OTSi urges Senate committee to delay new NDIS bill over access, funding and automation fears

A disability-focused occupational therapy body has urged a Senate committee to delay the federal government's latest NDIS legislation, arguing the bill would reshape access, planning and funding in ways that could leave disabled people with fewer protections and less support.

In a discussion paper dated 17 May 2026, the Occupational Therapy Society for Hidden and Invisible Disability, known as OTSi, said the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 should not proceed in its current form. The paper was prepared for the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry now examining the bill.

Parliament records show the bill was introduced on 14 May 2026 and referred the same day to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Submissions to the inquiry close on 29 May 2026 and the committee is due to report on 16 June 2026.

OTSi described the legislation as one of the biggest restructures of the NDIS since the scheme began. Its paper argues the proposed changes would move the scheme further away from individualised decision-making and towards what it called more standardised and fiscally driven assessments of disability and support need.

The group's concerns reach well beyond therapy funding. It said the bill could tighten eligibility, narrow how permanence is assessed, expand the role of functional capacity testing, limit reassessment rights, increase reliance on unpaid informal support and give the minister broad powers to reduce funding across participant groups.

A central concern in the paper is the bill's proposed approach to functional capacity. OTSi said the new definition appears to assess what a person can do without assistance, without assistive technology and with environmental and personal circumstances excluded as far as possible. The organisation argues that approach risks producing an artificial picture of disability by separating impairment from the real-world barriers that shape a person's daily life.

The paper says that matters especially for people with hidden, fluctuating or intersecting disabilities, including people whose support needs are tied to executive functioning, psychosocial disability, autism, acquired brain injury or cumulative impairments that do not fit neatly into a single category. OTSi argues that snapshot assessments and standardised models may miss those needs and reduce the weight given to treating professionals and allied health evidence.

OTSi also raised concerns about the bill's permanence test. According to the paper, the legislation would require participants to undertake all appropriate treatment before an impairment can be regarded as permanent, even where access to treatment is shaped by cost, geography or other barriers. The organisation said that could penalise people who cannot realistically access care and could undermine bodily autonomy if refusing treatment becomes a reason to lose access to disability support.

The paper also points to proposed changes to reassessments and plan suspension. OTSi said extending reassessment timeframes, narrowing what counts as exceptional circumstances and allowing plans to be suspended where the agency cannot contact a participant could create serious safeguarding risks, especially for people facing inaccessible communication, housing instability, family violence or periods of mental distress.

Another major focus is proposed section 34A, which OTSi said would allow broad percentage reductions to some plan funding in the name of financial sustainability. The group argues that power should be removed from the bill, or at minimum made subject to stronger state and territory oversight through Category A rules.

OTSi's paper also warns about broad integrity and automation powers. It said stronger fraud protections are important, but argued the bill's enforcement and information-sharing provisions could become overly punitive without accessible compliance processes and independent oversight. It also warned against fully automated decisions on eligibility, reassessment and funding, saying disability assessment requires contextual and clinical judgement.

The paper is not framed as OTSi's final formal position. It says the document is an early-stage analysis intended to support discussion with members and the broader disability community, with feedback sought by 21 May and independent legal advice still being pursued. Even so, it offers an early sign of the arguments likely to be put to Parliament as scrutiny of the bill intensifies.

The government has presented the legislation as part of securing the NDIS for future generations. OTSi's response makes clear that, for many in the disability community, the central question will be whether long-term sustainability can be pursued without shifting cost, risk and administrative burden back onto disabled people and their families.

What is confirmed

• The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 was introduced on 14 May 2026.

• The bill was referred on 14 May 2026 to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee.

• Submissions close on 29 May 2026 and the committee is due to report on 16 June 2026.

• OTSi published a discussion paper dated 17 May 2026 responding to the bill.

• In that paper, OTSi says the bill should not proceed in its current form and calls for delay pending consultation and impact assessment.

  
  

What remains unclear

• Whether the committee will recommend major amendments, delay or passage.

• How the government will respond to criticism from disability organisations and clinicians.

• Which of the bill provisions identified by OTSi will remain unchanged after parliamentary scrutiny.

• Whether other disability representative bodies will adopt similar positions in their formal submissions.

• How any new assessment, automation or funding mechanisms would operate in practice if enacted.

  
  

Why this matters

The bill goes to the core of who can access the NDIS, how support needs are assessed, how quickly plans can change and how much discretion governments may have to reduce supports. Those are not technical settings alone. They affect whether disabled people can stay housed, safe, connected, treated fairly and able to participate in everyday life.

Rights and inclusion implications

• Accessibility: assessments and contact processes that ignore real-world barriers can lock people out of support.

• Equality: tighter permanence and functional tests may disadvantage people with complex, hidden or fluctuating disability.

• Autonomy: pressure to undergo treatment before qualifying for support raises consent concerns.

• Participation: cuts to therapy, community access or support coordination may reduce social and economic inclusion.

• Safety: plan suspension and weaker reassessment pathways may heighten risks of neglect, crisis and institutionalisation.

• Accountability: broader ministerial and automated decision-making powers raise oversight and procedural fairness questions.

  
  

Sources

• OTSi discussion paper, OTSi Discussion Paper NDIS Bill May 2026 FINAL.pdf, provided by the user via Google Drive.

• Parliament of Australia bill page: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7487

• Parliament of Australia Senate Community Affairs Committee page: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs