities and those living in rural and remote Australia who I work with every day.
I have seen firsthand why Australia moved away from block-funded and standardised disability support systems. Those systems frequently resulted in inequitable outcomes, with support determined by where a person lived, what services happened to exist in their area and whether they fit predefined categories, rather than by their actual needs and their specific goals.
The NDIS was founded on the principle that disability supports should be individualised, person- centred and responsive to each participant’s unique circumstances. Returning to a system that primarily allocates support according to impairment scores, standardised assessment outcomes or algorithm-generated budgets risks recreating many of the inequities the NDIS was designed to overcome.
This concern is particularly relevant in rural and remote Australia. Participants living outside metropolitan centres already face significant barriers including workforce shortages, long travel distances, limited provider choice, reduced access to specialist services and fewer opportunities for social and community participation.
Two participants with identical impairments may require very different levels of support depending on where they live. A participant in a metropolitan area may have access to public transport, specialist services, accessible infrastructure and a wide range of community supports. A participant in a rural community may have none of these available and therefore require additional support to achieve equivalent outcomes.
Equality is not achieved by treating everyone the same. Equity requires recognising individual circumstances and providing the supports necessary for people to participate fully in society.
Importance of the Right to Appeal
The right to independent review and merits appeal is a fundamental safeguard within any administrative decision-making system that determines access to essential supports, including disability-related supports under the NDIS.
NDIS planning and eligibility decisions involve complex evaluative judgments regarding functional capacity, clinical evidence, environmental context, and individual goals. In practice, I have observed instances where initial decisions made by NDIA delegates or planners—who may not have clinical qualifications or specific expertise in the relevant disability—do not adequately reflect the participant’s functional needs, goals, environmental and support needs, or supporting clinical evidence.
These observations highlight the inherent risks associated with delegating complex, rights- impacting decisions to non-specialist decision-makers without robust mechanisms for independent scrutiny.
EveryBody Therapy Page 3 of 7 Jessica Kuek Physiotherapist
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 723
The consequences of such decisions can be profound. NDIA determinations may directly influence where a person is able to live, whether they can safely remain in the community, and whether they can access essential supports required for daily living. For some participants, access to adequate supports is not merely a matter of independence or participation, but a determinant of safety, health, and in some cases, survival.
From a human rights perspective, effective access to review and appeal is an essential component of procedural fairness and legal accountability. It is central to ensuring that decisions affecting a person’s autonomy, dignity, and access to necessary supports are accurate, transparent, and consistent with the objectives of the scheme.
I am concerned that reforms which limit the scope of review, reduce the ability of independent tribunals to substitute decisions, or diminish the practical accessibility of appeal pathways risk undermining these safeguards. Such changes may weaken accountability in circumstances where the consequences of incorrect decisions are significant and often immediate for participants.
This concern is particularly acute for people with complex disabilities, communication barriers, those in rural and remote areas, who may be disproportionately affected by limitations in assessment processes and therefore more reliant on robust review mechanisms to ensure their circumstances are properly understood and applied.
In my experience, review processes frequently identify and correct deficiencies in original planning and eligibility decisions. They therefore serve not only as an individual safeguard but also as an essential quality assurance mechanism within the broader administrative system.
Accordingly, maintaining a meaningful, accessible, and effective right to appeal is consistent with principles of administrative law, procedural fairness, and Australia’s obligations to ensure equal recognition before the law and effective access to justice for people with disability.
A sustainable NDIS must also be a rights-compliant and reviewable system. The right to appeal is not ancillary; it is integral to lawful, fair, and accountable decision-making
Restrictions on Reassessments
I am also concerned about restrictions on participant access to reassessments.
Functional capacity can change rapidly following illness, injury, surgery, hospitalisation, disease progression or breakdown of informal support arrangements.
Restricting access to reassessment does not reduce need. It simply reduces opportunities for that need to be recognised and appropriately supported.
In practice, this may result in increased functional decline, avoidable hospital admissions, greater carer burden and higher costs across the health and disability systems.
EveryBody Therapy Page 4 of 7 Jessica Kuek Physiotherapist
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 723
Reductions in Community Participation and Capacity Building Supports
The proposed reductions in social and community participation supports and capacity-building supports are particularly concerning.
These supports are not optional extras for some participants. They help people leave their homes, participate in employment and education, maintain relationships, develop skills, engage in their communities and avoid social isolation.
