NDIA Accountability Project

This project is in DRAFT

FOI 25/26-1784 Scheme Reform Engagement Report

‹ PrevPage 1 of 137 · Source p. 150Next ›

FOI 25/26-1784 DOCUMENT 9

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Supplementary Budget Estimates – 10 October 2025

Answer to Question on Notice

Health, Disability and Ageing Portfolio

Topic: Support Needs Assessment - I-Can Tool

Question reference number: NDIA SQ25-000143

Outcome Number: 4

Senator: Leah Blyth

Type of Question: Written

Date set by the Committee for the return of answer: 28 November 2025

Question:

  1. How much has been spent on developing the new support needs assessment tool?

a. Was AI used in any way to assist in developing this tool?

Answer:

  1. The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) has not spent any funding on developing the support needs assessment tool. The NDIA procured a licence to use an off-the-shelf support needs assessment tool from the University of Melbourne and The Centre for Disability Studies.

a. No.

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

Agenda

  1. Welcome and objectives
  2. Key component of the I-CAN
  3. I-CAN Statements and Scoring
  4. How to describe supports for people with progressive or fluctuating disabilities
  5. Case Study Introduction - Person with physical disability
    • Practice writing I-CAN statement
    • Practice sessions around scoring I-CAN statements
  6. Considerations for completing an I-CAN via telehealth
  7. Questions and Answers

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

FOI 25/26-1784

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Support Needs Assessments and budget models

Out of 179 questions and comments raised during the reporting period, a total of 4% of the discussion related to Support Needs Assessments (SNA) and budget models. Attendees were seeking further clarity in these areas, for example:

  • ‘Who will conduct the Support Needs Assessment?’
  • ‘How does the restriction of what can be spent each month in relation to funding assist with those living with degenerative conditions, such as Alzheimer’s/dementia? Things can change quickly at any point, and they may require an increase straight away.’
  • Does this mean that funding will be flexible (for non-stated supports) across core and capacity building funding?’

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation Weekly 236 of 286 2

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

FOI 25/26-1784

2. Themes

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation Weekly 238 of 286 2

FOI 25/26-1784

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Support Needs Assessments

13% of discussions related to support needs assessments. Attendees were seeking further clarity, for example:

  • ‘Who will conduct the support needs assessment?’
    • including their qualifications?
  • ‘Is the support needs assessment similar to a functional capacity assessment?’
  • ‘Needs assessment concerns me, I hope it will be a regular therapist my son is already using, not someone he hasn’t ever met or doesn’t know the background info.’

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation Weekly 239 of 286 3

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

  • Notice of Impairments, support needs assessments and foundational supports.

This report includes recommendations, quantitative findings, sentiment, themes and full detail in appendices.

2. Recommendations

There is an opportunity to improve the participant, stakeholder and provider experience by:

  • Communicating and publishing additional information on support needs assessments, Notice of Impairments, foundational supports and the role of navigators.

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Recommendations from the previous reporting period saw the publishing of claiming advice for replacement supports for providers.

3. Quantitative findings

Engagement and Inclusion Branch

During the reporting period:

  • 22 engagement activities were held where legislation was discussed:
    • 21 state and territory community engagement activities, with a breakdown of:
      • 8 in QLD
      • 7 in NSW/ACT
      • 3 in SA/NT
      • 2 in VIC/TAS

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation of 286 241

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

  • 1 in WA
    • 1 stakeholder meeting with a disability peak body.
  • 682 stakeholders were reached.
  • This included the quarterly Disability Representative and Carers Organisation Forum.

Co-design Branch

During the reporting period:

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

  • 60 stakeholders were reached.
  • 1 face to face participant workshop was held to inform new framework planning

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation of 286 242

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

4. Sentiment

Engagement and Inclusion Branch

The sentiment from engagement activities remained neutral in most cases. The majority of discussions were with stakeholders seeking clarity on legislative updates and changes.

There appears to be some frustration and negative sentiment emerging about support needs assessments as a result of the release of the tender. Participants, family members and sector stakeholders are starting to ask more questions about which tools will be used, who will deliver the assessment and share concerns about the appropriateness and limitations of using ‘off the shelf’ assessment tools. This is detailed in themes.

Co-design Branch

Discussions were mostly positive, with a focus on improving plain language communications, keeping the participant at the centre of everything we do and enhanced education and capacity building of the NDIA workforce.

Feedback included:

  • Clarity needed on the concept of budget flexibility, surrounding legislation and how it would work practically.
  • Concerns that changes offload a lot of responsibility back onto participants. Supporting participants needs to be a focus.
  • Supportive of the large amount of co-design and consultation that needs to support this work.
  • Concerned about timelines and reaching diverse communities.
  • Having enough time for meaningful consultation on topics.

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation of 286 243

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

Providers continue to express dissatisfaction with the information available in the areas outlined in themes.

5. Themes

Engagement and Inclusion Branch

There were 14 questions and comments raised during the reporting period, which identified the top key themes below.

Support needs assessment

50% of comments sought clarity about support needs assessments, what they will look like, who will do them and how they differ from independent assessments. Concerns were raised around qualifications and safety of in-home visits. For example:

  • ‘Who will deliver Support Needs Assessments? I hear it will be planners who will be ‘trained’ but these types of assessments really need qualified professionals not ‘trained’ staff who do not really comprehend the complexities of disabilities.’

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation of 286 244

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

6. Appendix 1 – Engagement and Inclusion Branch -detailed comments

The detailed comments below were raised in engagements and directly come from Simply Stakeholders, aside from minor amendments to punctuation, spelling or expansion of acronyms.

Support Needs Assessment

  • Stakeholder needs more information and agreement on what needs supports assessments look like.
  • People are worried it will be independent assessments 2.0 but not independent. They are keen to understand who will do the assessments, what will the qualifications be?
  • Stakeholder highlighted concerns that disabled women are not comfortable with assessors coming into their homes and have a history of violence and abuse. Overall issue with assessors coming into people’s homes and safety aspect.
  • ‘Who will deliver support needs assessments? I hear it will be planners who will be ‘trained’ but these types of assessments really need qualified professionals not ‘trained’ staff who do not really comprehend the complexities of disabilities.’
  • ‘We are keen to hear more about this and how health might or might not be involved.’
  • ‘The tender for support needs assessments, is this done in co-design or in parallel. Will they marry up?’
  • ‘Is co-design for support needs considering the gaps with Culturally and Linguistically Diversity (CALD) and First Nations?’

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation of 286 245

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

2. Recommendations

There is an opportunity to improve the participant, stakeholder and provider experience by publishing:

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

  • a statement that explains how support needs assessments will be different to Independent Assessments.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation engagement Page 247 of 286

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

5. Themes

Engagement and Inclusion

There were 41 questions and comments raised, which identified the top key themes below.

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Support needs assessments

27% of comments were from people expressing concerns that the concept of support needs assessments resembles Independent Assessments and asked for clarity about:

  • who is going to pay for the assessments
  • if assessments will be conducted by professionals who do not know the participant, as this could be risky from an intersectionality perspective
  • the availability of a qualified workforce to conduct the assessments.

Concerns were also raised about the Agency’s deficit-based approach, which is making participants feel vulnerable and highlights past traumas.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation engagement Page 248 of 286

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

2. Recommendations

There is an opportunity to improve the participant, stakeholder and provider experience by:

  • publishing communications to:

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

  • differentiate between functional capacity assessments and support needs assessments
  • provide more clarity about the consultation and tender process for support needs assessments, and how they differ from independent assessments

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation engagement Page 250 of 286

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

3. Quantitative findings

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Co-design

There were:

  • 2 New Framework Planning workshops discussing the new framework journey design concept. This included 12 NDIS participants from Participant First who had previously been part of round one workshops in February 2025.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation engagement Page 251 of 286

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

4. Sentiment

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Co-design

NDIS participants in the New Framework Planning workshops spoke very positively about their experience. When asked to rate the workshops against the co-design principles, the feedback was overwhelmingly positive and is detailed further in appendices.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation engagement Page 252 of 286

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

5. Themes

Engagement and Inclusion

There were 11 questions and comments raised which identified the top key themes below.

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Supports needs assessment

36% of questions related to if consultation on the support needs assessment occurred, how it feels similar to independent assessments and requests to see communications clarifying how they are different. There is also uncertainty about the correlation with functional capacity assessments.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation engagement Page 253 of 286

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Co-design

New Framework Planning

A key theme was the complexity of balancing choice and control with safeguards in new framework plans.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation engagement Page 254 of 286

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

7. Appendix 3 – Co-design

Workshop participants were asked to rate the New Framework Planning workshops against co-design principles and gave very positive feedback, as follows:

  • Honesty (91% positive, 9% neutral)
  • Inclusive (75%, 25% neutral)
  • Ready to learn (85% positive, 15% neutral)
  • Timely (40% positive, 50% neutral, 10% negative)

The score regarding timeliness was specifically in response to the information shared in order to be ready for the workshops being supplied at short notice.

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation engagement Page 255 of 286

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

2. Recommendations

There is an opportunity to improve the participant, stakeholder and provider experience by:

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

  • publishing further guidance for participants and providers on flexible and stated supports, and support needs assessments

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation engagement Page 257 of 286

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

4. Sentiment

Engagement and Inclusion

Participants are concerned about upcoming changes to the participant pathway, in particular, support needs assessments and who will complete them and whether draft plans would be provided. redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation engagement Page 258 of 286

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

Provider Engagement

There were 68 questions and comments raised, which identified the top key themes below.

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Support needs assessment

10% of discussions related to the design and implementation of supports needs assessments. Providers sought clarification on who will complete the support needs assessments, will functional capacity assessments still be required and elaboration on what the strengths-based approach will entail. For example:

  • ‘Will there be more information available with respect to the new framework plans and the assessment process, that is, who will be completing these “assessments” prior to the implementation of these and will there be training available for stakeholders.’

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Legislation engagement Page 259 of 286

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

A new way of planning

  • Community support for the announcement to delay start date of the new way of planning to mid-2026.
  • Questions about what the support needs assessment (SNA) will include, how they will be used to develop support needs and questions about the tool.
  • Questions about impairment information and how this will be issued to existing participants.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement Page 261 of 286

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

redacted: [[[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Sentiment:

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material Sentiment was somewhat positive for the SNA tool however stakeholders still have multiple questions they want resolved. redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement Page 262 of 286

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

2. Engagement activities

In September 2025, the Engagement and Inclusion, Office of the Participant Advocate, Provider Engagement and Co-design branches conducted 92 engagement activities engaging 3,330 stakeholders.

Engagement and Inclusion

62 engagement activities were held where Scheme reform was discussed, engaging with a total of 2,862 stakeholders, consisting of:

  • 2 online national participant webinars, attended by 343 stakeholders
  • 55 state and territory Community Engagement activities, attended by 2,469 stakeholders
  • 5 Sector Advice stakeholder meetings, attended by 50 stakeholders.

Provider Engagement

2 engagement activities were held where Scheme reform was discussed, engaging with a total of 115 providers, consisting of:

  • 2 legislation information sessions, attended by 115 stakeholders.

Co-design

18 co-design activities were held to support Scheme reform, engaging with 241 stakeholders, consisting of:

  • 5 co-design working groups and engagement groups, speaking with more than 76 participants, parents, carers and sector representatives
  • 7 engagements with participant groups, speaking with 114 participants
  • 5 NDIA reference and advisory groups, speaking with 45 sector representatives
  • 1 expert advisory panel session, speaking with 6 sector representatives.

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement Page 263 of 286

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

3. Themes

Each branch identified a range of themes through engagement activities. Themes which were identified across multiple branches were related to a new way of planning, funding periods, Thriving Kids and navigators.

Engagement and Inclusion

There were 82 questions and comments raised. The top themes raised were SNAs and the tool, Thriving Kids, impairment information and funding periods which made up over three quarters of the comments.

Support needs assessment and the tool

33% of comments from stakeholders were related to SNAs. Stakeholders raised comments about the process for SNAs, detailed comments about the SNA tool and how they will be used to identify a person’s needs. Topics of discussion included:

  • More information was requested about who will complete SNAs and what knowledge and skills they will have.
  • Questions about where SNAs will be completed including whether they will be online, homes or in other locations like hospitals.
  • Questions about the evidence requirements for SNAs including whether people still need to provide evidence about their functional capacity or reports from allied health.
  • Concerns about SNAs being like independent assessments.
  • Stakeholders supported the use of an off-the-shelf tool for consistency but were concerned about how it would work for complex cases.
  • Concerns about how scoring in the SNA would be used and the impact on people’s needs.
  • Concerns over how the SNA will be used to identify a person’s needs, especially for complex needs.

