Submission 2452
Submission regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
NDIS Senate Submission 2026
To the Senate Committee,
My name is Kat Coppock. I am a Support Worker engaging with NDIS participants, and a Masters Student in Creative Arts Therapy. I write to you regarding the recently proposed changes to the NDIS Bill, announced 1st April 2026.
I am concerned about a number of things with in the New Framework Planning, such as; -The NDIS reforms have been rushed through without oversight leaving room for misinterpretation and mistakes. -There has been no consultation with the disability community or participants -there has been no transparency around rules or guidelines around planning, and in fact the legislation promotes removal of access to pricing guides and plan rules. -Standardised Supports Needs Assessments are not conducted by Allied Health Professionals or people with the knowledge or understanding of the participants disability, which may lead to insufficient or inappropriate support delivery.
- The I-CAN may not be suitable for collecting information on autistic people, those will sensory disabilities, people with complex communication needs, those with degenerative disabilities, people with episodic or fluctuating disabilities, First Nations People or people from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse backgrounds. -There is no tool for assessing the support needs for those under 16 and wont be for years. -Limiting the appeals rights for participants, which creates barriers for feedback and ethical and equitable treatment of participants ALL people deserve fair and objective non-biased assessment.
I believe these proposed changes to the Bill to be unfair, unlawful, and a violation of;
- the anti-discrimination act.
- rights to consent.
- the right to self-determination
- the right to process of appeal and fair representation.
- the NDIS’ own obligations of ‘choice and control’ The Attorney Generals Office claims that; “the Australian Government believes that individuals and groups, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, should be consulted about decisions likely to impact on them. This includes ensuring that they have the opportunity to participate in the making of such decisions through the processes of democratic government, and are able to exercise meaningful control over their affairs.” This is echoed in the ‘Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (New York, 30 March 2007) [2008] ATS 12’ which states- “(o) Considering that persons with disabilities should have the opportunity to be actively involved in decision-making processes about policies and programs, including those directly concerning them’.
Bodily autonomy – the ability for people to make their own choices about their bodies, including on issues relating to health care, contraception and whether to have sex – is not only a human right, but the foundation upon which other human rights are built. The rights of equality and non-discrimination are an essential component of almost all other rights and freedoms. It would generally be prohibited to discriminate on the basis of any of the grounds enumerated in article 26 of the ICCPR in laws, policies and programs that give effect to other rights. Removing the ability of disabled people to access essential information about their funding, the NDIS structure, and fluctuating pricing rules while allowing able-bodied administrative directors to access this information (as per proposed changes to Section 33(2EA)) is blatant discrimination.
Submission 2452
This means any decisions that determine who gets support and how must be built with the people who are most affected. Co-design through genuine engagement with disabled people, their families/carers, and advocacy bodies is not a formality- it is the only way this can work with wisdom and sensitivity.
Thus far, I have yet to hear of significant proof any these changes have been made in consultation from people with disabilities, disability advocacy bodies, health professionals, or carers/ family/support professionals who care for disabled people. The Government claim they are ‘experts’- yet how many Politicians or Insurance Agents have experience working with, engaging with, or having a lived experience of disability? How can you be an expert in something you’ve never been a part of? Only people with disabilities are the experts in their own lives, not bureaucrats distanced by uninformed systems and political opinion. Budgets alone do not encompass the scope of a full quality of life, and funding amounts can not indicate the equitable treatment of an individuals lived experience. Standardised Assessments do not consider the complexity of the lives of people with disability, and some of the people who need the most support will not have those needs reflected in their plan, as disability itself is not standardised. This means that even if people have the same medical condition, variations occur within the individual depending on circumstance. These variations could be in severity, location, fluctuating capacity, physicality, or impact- no two people experience disability the same because no two people are the same. Automated Assessments, or Assessments completed by those who have no training in disability or healthcare, do not serve people with a disability as they can not grasp nuance, complexity, or fluctuations within differing conditions and environments.
Removing the appeals process also removes accountability, transparent communication, and trust in the system. According to the Attorney General’s Office, the right to a fair and public hearing in civil proceedings is one of the guarantees in relation to legal proceedings. The Attorney General’s Office also states “What constitutes a fair hearing will require recognition of the interests of the accused … and of all parties (in a civil proceeding). In any event, the procedures followed in a hearing should respect the principle of ‘equality of arms’, which requires that all parties to a proceeding must have a reasonable opportunity of presenting their case under conditions that do not disadvantage them as against other parties to the proceedings.” Article 14 of the ‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ states “In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
Regarding proposed changes to Section 34A, I should not even need to mention that giving the Minister for the NDIS alone the power to cap, alter or remove plan funding without administrative assessment completely fails scientific, peer-reviewed, objective, and democratic methods, creating a dangerous situation where one person with limited understanding and less empathy has the un-supervised power to ruin billions of lives. The changes to Section 50A propose reducing the amount and manner of allocation of NDIS funding, and removing access to plan funding rules, which will mean people cutting supports they rely on to live. Tightening eligibility and capping or restricting supports means loosing access to what people need to live safely and participate in our communities. Reducing social and community participation will deny many a chance at an ordinary life, leading to social isolation which contributes to mental and physical decline.
There are inefficiencies and problems with the NDIS, but these will not be solved by cutting supports and or reducing the number of people receiving supports- especially as the costs of living increase, the wage gap widens, and Australia’s populations ages. Politicians and CEO’s will have an extremely large pay out and superannuation account to aid with medical costs as their body naturally succumbs to mortality, but the 14.2% (or one in seven) of us living in poverty will not. Sadly, removal of supports means many disabled people could not work, contribute to the economy, or afford health care now or in the future.
Submission 2452
In conclusion, I am writing to ask the Senate to; -protect access to reasonable and necessary supports -communicate the process behind who decides whats reasonable and necessary -rule out cuts to eligibility and plan funding
-
reject standardised assessment and blanket caps that ignore individual need -commit to genuine co-design with people with a disability, disability advocates and allied health professionals -commit to an open process of participant feedback and system accountability.
-
reconsider the Ministers support-determination power, the reassessment-narrowing provisions, and the 90-day suspension and revocation pathway -Focus reform on fixing system inefficiencies such as staff training, ease of access, clear communication, and provider misconduct.
The NDIS role is to fund the reasonable and necessary supports people with a disability rely on to live ‘ordinary lives’- eating, sleeping, working and playing just as they are, the same as any Australian citizen. By arbitrarily restricting supports without due process (as per Section 9B), the New Framework Planning will further cement the damage cause by the 20204 changes, causing harm to those who are most vulnerable.
Any reforms to the NDIS Bill must be in line with the recommendations of the Disability Royalty Commission and the Independent NDIS Review. The NDIS must be strengthened, but this must not come at the cost of the quality of daily life of participants. Any services within or outside the NDIS for people with a disability must be fit-for-purpose, co-designed with disabled people, and genuinely provide people with the support they individually need. People with a disability must not lose choice and control of their lives.