As a clinician, I have seen the positive impact that these supports have on physical health, mental wellbeing, independence and quality of life.
Removing these supports before alternative systems are fully established risks significant harm to participants.
I strongly recommend that participants who are unable to leave their home without funded supports DO NOT have their community participation cut.
Need for Meaningful Consultation
I share concerns regarding the limited consultation period provided for these reforms.
People with disability, families, carers, clinicians, service providers and representative organisations should be meaningfully involved in the development of legislation that affects their lives.
The principle of “nothing about us without us” has been central to disability advocacy for decades and should remain central to NDIS reform.
The scale and significance of these reforms warrant broader consultation, greater transparency and sufficient time for stakeholders to understand and respond to proposed changes.
Compatibility with Human Rights Obligations
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a key mechanism through which Australia gives effect to its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). In particular, it engages rights relating to equality before the law (Article 12), access to justice (Article 13), independent living and community inclusion (Article 19), and respect for inherent dignity and individual autonomy (Article 3).
In my view, any reforms to the NDIS must be assessed not only in terms of fiscal sustainability and administrative efficiency, but also in terms of their compatibility with these fundamental human rights obligations. Policy and legislative changes that reduce individualised assessment, limit meaningful participation in decision-making, or restrict access to independent review
EveryBody Therapy Page 5 of 7 Jessica Kuek Physiotherapist
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 723
mechanisms risk undermining Australia’s commitment to ensuring that people with disability enjoy equal recognition and full participation in society on an equal basis with others.
Consistent with Article 4(3) of the UNCRPD, people with disability must be closely consulted and actively involved through their representative organisations in the development and implementation of legislation and policies that affect them. Meaningful consultation is not procedural; it is a substantive requirement of rights-compliant law and policy development.
Accordingly, I urge the Committee to ensure that any proposed reforms to the NDIS are fully consistent with Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD and uphold the principles of dignity, autonomy, participation, inclusion, and substantive equality for people with disability.
Conclusion
I support a sustainable NDIS. However, sustainability should not be achieved through measures that reduce access to supports for people with genuine and substantial disability-related needs.
The proposed reforms risk shifting the NDIS away from its founding principles of individualised support, participant choice and control, equity and inclusion.
As a physiotherapist with 19 years of experience across health and disability sectors, and as the director of a rural physiotherapy service, I believe that sustainable reform should focus on addressing structural inefficiencies, strengthening oversight and regulation, improving consistency in planning and investing in foundational supports.
It should not be achieved by creating new barriers to access, reducing the importance of clinical evidence, relying on standardised assessment processes that fail to capture individual circumstances, or limiting supports for those who already face significant disadvantage.
I urge the Committee to ensure that any reforms preserve the rights, dignity, autonomy and participation of people with disability while addressing the genuine structural challenges facing the NDIS.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission. I would like to share a case study.
Case Study
I have a client who is 37 years old lady has a diagnosis of Spina bifida. She has her own wheelchair accessible van, she has high potential to drive this herself, be an active member of the community, work and participate living a full life. However this is not her reality, she is bed bound, her aging parents can’t manage her increasing support needs, they have their own health issues and need to attend their own medical appointments. Her support staff need 2 people there to safely complete hoist transfers. They are funded by the NDIS to be there for 2 hours a day. This is not enough time to complete showered and morning routine bowel and bladder care for neurogenic bowel and bladder, dressing, skin care and transfer her to her wheelchair. If she were to transfer to her wheelchair and the staff were to leave she would have no way of getting back to bed until they
EveryBody Therapy Page 6 of 7 Jessica Kuek Physiotherapist
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 723
came the next day. So she remains in bed. Pressure injury risk increasing, postural deformities increasing, physical capacity to sit out of bed in wheelchair decreasing.
She lives more than 1 hour from a rural center therapists need to travel 2.5 hours at 50% rates to see her she has great difficult getting a therapist to do a home visit. She is unable to travel to the therapist for her needs to be met.
She is currently awaiting a NDIS plan review and reassessment. With current reforms proposed her funded supports may be cut further. Her right to reassessment denied and results life limiting.
Sincerely,
Jessica Kuek Physiotherapist & Director Everybody Therapy PTY LTD
EveryBody Therapy Page 7 of 7 Jessica Kuek Physiotherapist