Imagine your vital disability support, currently decided with human understanding and flexibility, being determined solely by a computer program. That's the future facing NDIS participants under a radical overhaul, and it's sparking serious concerns. Guardian Australia's investigation reveals that human involvement in crafting individual NDIS plans will be drastically reduced, potentially impacting the level of support people receive.
Details of these sweeping changes, set to roll out from mid-2026 under the NDIS's New Framework Planning model, were revealed in a recent internal briefing to National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) staff. But here's where it gets controversial: these changes could significantly curtail a participant's right to appeal decisions about their funding.
Currently, if NDIS participants disagree with their plans, they can appeal to the administrative review tribunal (ART), which has the power to alter the plan or reinstate funding. Under the new model, this power vanishes. An NDIA manager stated, based on legal advice, that the ART would only be able to send the plan back to the NDIA for another assessment – they can't get an external party to amend the plan. Think of it like this: if you disagree with a restaurant's meal, instead of having a judge taste it and suggest changes, they can only tell the chef to cook it again!
And this is the part most people miss: another senior manager indicated that staff won't even be required to consider independent medical evidence provided by NDIS participants when developing plans. This means doctors' reports and expert opinions, currently crucial in demonstrating individual needs, could be sidelined.
How Will This Funding Tool Actually Work?
The government announced in September that a new needs-assessment tool, the Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN) version 6, developed by the University of Melbourne and the Centre for Disability Studies, would determine NDIS funding. This tool has been used in the Australian disability sector for two decades. The NDIA spokesperson justified the decision by saying that the NDIS Review received thousands of submissions calling for a simpler and more consistent assessment of participants' needs, aligning with the NDIS Review's recommendations.
The NDIA argues that this model will reduce human error, increase consistency, and eliminate the need for participants to spend time and money collecting medical evidence. The elephant in the room, however, is the government's stated goal of reducing the cost of the NDIS, which currently supports around 750,000 Australians. Health Minister Mark Butler has publicly stated the aim to reduce the growth rate of new participants from 12% to 5-6% per year. Is this move about efficiency, or cost-cutting? This is a question that is bound to spark debate.
The new I-CAN planning model is being rolled out in stages, with the NDIA conducting information sessions for participants and staff. Disability rights groups are demanding more transparency, particularly regarding the training of assessors, the handling of independent medical evidence, and the right of appeal. NDIS staff in Queensland raised similar concerns during an online information session attended by hundreds on November 13th.
Desmond Lee, the general manager of Queensland regional services for the NDIS, described the new model as a way to provide a better experience for participants, stronger assessment oversight, and clearer budget rules, leading to a fairer and more sustainable scheme. He explained that assessors, Australian Public Service level 6 employees, will conduct a "guided semi-structured conversation" to assess support needs, alongside a questionnaire evaluating personal and environmental circumstances. Targeted assessments will be used for more complex needs, such as home modifications or assistive technology.
Lee emphasized the importance of NDIA staff, or "delegates," as quality assurers, ensuring the right quality of plan for the right person. However, a staff member pointed out that it wasn't clear who would actually be making the funding decisions. Lee's colleague, Lawrie Thomas, clarified that the I-CAN generates a budget, and the NDIA staff member can only accept or reject the assessment, requesting a new assessment if needed. This differs from the current system, where staff can amend computer-generated draft plans before finalization.
Thomas stressed that the I-CAN generated plan is not a recommendation but a budget, and the delegate's only decision is whether the assessment was completed correctly. The NDIA spokesperson reiterated that the system is not automated and that assessments will be conducted by trained and accredited assessors. Assessors will initially be internal hires, preferably with an allied health background or lived experience of disability. Current accreditation requirements for I-CAN assessors typically include being allied health clinicians, nurses, clinicians with an education degree, or NDIS Behaviour Support Practitioners.
Appeal Rights Under Scrutiny
Lee stated that he had sought legal clarification regarding participants' appeal rights. The advice received indicated that the administrative review tribunal could send plans back for reassessment if they found the assessment to be incorrect. This marks a significant shift from the ART's current role, where they can directly amend NDIS plans. Lee explained that participants can request another assessment if they feel the assessment doesn't reflect their needs, and if unsatisfied, they can go to the tribunal. However, the tribunal can only order the agency to conduct another assessment; they cannot involve external parties.
These changes have sparked alarm, especially given the surge in appeals to the ART in the past year. In the 12 months leading up to June 2025, new cases increased by 76%, the highest rate since June 2022. In 73% of these cases, the NDIA decision was changed.
Concerns and Contingencies
While some NDIS staff expressed enthusiasm, others voiced concerns about the proposed changes. One staff member worried about participant wellbeing if needs were not captured and independent evidence was disregarded. Another raised concerns about participants who may distrust the government or be in institutional settings. Lee stated that specialized teams would engage with hospitals and justice settings, and the agency would find ways to support those with anxiety issues to have a safe assessment.
Another staff member questioned whether the NDIS had learned from the failed attempt to introduce independent assessments, which were scrapped in 2021 after widespread criticism. Lee assured that the NDIA had learned from that experience. The NDIA spokesperson stated that they had listened to the disability community and that more time for consultation will improve the delivery of these reforms. The rules and policies are currently being developed in conjunction with the commonwealth, state, and territory governments, and the disability community.
So, what do you think? Will this new system truly lead to a fairer and more efficient NDIS, or will it create new barriers and limit the support available to those who need it most? Will a computer program ever be able to fully understand the complexities of individual needs? And what happens to those whose voices are already marginalized within the system? Share your thoughts and concerns in the comments below. Let's start a conversation about the future of the NDIS.
