Advocates Demand Clarity on Proposed NDIS Reforms Amid Fears of Harm

Disability advocates are calling on the government to provide clearer details about upcoming changes to how National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants over 16 will have their support needs assessed.

Currently, participants often rely on reports from health professionals to request specific levels of funding. From mid-2026, these reports will increasingly be replaced by interviews lasting one to three hours conducted by disability agency staff, according to NDIS Minister Jenny McAllister. She described the new method as “fairer, more consistent and easier to navigate for participants.”

McAllister said the goal is to free providers and therapists to focus on delivering support rather than preparing reports. The new assessment process will also incorporate a digital tool called I-CAN, a customized version already used in the Disability Support for Older Australians program for nearly five years. This tool will be paired with questionnaires about personal and environmental circumstances, with additional assessments for those with more complex support needs.

Despite these changes, advocates are concerned the process could be “traumatising” if participants’ voices are not adequately considered.

NDIS participant Jarrod Sandell-Hay, who has cerebral palsy, expressed alarm at the prospect of assessors visiting homes. “To do a thorough assessment, you really need to understand all aspects of someone’s life,” he said. He warned that for people who have experienced trauma, in-home interviews could be extremely distressing, especially knowing that outcomes could impact funding for the next five years.

Another advocate, Stevie Lang Howson, described potential in-home visits as “degrading” and emphasized that participants should retain the right to assessments by trusted practitioners.

The government has not confirmed whether in-person visits will be mandatory but stated that consultations with the disability community will continue as the plan rolls out in stages, allowing for participant feedback.

The changes are partly justified by the high cost of professional reports, which can be prohibitive for some participants. McAllister noted that the new approach will ensure support levels are not dependent on a participant’s ability to afford a report.

However, some advocates argue the changes are driven by the agency’s capacity limits. Sandell-Hay noted that reports are sometimes dismissed because staff cannot read lengthy submissions, not because of their content. He stressed that any new system should equally consider participant reports and evidence.

Critics also point out a disconnect between the reliance on self-reporting through tools like I-CAN and the agency’s past practice of devaluing participant self-assessments. Howson highlighted that some disabilities make self-reporting difficult, and there is already widespread concern that participant input is underestimated.

It remains unclear whether assessors will be required to consider professional reports submitted under the new system. While participants will be able to submit supporting documentation, McAllister did not confirm if these reports will be formally reviewed.

Advocates insist the government must clarify how NDIS budgets will be calculated, the types of evidence considered, and the role of any automated or templated decision-making. “Deciding a participant’s funding based solely on a conversation seems implausible,” Howson said.