Funding and support plans for participants in Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) will soon be generated by a computer program, significantly reducing human involvement. This major overhaul, set to be implemented next year, was revealed in an internal briefing to National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) staff.
The changes, which are expected to take full effect by mid-2026 under the NDIS’s New Framework Planning model, will also impact participants’ rights to appeal funding decisions. According to the briefing, the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) will no longer have the authority to alter or reinstate funding plans, but can only request reassessment by the NDIA.
How the New System Will Operate
The overhaul includes the introduction of 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, this tool has been a staple in the Australian disability sector for two decades. An NDIA spokesperson emphasized that the change aligns with the NDIS Review’s recommendations for a more streamlined and equitable system.
The government aims to reduce the NDIS’s growth rate of new participants from 12% to 5-6% annually, a goal underscored by Health Minister Mark Butler. The new model promises to minimize human error and enhance consistency in support plans, eliminating the current necessity for participants to gather extensive medical evidence.
Training and Implementation Concerns
Despite assurances, disability rights groups have raised questions about the training and qualifications of assessors, the consideration of independent medical evidence, and the appeal process. During a recent information session with NDIA staff in Queensland, these concerns were echoed by several attendees.
Desmond Lee, General Manager of Queensland regional services for the NDIS, stated that the new model aims to improve participant experiences by providing stronger assessment oversight and clearer budget rules. He detailed the process, which begins with an assessor conducting a “guided semi-structured conversation” to evaluate support needs, followed by a questionnaire assessing personal and environmental circumstances.
“We believe the role of the delegate will be extremely important for us as that quality assurer,” Lee noted, emphasizing the importance of NDIA staff in maintaining plan quality.
Appeal Rights and Legal Implications
Under the new framework, if participants are dissatisfied with their assessments, they can request a reassessment. However, the ART’s role will be limited to ordering reassessments rather than directly amending plans. This shift has raised concerns among advocates, particularly given the surge in appeals to the ART in recent years. In the year ending June 2025, 7,132 new cases were brought before the tribunal, a 76% increase from the previous year.
Lee explained that while participants can bring new information to the tribunal, any reassessment must be conducted by the NDIA. This legal stipulation has sparked alarm among advocates who fear it may limit participants’ ability to challenge decisions effectively.
Lessons from Past Policies
The NDIA has faced criticism for previous attempts to implement independent assessments, a policy introduced in 2020 and later scrapped due to backlash from disability rights groups. Lee assured staff that the agency has learned from those experiences and is committed to a more consultative approach.
An NDIA spokesperson confirmed that the agency is working closely with the disability community and government bodies to develop the new system’s rules and policies, ensuring minimal disruption for participants.
Looking Ahead
As the NDIA prepares to roll out the new I-CAN planning model, information sessions are being conducted to educate participants and staff. The agency is also addressing concerns about engaging with participants who may be reluctant to interact with government representatives, particularly those with psychosocial disabilities.
While some NDIA staff have expressed optimism about the changes, others remain cautious, highlighting potential gaps in the assessment process. The agency acknowledges these concerns and is exploring ways to support participants effectively, ensuring that the new system meets the diverse needs of all NDIS participants.
The transition to a computer-generated planning model marks a significant shift in the NDIS’s approach to disability support, with implications that will unfold as the new system is implemented. The NDIA’s commitment to refining the process in collaboration with stakeholders will be crucial in navigating this complex change.
