National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1617
Submission Regarding Proposed NDIS Needs Assessment and Review Reforms
Submitted by: Dee McCulloch Developmental Educator, Behaviour Support Practitioner (Specialist) and Counsellor
AHEAD Supports
25th May 2026
Introduction
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was established to transform the lives of Australians with disability through the principles of choice, control, inclusion, individualisation and human rights. It was developed as a practical mechanism through which Australia could fulfil its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), moving away from institutional models of care towards self-determination and community participation.
The current proposed reforms to the NDIS, particularly the introduction of standardised needs assessments, increased reliance on assessment tools as funding determinants, and the reduction of independent merits review, represent a significant departure from these foundational principles. While all public systems require ongoing refinement and governments have a legitimate responsibility to ensure sustainability and consistency, reforms must be evidence-based, transparent, lawful, and centred on the rights and lived experiences of people with disability.
This submission argues that the proposed reforms are being progressed without sufficient evidence, adequate safeguards, or demonstrated implementation readiness. The reforms risk replacing individualised assessment with administrative convenience, diminishing procedural fairness, and weakening the rights protections that have been essential to the success of the NDIS.
The Importance of Professional Clinical Judgement
Disability is complex, diverse and highly individualised. Functional capacity cannot be accurately understood through a brief standardised assessment alone. The impact of disability is influenced by a person’s diagnosis, environment, support network, health
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1617
conditions, trauma history, communication abilities, behavioural presentation, cultural background and life circumstances.
The proposed model appears to place substantial weight on assessments conducted by individuals who may have limited clinical qualifications, minimal disability-specific training, and little experience working with complex disability presentations. A short assessment interview cannot replace the professional judgement developed through months or years of therapeutic engagement, multidisciplinary assessment and direct observation.
Treating clinicians and allied health professionals undertake detailed evaluations using validated assessment tools, structured observation, collateral information, risk assessments and longitudinal evidence. Their conclusions are informed by professional registration standards, ethical obligations and ongoing accountability.
The proposition that a brief assessment conducted by a non-clinical assessor can accurately determine the lifelong support needs of a person with disability is unsupported by established evidence. Standardised assessment tools should assist decision-making rather than replace professional judgement.
Funding decisions should continue to be informed by qualified practitioners who possess the expertise necessary to interpret complex functional presentations and understand the real-world implications of disability.
Concerns Regarding the Use of I-CAN as a Funding Determination Tool
Significant concerns exist regarding the proposed use of the I-CAN assessment framework as a primary mechanism for determining participant budgets. The tool was developed prior to the UNCRPD, research on it’s use and validity is limited and only with clinically qualified assessment, interpretation and over a period of 7-12 hours. The language is complicated and far too complex for participants and their carers to understand.
The I-CAN assessment was not originally developed as a budgeting tool. It was designed as a functional assessment framework intended to assist in understanding support needs. There is a substantial difference between identifying support needs and determining the financial resources required to meet those needs.
At present, there appears to be limited publicly available evidence demonstrating:
• That I-CAN can reliably predict funding requirements across diverse disability cohorts.
• That scores generated through I-CAN correlate with actual support costs.
• That non-clinical assessors can administer the tool with acceptable reliability and validity.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1617
• That non-clinical assessors can accurately interpret results within the context of complex disability presentations.
• That the assessment can adequately account for fluctuating conditions, trauma, psychosocial disability, behavioural complexity, environmental factors or cumulative impairments.
The scientific validity of an assessment tool depends not only on the instrument itself but also on the qualifications, experience and judgement of those administering it.
Without a robust evidence base supporting these applications, the use of I-CAN as a primary budget allocation mechanism represents a significant policy and implementation risk.
People are not algorithms. Human circumstances cannot always be reduced to numerical scores. Professional interpretation and individual adjustment remain essential components of fair and effective decision-making.
Risks of Reducing Individualised Decision-Making
One of the defining strengths of the NDIS has been its recognition that people with disability have unique goals, aspirations and support requirements.
Standardisation has value in promoting consistency; however, consistency must not come at the expense of accuracy.
An assessment framework that generates predetermined funding outcomes risks creating a system in which individuals are expected to fit within administrative categories rather than having supports tailored to their actual needs.
This approach is particularly problematic for people with:
• Intellectual disability combined with mental illness.
• Autism with significant behavioural support needs.
• Acquired brain injury.
• Rare conditions.
• Fluctuating neurological disorders.
• Psychosocial disability.
• Trauma-related presentations.
• Multiple interacting disabilities and health conditions.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1617
Many of these presentations require nuanced professional interpretation and consideration of contextual factors that cannot be adequately captured through a short interview process.
The danger is not merely that some participants may receive less funding. The greater danger is that genuine support needs may become invisible within an assessment process that prioritises standardisation over individual understanding.
Independent Review is a Fundamental Safeguard
The proposed limitations on independent review represent perhaps the most concerning aspect of the reforms.
