National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 892
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I write this submission in strong opposition to aspects of the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.
I provide this submission from multiple intersecting perspectives: ● Occupational Therapist of 18 years, working with children, adolescents and families across Australia ● person with disability and NDIS participant ● sibling and carer of a person with disability and NDIS participant ● carer for a parent living with mental illness ● clinician working daily within disability, health, education and family systems
This submission is therefore informed not only by professional expertise but by my lived experience of disability, caregiving, navigating systems, and understanding the realities families face when support systems fail.
I acknowledge the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the NDIS. However, I do not believe the proposed reforms achieve sustainability in a safe, ethical, evidence-informed or genuinely person-centred way.
Instead, many of the proposed changes appear primarily directed toward reducing expenditure through tightening access, narrowing interpretation of disability, restricting supports, increasing gatekeeping, and transferring burden onto families, unpaid carers and already overstretched mainstream systems.
From both my professional and personal perspectives, I am deeply concerned that these reforms risk fundamentally reshaping the NDIS away from its original purpose: enabling disabled Australians to live an ordinary life with dignity, safety, and choice.
Lived experience of disability and caregiving As both an NDIS participant and family carer, I know firsthand that disability does not exist in isolation from housing, finances, relationships, mental health, trauma, access to healthcare, caregiving responsibilities, geography and social supports. The reality of disability is often complex, fluctuating and exhausting. There is no way to fit individual lives into proforma checklists and boxes. Many people with disability already spend years navigating: ● fragmented healthcare systems ● long waitlists
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 892
● inaccessible services ● repeated assessments ● financial stress ● burnout ● administrative burden ● stigma ● disbelief and dismissal ● inappropriate or unhelpful treatment
Families and carers are already carrying extraordinary levels of unpaid labour. Across both my personal and professional life, I see carers experiencing: ● chronic stress ● financial hardship ● workforce exit ● relationship breakdown ● social isolation ● declining mental health ● physical exhaustion
When disability supports are reduced or delayed, the burden does not disappear. It shifts onto carers, families, schools, emergency departments, hospitals, mental health systems and community services. People’s needs do not go away.
As someone living this reality personally while also working within the disability sector professionally, I am deeply concerned that these reforms underestimate the cumulative impact these changes will have on disabled Australians and their support systems. What was meant to be “the greatest change to Australian social policy in a generation” (Prime Minister Julia Gillard, 29 November, 2012) now risks being the greatest cause of harm to people with disability in our generation. The proposed changes outlined throughout this submission have the potential to harm hundreds of thousands of people and kill an unknown percentage of them.
Functional Capacity Occupational therapists are uniquely trained to assess functional capacity, participation, environmental barriers, and support needs across real-world contexts. 9B Definition of functional capacity (1) A person’s functional capacity, in relation to an activity, is the person’s ability to undertake the activity: (a) without assistance from other people, assistive technology or modifications; and (b) in a context that excludes, as far as possible, the impact of the person’s environmental and personal circumstances.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 892
The above proposed legislative definition of functional capacity is particularly concerning because it proposes assessing what a person can do: ● without assistance from others ● without assistive technology or modifications ● excluding environmental and personal circumstances
Disability does not occur separately from environmental, social, cultural, geographical and relational contexts. This risks creating an artificial and clinically inaccurate understanding of disability. Given that functional capacity assessment is the domain of Occupational Therapists, it is (un)surprising to see that no consultation has occurred with our profession.
This proposed definition appears inconsistent with the social model of disability underpinning both the NDIS and Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The proposed approach also risks undermining internationally recognised frameworks such as the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), which recognises disability as arising through interaction between impairments, participation barriers, environmental factors and support systems.
As a clinician, I am deeply concerned that increasingly reductionist and standardised assessment models will fail to accurately capture: ● fluctuating disability ● persistent pain and fatigue ● executive functioning impairments ● psychosocial disability ● masking and compensatory strategies ● sensory needs ● environmental barriers ● cumulative impairments ● impacts on carers and family systems
This is especially relevant for many people with neurodevelopmental conditions, psychosocial disability, chronic illnesses, and invisible disabilities.
Reduced access to support As an Occupational Therapist, I am extremely concerned about the proposed 10% reduction in therapy supports across the board. The Government has consistently underestimated the role capacity building supports play in the prevention of functional decline in lifelong disability. Without access to adequate capacity-building therapies, people are likely to require more support in the form of core supports, assistive technology, and home modifications. Reducing a participant’s access to therapies which help build and maintain their level of function,
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 892
promote independence and enable engagement in social and economic activities is not helpful to anyone, and most definitely not to the budget.