    ‘How can one assessment sort all my daughter’s needs given she has multiple disabilities - intellectual disability, acquired brain injury (ABI) and physical disability from strokes and dementia due to the strokes?’

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement Page 264 of 286

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Co-design

Of the 18 co-design activities, 10 activities focused on the future navigator design, 6 were focused on new way of planning. We also held:

  • one session focused on participant safeguarding
  • the first meeting of the First Nations Participant Consultation Group.

From these activities the following key themes were identified on Scheme reform priorities.

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement Page 265 of 286

FOI 25/26-1784

OFFICIAL

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

A new way of planning

Stakeholders communicated positively about the announcement of the delay to rolling out the new way of planning until mid-2026. They spoke about appreciating how it would allow more time for proper design and testing of the new pathway experience.

Stakeholders raised concerns around the depth of information required during the SNA process, and the need for flexibility for participants with degenerative conditions.

Stakeholders raised anxiety around the Thriving Kids transition and its impact on eligibility to the NDIS.

“Don’t roll it out too early. We need structure and scaffolding in place… so it’s not another year of turmoil, chaos and trauma.”

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement Page 266 of 286

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

  • There are questions about how the I-CAN tool will be completed for progressive conditions and what assessments will be used for people under 16 years of age.
  • A small number of stakeholders can see the benefit of SNAs for the participant and the Agency.

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement Page 268 of 286

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

Outcomes: Recommendations from the previous reporting period resulted in:

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

  • Reports compiling SNA feedback being used to inform co-design activities associated with process design for SNAs.

Sentiment:

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

Sentiment was negative around SNA tool with concern around who will administer the tool and how the tool will work across the diverse range of disabilities and support needs. redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement Page 269 of 286

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

3. Engagement activities

In October 2025, the Engagement and Inclusion, Office of the Participant Advocate, Provider Engagement and Co-design branches conducted 130 engagement activities engaging 3,792 stakeholders.

Engagement and Inclusion

72 engagement activities were held where Scheme reform was discussed, engaging a total of 3,139 stakeholders, consisting of:

  • 2 online national participant webinars, attended by 387 stakeholders
  • 62 state and territory Community Engagement activities, attended by 2,728 stakeholders
  • 8 Sector Advice stakeholder meetings, attended by 24 stakeholders.

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Co-design

20 activities were held to support Scheme reform, engaging approximately 259 stakeholders, consisting of:

  • 6 co-design working groups and engagement groups, speaking with approximately 104 participants, parents, carers and sector representatives
  • 7 engagements with participant groups, speaking with approximately 99 participants
  • 3 NDIA reference and advisory groups, speaking with approximately 37 sector representatives
  • 2 Design Hub Expert Panels, speaking with 8 sector representatives
  • 1 meeting with mental health representatives’ disability organisations, speaking with 3 sector representatives
  • 1 meeting of the Co-design Advisory Group, speaking with 8 sector representatives.

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement Page 270 of 286

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement Page 271 of 286

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

4. Themes

Each branch identified a range of themes through engagement activities. Themes which were identified across multiple branches were related to SNA and Agency communication.

Engagement and Inclusion

There were 106 questions and comments raised, which identified the top key themes below.

Support Needs Assessment and assessment tool

58% of discussions from stakeholders related to SNA and the assessment tool. Stakeholders raised questions around the tool and the processes. Topics of discussion included:

  • Multiple stakeholders raised questions about who will conduct the SNA and whether it will be therapists or people with lived experience along with what training or qualifications they will need.
  • Stakeholders were seeking clarity on whether other reports and evidence will be needed alongside SNAs.
  • Questions about often can the I-CAN be completed, especially for progressive conditions where support needs can change rapidly.
  • Concerns over the impact of SNAs to participants and exactly how these will be used as part of planning processes.
  • Questions about what assessments will be used for participants under 16 years of age.
  • Several stakeholders raised SNAs sound like an updated version of Independent Assessments.
  • While much of the commentary about SNAs was negative, there was some positive feedback from stakeholders thinking they will be effective for participants and the Agency and some interest in undertaking one.

‘I think SNAs will be much better than the current assessments that are done by occupational therapists, I am looking forward to attending my assessment. Can they be done in person because I don’t like talking on the phone or in virtual meetings.’