The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) performs an essential role within Australia’s administrative justice system. It ensures government decision-makers remain accountable to legislation, evidence and principles of procedural fairness.
Independent review exists because government agencies make mistakes.
The fact that a substantial proportion of NDIS decisions are varied or set aside following external review is not evidence of a problem with the review system. Rather, it demonstrates the importance of independent scrutiny in protecting the rights of participants.
Where decisions affect essential disability supports, housing stability, health outcomes, personal safety and community participation, robust review mechanisms are indispensable.
If approximately seventy per cent of reviewed decisions result in outcomes more favourable to participants, this raises serious questions regarding the quality and accuracy of original decision-making. The logical response is to improve decision- making processes while preserving independent oversight, not to reduce the capacity for decisions to be challenged.
Removing or weakening review rights does not improve decision quality. It simply reduces accountability.
A person whose supports are incorrectly reduced should not lose access to an independent body capable of examining the evidence and applying the law.
Human Rights Considerations
The NDIS cannot be considered solely as a funding program. It is a human rights framework intended to support Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD.
The Convention recognises the rights of people with disability to:
• Live independently and be included in the community.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1617
• Exercise autonomy and self-determination.
• Participate equally in society.
• Access rehabilitation and support services.
• Enjoy an adequate standard of living.
• Access effective remedies when rights are infringed.
The proposed reforms raise concerns regarding compliance with these principles.
A system that relies heavily on standardised assessments conducted by non-clinical assessors, limits the influence of professional evidence, restricts opportunities for review, and centralises decision-making risks undermining individual autonomy and participation.
Human rights protections are most important when governments face financial pressures. Rights should not diminish because budgets are constrained.
Any reform must demonstrate how it enhances, rather than restricts, Australia’s compliance with the UNCRPD.
Risks of Returning to Institutional Thinking
Australia has spent decades attempting to move away from institutional models of disability support.
The NDIS was designed to empower individuals to exercise choice and control over their lives and support arrangements.
There is a legitimate concern that some current reform directions risk reintroducing elements of institutional thinking under a different administrative structure.
When funding decisions become increasingly centralised, individual preferences become secondary to system requirements, and support options become more constrained, the practical effect may be a reduction in genuine choice and control.
People with disability should not be viewed primarily through the lens of cost containment. They are citizens with rights, aspirations, relationships and contributions to make within their communities.
The success of the NDIS should be measured not solely by expenditure but by whether people with disability can live safe, meaningful and self-directed lives.
Implementation Readiness Concerns
Major reforms require adequate infrastructure, workforce capability and systems readiness.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1617
The proposed reforms represent one of the most significant transformations of the NDIS since its inception. Such changes demand:
• Comprehensive workforce training.
• Clear operational guidance.
• Reliable information technology systems.
• Effective quality assurance processes.
• Independent evaluation.
• Genuine consultation with people with disability and sector experts.
• Transparent communication regarding implementation risks.
Concerns have been raised across the disability sector regarding assessor training, workforce capability, information technology readiness and operational processes.
If these concerns are not adequately addressed prior to implementation, participants may experience delayed decisions, inaccurate assessments, inappropriate funding outcomes and increased administrative burden.
The consequences of implementation failure are not merely administrative. They affect people’s safety, housing stability, physical health, mental health and quality of life.
The burden of proof should rest with government to demonstrate that systems are ready before reforms are implemented.
Recommendations
The Australian Government should pause implementation of any needs assessment model until independent evidence demonstrates validity, reliability and suitability for funding allocation purposes.
Professional evidence provided by treating clinicians and allied health practitioners should remain central to funding determinations and should not be displaced by standardised assessments.
Any assessment framework should include mechanisms allowing individual adjustment where assessment outcomes do not accurately reflect a person’s circumstances.
Independent merits review through the Administrative Review Tribunal should be preserved and strengthened rather than restricted.
Government should publish all evidence supporting the proposed reforms, including psychometric evaluations, workforce capability assessments, implementation planning and risk analyses.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1617
Comprehensive pilot programs should be conducted prior to national implementation, with independent evaluation and public reporting of outcomes.
All reforms should be subject to explicit human rights impact assessments demonstrating consistency with Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD.
Meaningful co-design with people with disability, families, advocates, clinicians and service providers should occur before implementation of major structural changes.
Conclusion
The NDIS was established because Australians recognised that people with disability deserve the same rights, opportunities and freedoms as every other citizen.
The current reform agenda risks prioritising administrative efficiency over individual need, standardisation over professional judgement, and cost containment over human rights.
Reform is necessary in any large public system. However, reforms must be supported by evidence, implemented responsibly, and designed to strengthen rather than diminish the rights of people with disability.
The central question is not whether the NDIS should change. The question is whether those changes preserve the principles upon which the scheme was founded: dignity, choice, control, participation, accountability and respect for human rights.
Any reform that weakens those principles risks undermining the very purpose of the NDIS itself.
Thank you for considering my submission.
With gratitude
Dee McCulloch