Therapy and capacity building supports: ● preserve independence ● enable economic participation ● reduce or delay deterioration ● maintain safety ● reduce hospitalisation ● reduce carer burnout ● improve quality of life ● support participation
As a participant, I am particularly concerned about: ● stricter eligibility thresholds ● reduced therapy supports ● reduced social and community participation supports ● new functional assessment models ● reduced recognition of cumulative or intersecting disability
I am genuinely concerned about my own mental and physical health if the Bill enables the proposed 50% reduction to social and community participation supports. I use my social and community participation funding to help me get to allied health appointments (NDIS-funded and privately funded), medical appointments (which I have to pay for myself), occasional trips to the shops to buy new clothes, and, on average, one enjoyable outing per week. This enjoyable activity might be going out for lunch (which I pay for with my tax-paying income), going to a gallery, or sitting by the ocean. If I’m lucky, I might have enough funding to go and see my closest friends who live on average 1.5 hours away from me, approximately 2-3 times per year.
I am struggling to understand how the Government thinks this is unreasonable, given that I am a wheelchair user who cannot drive and cannot go places on my own, and also live with a psychosocial disability. I am also struggling to understand how this version of an ordinary life is any more or less worthy than anyone else’s.
Think for a minute: Why should you, the reader, be allowed to leave your house and do whatever you want as an adult member of society, yet I will not be able to?
I have not committed a crime. I have done nothing wrong. Yet the Government is keen on keeping me and others, locked in our houses, like a prison made by the Government.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 892
Taking away people’s ability to leave their homes is a breach of human rights. It is a violation of the foundational underpinnings of the NDIS, which Julia Gillard introduced to Parliament in 2013…….
The legislation aims to support the independence and social and economic participation of people with disability.
It clearly recognises the right of people with disability to exercise choice and control over the planning and delivery of their supports.
The legislation is designed to ensure that people with disability can access reasonable and necessary supports, that there is an assurance of support over a person’s lifetime, and that the scheme remains sustainable over the long term.1
This one change, cutting the social and community participation funding in plans by 50%, undoes it all, in one fell swoop.
We cannot participate in society if we cannot leave our houses.
Many cannot participate in economic activities if they cannot leave their house.
My right to exercise choice and control over the planning and delivery of my supports is null and void if the Minister gets to decide that I can leave the house 50% less next year than this year.
People with disability were promised access to reasonable and necessary supports across their lifetime. My lifetime is not up, unless of course, the plan here is to render people with disability so isolated and hopeless that they die an early death. The Australian Government reports on the link between isolation and poorer health outcomes, including illness and death2. Those deaths will be on the Ministers’ hands.
I am all for sustainability. This is not it.
1 https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-18932 2 Social isolation has been linked to mental illness, emotional distress, suicide, the development of dementia, premature death and poor health behaviours (smoking, physical inactivity and poor sleep) – as well as biological effects, including high blood pressure and impaired immune function (Cacioppo et al. 2002 and Grant et al. 2009 in Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015). Social isolation is also associated with psychological distress (Manera et al. 2022) and sustained decreases in feelings of wellbeing (Shankar et al. 2015). Conversely, more frequent social contact is associated with better overall health (Botha 2022). Loneliness has been linked to premature death, poor physical and mental health (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015), greater psychological distress (Manera et al. 2022) and general dissatisfaction with life (Schumaker et al. 1993). https://www.aihw.gov.au/mental-health/topic-areas/health-wellbeing/social-isolation-and-loneliness
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 892
This is decimation. This is cruelty. This is a broken promise.
Treatment exhaustion and permanence I strongly oppose the proposed tightening of permanence criteria and the requirement for participants to undertake “all appropriate treatment” before impairments may be considered permanent.
The proposed legislation appears to inadequately recognise barriers to accessing treatment, including: ● poverty ● regional workforce shortages ● inaccessible healthcare systems ● trauma - past, present and future ● communication barriers ● inability to tolerate treatment environments ● cognitive disability ● psychosocial disability ● emerging understanding of newer conditions ● lack of appropriately trained clinicians in areas related to specific diagnoses
People may also be unable to provide historical treatment evidence due to homelessness, domestic violence, disrupted care, trauma, natural disasters or loss of records.
Disabled Australians must retain bodily autonomy and the right to refuse treatment without losing access to disability support. The minute we start forcing people to have treatments just so they can access the help we need is the minute we violate their human rights and create more trauma requiring further supports. This is a form of coercion that should not be tolerated.
This also screams of politicians and lawmakers who have no concept of how expensive it is to have a disability. Diagnosis alone can be unachievable for many. It is a gross misjudgement to think that ordinary Australians in pursuit of ordinary lives have endless money to spend on treatments (evidence-based or otherwise).
Workforce sustainability and system risks
These reforms also pose serious risks to the sustainability of the allied health and disability workforce.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 892
Occupational therapists are central to the functioning of the NDIS. Occupational Therapy Australia has stated clearly that “No OTs, No NDIS”.