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

Other

The other 40% of questions related to:

  • visibility of participant information for providers
  • will allied health providers still provide assessments when SNAs are introduced
  • NDIS supports
  • participant pathway issues – plan reassessments and planning.

Co-design

Of the 20 co-design activities, 14 activities focused on new ways of planning, including activities to support the Design Hub. We also consulted on the future navigator design, participant safeguarding and to support Service Guidance.

From these activities the following key themes were identified on Scheme reform priorities.

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

redacted: [[[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Support Needs Assessments

The SNA process needs to be empathetic and prioritise open dialogue and participant dignity. Assessors must be trauma-informed and culturally sensitive.

The Agency should provide practical details to participants when taking part in SNA process. For example, what to bring, what will be discussed, and how to prepare.

Participants should be able to access assessor information. For example, their qualifications and cultural or lived experience options.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

Office of the Participant Advocate

36 activities with Participant First and PRG members were held through October. This covers a wide range of initiatives which informs Scheme Reform and other key activities across the Agency.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Support Needs Assessments

14 activities focused on supporting participants to prepare for an SNA.

  • Process clarity: Participants are unclear about what an SNA is and how it will impact them.
  • Fear and mistrust: Participants advised that using SNAs would increase the fear and mistrust they already feel when engaging with the NDIA.
  • Correspondence from Agency: Even after reviewing draft SNA correspondence, participants did not understand what the SNA would do and who would be completing them.
  • Access to information: Information about SNAs needs to be clearly communicated to participants through their preferred communication methods and information formats to help reduce concerns based on uncertainty.

‘You’re just giving me some rando and now they’re making decisions about my future, but they don’t know me… that’s scary’ – NDIS participant.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

5. Sentiment

While provider sentiment was positive for sessions on Scheme reform, sentiment towards other topics was largely negative. These topics include SNAs, Thriving Kids, a new way of planning, funding periods and how changes are communicated.

Engagement and Inclusion

Community sentiment regarding the SNA tool is largely negative with the occasional positive comment. There was recurring concerns from the community about the qualifications of those who will administer the tool. There is also widespread apprehension about how a single assessment tool will work for the diverse range of participant disabilities and support needs. The current available information does not meaningfully address participants’ questions, concerns, and anxieties.

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Co-design

Stakeholders have expressed concern and anxiety around new ways of planning, identifying poor co-design practices and a lack of input from people with disabilities.

Stakeholders expressed fear about the policies and elements outside the scope of co-design during the activities. For example, in trying to discuss improvements to plan layouts and language there was a significant amount of feedback provided around the policy and implementation of funding periods.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement

the by 1982 Act Information of Freedom the under

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

New way of planning and participant plans

Co-design heard feedback around the new way of planning with a focus on changes to the participant plan. Themes included:

  • Greater accessibility of resources in a variety of formats which use plain English and avoid jargon to improve inclusion.
  • Participants want self-service options so they can view, update and track progress with plans through digital tools and the NDIS app.
  • Participants want to be empowered through greater transparency about decision making, including better visibility over draft plans, SNA reports and budget calculations with the ability to provide feedback and corrections before decisions are final.
  • Greater flexibility in the new way of planning was welcomed however the complex rules are confusing.
  • Participants want our resources to be simpler and clearer with reduced length, visual summaries and easier to find information.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

redacted: [[[[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Outcomes:

Recommendations from the previous reporting period resulted in:

  • A report compiling SNA and I-CAN tool feedback provided to the University of Melbourne for consideration in further iterations of the tool.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

Sentiment:

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

Sentiment from stakeholders regarding Scheme reforms and in particular SNAs continues to be negative with the lack of clear detailed information causing increased confusion and anxiety. redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

Engagement activities

In November 2025, the Engagement and Inclusion, Office of the Participant Advocate, Provider Engagement and Co-design branches conducted 97 engagement activities engaging 4,704 stakeholders.

Engagement and Inclusion

59 engagement activities were held where Scheme reform was discussed, engaging a total of 4,093 stakeholders, consisting of:

  • 5 online national participant webinars, attended by 661 stakeholders
  • 49 state and territory Community Engagement activities, attended by 2,991 stakeholders
  • 3 Sector Advice stakeholder meetings, attended by 43 stakeholders
  • Engagement and Inclusion attended 2 Department of Health, Aging and Disability webinars, attended by 398 stakeholders.