The workforce is already under severe strain. OTA reports that almost 1 in 10 occupational therapists exited the NDIS workforce last year, impacting more than 7,000 participants.
As a clinician working within this system and supervising Occupational Therapists in Private Practice, I can confirm that burnout, administrative burden, workforce shortages, uncertainty, and financial instability are already contributing to workforce attrition.
Further reductions to therapy supports and provider sustainability may: ● force experienced clinicians out of the sector ● increase waitlists ● worsen regional workforce shortages ● destabilise small disability providers ● reduce continuity of care ● reduce access to specialised expertise
Once these services and workforces are lost, rebuilding them will take years.
Just this week, one of the OTs I have supervised for over 4 years has closed her practice in a regional area of Victoria and will be leaving the profession due to the immense stress and uncertainty. This is happening all over the country.
Automation and reductionist assessment
I am also deeply concerned about proposals enabling expanded automated decision-making and standardised assessment systems.
Disability assessment requires nuanced clinical reasoning, contextual understanding and human judgement. It cannot safely be reduced to algorithms, scoring systems or snapshot assessments.
Automated and classification-based systems risk: ● underestimating complexity ● overlooking fluctuating disability ● under-recognising carer burden ● reducing transparency ● constraining professional judgement ● underfunding participants with complex needs
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 892
People with disability are not datasets. People do not fit into check boxes. Very little about disability is black-and-white, yes-or-no. The risks of using automation as an interface with the most vulnerable members of society are immense. Reducing plan budgets by reducing the accuracy of assessment is dangerous. This is not an acceptable solution.
Significant Concerns regarding broad Ministerial powers
Power to reduce funding categories across groups of participants
The Bill allows the Minister to make “support determinations” that can reduce funding for categories of supports across classes of participants, rather than through individual assessment processes. This includes the potential to reduce funding for areas such as: ● therapy supports ● social and community participation ● capacity building supports
These powers are extraordinarily broad and could allow across-the-board percentage reductions without individual reassessment or adequate safeguards. One of the basic premises of the NDIS has been individualised funding; this should not be changed.
Power to set NDIS pricing
The Bill transfers pricing authority from the NDIA to the Minister. This means the Minister can determine: ● maximum prices ● pricing arrangements ● pricing caps ● indexation approaches
This is a major governance change and raises concerns regarding workforce sustainability and market destabilisation.
Expanded rule-making powers The Bill enables the Minister to make or modify important operational rules governing: ● eligibility ● functional capacity thresholds ● support categories ● funding frameworks ● reassessment processes ● transitional arrangements
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 892
Allowing a single minister to make decisions about these rules undermines the democratic process, accountability and rule of law we rely on in Australia.
Powers connected to automated decision-making frameworks
While the Minister would not personally make automated decisions, the governance framework created by the Bill allows broad implementation of automated administrative systems and assessment frameworks.
My concerns echo the Sector’s concerns and include issues with: ● algorithmic funding decisions ● reduced clinical judgement ● reduced transparency ● constrained appeal rights
Within the NDIS context, snapshot assessments may fail to adequately capture fluctuating disability, communication needs, environmental barriers, cumulative impairments, and psychosocial complexity.
Where professional judgement and allied health evidence are constrained by algorithmic or classification- based systems, there is a substantial risk that complex needs will be under-recognised and underfunded. The end result of this will be death, injury or worsening of disability, with increased support needs and higher costs (the very thing the Bill is trying to combat).
Power relating to provider pricing and registration reforms
The Minister gains increased influence over: ● provider pricing structures ● differentiated pricing systems ● registration categories ● market reforms
The Government has stated this is intended to improve integrity and sustainability. It is feared these pricing mechanisms may increasingly prioritise budget reduction over participant need and market sustainability, particularly in the absence of an independent pricing mechanism such as IHACPA overseeing pricing regulation.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 892
Conclusion The NDIS exists because Australians recognised that disabled people deserve dignity, participation, safety and equality.
Sustainability is important. However, sustainability cannot be achieved through reducing access, weakening safeguards, decreasing Ministerial accountability, increasing gatekeeping and transferring burden onto disabled people, carers and families.
I urge the Committee to: ● reject provisions that increase barriers to accessing the NDIS ● reject treatment exhaustion requirements ● retain environmental and contextual factors within functional capacity assessments ● protect access to therapy, capacity building and community participation supports ● prohibit fully automated eligibility and funding decisions ● strengthen safeguarding protections regarding reassessment and suspension of plans ● protect children and newly diagnosed adults’ access to early intervention ● protect workforce sustainability ● ensure meaningful consultation and co-design with disabled people, carers and clinicians before implementation of major reforms
I strongly urge the Committee not to proceed with the Bill in its current form.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Name Withheld NDIS Participant Senior Occupational Therapist