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Co-design

13 activities were held to support Scheme reform, engaging a total of 144 stakeholders, consisting of:

  • 5 co-design working groups and engagement groups, speaking with 49 participants, parents, carers and sector representatives
  • 6 engagements with participant groups, including 3 engagements conducted by the Design Hub, speaking with 64 participants
  • 1 meeting of the Co-design Advisory Group, speaking with 4 sector representatives
  • 1 Quarterly Reform Forum, speaking with approximately 40 sector representatives from Disability Representative and Carer Organisations (DRCOs) and Independent Advisory Council (IAC) members.

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

Themes

Each branch identified a range of themes through engagement activities. Themes identified across multiple branches were related to SNA, funding periods, the new way of planning and participant plans.

Engagement and Inclusion

There were 282 questions and comments raised between engagements led by the NDIA and the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. From these engagements the top key themes below were identified.

Support needs assessment and assessment tool

56% of discussions from stakeholders in NDIA sessions related to SNA and the assessment tool. Stakeholders raised concerns around the process and assessments.

A large amount of discussion was about the processes for the SNAs. These discussions included:

  • Stakeholders wanting to receive a copy of the SNA questions before the assessment and a copy of the SNA before the plan was created.
  • Requests for information on the process for changing or challenging the result of the SNA.
  • Concerns over the training and qualifications of the assessors and worries, they won’t have an allied health or medical background.
  • Stakeholders want to know who can attend to support the participant during the SNA.
  • Questions about the format of the SNA and whether it will be face-to-face, in their own home, online or via telehealth and will they be conducted by the NDIS in the hospital.
  • Confusion over whether the SNA will take place, if it is before or after access met.
  • Questions over how change of circumstances will work with reassessments and the role of local area coordinators (LAC) in this process.
  • The I-CAN tool is for participants 16 years and older and stakeholders want to know if there will be changes in the planning process for younger participants.
  • Questions about whether existing reports and assessments (such as FCAs) will be considered and the process if the SNA and a report or assessment results don’t match.

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

  • Questions about how long the SNA will take and how often participants will have an SNA.

Other discussions around SNAs included:

  • Questions around what cultural safety measures will be implemented and how the SNA will work in rural and remote areas with First Nations participants and CALD participants.
  • Stakeholders want to know how the SNA will change plan funding and what supports it will include.
  • Stakeholders are anxious and fearful as they are unsure who will be affected by SNAs and what will happen if they don’t know or understand their support needs.
  • Stakeholder are concerned about the overall impact of SNAs, especially on those with psychosocial disabilities.
  • A stakeholder also raised that she had heard the Agency will be using artificial intelligence (AI) for SNAs.

‘Can a participant request they be assessed by an SNA with actual clinical acumen rather than just internal NDIA training? Or is it just an arbitrary roll of the dice as to whether they are assessed by an SNA with clinical nous versus an undergraduate SNA?’

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

redacted: [[s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

Provider Engagement

There were 56 questions and comments raised, which identified the top key themes below.

redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

Support Needs Assessments

28% of legislation related questions were about the SNAs. Providers are concerned about:

  • how the assessments will be administered
  • how allied health reports and evidence will be considered
  • review rights.

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement

OFFICIAL FOI 25/26-1784

Sentiment

While provider sentiment was positive for sessions on Scheme reform and stakeholder sentiment positive for some elements of co-design and MND sessions, other sentiment was largely negative. This includes SNAs and Thriving Kids.

Engagement and Inclusion

Community sentiment regarding the reforms and in particular the SNAs, is increasingly negative. The current information available lacks the depth required to meaningfully address participants’ questions, concerns, and anxieties. In the absence of clear and detailed information, speculation and misinformation are spreading within the community, contributing to confusion and distrust.

Sentiment is further deteriorating as participants increasingly question if assessments use AI to generate budgets. There is growing fear that decisions are automated and that participants will have limited or no ability to appeal these budget outcomes. This perception contributes to heightened anxiety and distrust in the process.

redacted: [s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material](/foi-library/releases/8c65335eb149-foi-23-24-0201-disclosure-log/document-003__s22-1-a-ii-irrelevant-material/)

OFFICIAL

ndis.gov.au Report | Scheme reform engagement