NDIA Accountability Project

Potential impact of algorithm on support needs for NDIS participant

‹ PrevPage 1 of 10 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission to the National

Disability Insurance Scheme

Amendment (Securing the NDIS for

Future Generations) Bill 2026

Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs

Submitted by email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Date: 1/6/2026

My name is and I am a family member (uncle) and part time carer of

an NDIS participant.

I want to comment on an element of this Amendment Bill that holds the potential to

generate negative impacts on the NDIS scheme should it pass through Parliament.

While I generally endorse aspects within the legislation aimed at enhancing oversight over individuals and entities providing services, my concerns are significant concerning the Functional Capacity Assessment (‘Classification and Assessment of Support Needs’) as well as reliance upon algorithms in determining necessary levels of assistance.

Functional Capacity Assessment

What are the requirements and qualifications of the assessor?

The current need to repeatedly provide comprehensive documentation is a significant personal & stressor in the system so making this a simpler process is welcome.

My concerns are that the assessors face a very high bar in being required to be competent across a wide range of very technical fields. The assessors will also inevitability of being required to meet KPIs around minimum assessments in a given period of time.

Algorithm

The recent introduction of an algorithm to assess aged care needs (originally introduced in November of last year) has demonstrated that, whatever the original intention of the aged care assessment tool, it is open to change between the consultation stage and the process as rolled out.

Clinical assessors were assured that they would be able to override the aged care algorithm outcome if they thought the outcome was incorrect. This was later removed meaning that people responsible for and able to affect the support outcome and the people who were to receive support were very much disconnected from each other. This disconnection greatly increases the stress and uncertainty of the people the system is intended to support disconnected from each other. This disconnection greatly increases the stress and uncertainty of the people the system is intended to support.

Recommendation: I believe the Bill requires further scrutiny and amendment before it proceeds.

Parliamentary Scrutiny and Transparency

The consultation period for the Amendment Bill is two weeks, which is insufficient to allow for appropriate consultation, considering accessibility and communication needs. The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis says consultation should occur for a minimum of 30 days where possible.

The short timeline impacts my nephew by reducing the time I have to read and understand the new legislation in order to provide a relevant submission that covers my concerns as they affect him.

Recommendation: Amend the consultation period for a best practice minimum of 30 days.

Key decisions left to ministerial instruments, not law

The issue: The Bill allows Ministers to change who gets NDIS support (Schedule 1 Parts 8 and 9) and how much funding people receive (Schedule 1 Part 4; Schedule 3) by signing an instrument, without going back to Parliament. The rules that will determine critical eligibility thresholds (Schedule 1 Parts 1, 8 and 9) have not yet been written.

How this affects participants: The decisions that shape the lives of participants, whether they qualify for the NDIS and what supports they can access, could be changed without parliamentary debate or public scrutiny. Participants may not know supports or eligibility rules have changed until their plan is affected.

History has shown that a change of government can radically change the direction and implementation of legislation. For example the implementation of the NBN was begun under one government and changed to be much less comprehensive under the next government. Fibre to the home became fibre to near a home if possible.

Recommendation: Require that all decisions affecting NDIS eligibility and funding levels be made through primary legislation subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, with mandatory advance notice to affected participants before any changes take effect.

Existing participants face narrower criteria and fewer rights

to challenge decisions

The issue: The Bill changes the rules for existing NDIS participants and makes it

harder to challenge some decisions about supports and funding. It also restricts

when you can request a reassessment, removes review rights for automatic plan

renewals, and makes funding reductions unreviewable (Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 8).

Combined with restrictions on reassessment requests (Part 2), automatic plan

renewals without review rights (Part 5), and unreviewable funding reductions (Part

4), existing participants face narrower criteria with significantly fewer avenues to

challenge decisions about their supports.

How this affects participants: This does not protect participants already on the

NDIS, who could be reassessed under stricter rules. If someone’s funding is reduced

or their plan renewed automatically, they may have limited or no ability to challenge

that decision. This could make it harder for people to get extra support when their

circumstances or disability change.

I have watched my sister-in-law struggle to comprehend and gain support for her son

through several different support schemes. She has had to devote her life and

almost every waking hour to the support of her son. It has cost her her marriage.

This has placed her under significant ongoing stress to:

- Comprehend and work with different schemes (her sone is now 34 years old)

- Provide direct support.

- Hold herself ready to provide support at a moment's notice in case the
    
    existing arrangements fall through.

- Months long uncertainty around new funding or arrangements that carry the
    possibility of anywhere between carrying on or having to rearrange her life yet
   again.
  • My nephew has thriven in periods of ongoing, continuous support and became
  • withdrawn and in poorer health in periods where the support and people around him
  • have significantly changed due to lower financial resources.

Recommendation: Require a “no harm” safeguard ensuring no current participant loses access to supports unless equivalent supports are in place, with independent review rights before any exit decision and access to unscheduled reassessments preserved.

Unreviewable ministerial power to cut funding across all

support categories

The Minister can reduce funding for any support or group of supports by a specified percentage through an instrument that cannot be challenged (Schedule 1 Part 4).

This applies across all budget categories. Unspent funds will no longer carry over at plan renewal (Schedule 1 Part 5).

How this affects participants: A participant’s community participation, capacity building or assistive technology funding could be cut without warning and without any ight to appeal. Participants who save unspent funds across plan periods for high- cost items will lose that ability entirely.

The reduction of funding through decisions that cannot be changed or reduction of funding going forward, based on loss of unspent funds, effectively removes the ability of an individual or organisation to implement long term plans. This increases the stress on the people being funded as well as the external systems that receive the fallout.

Recommendation: Require that unspent funds carry over at plan renewal for participants saving for high-cost items and require independent review rights before any funding reduction takes effect.

Requirement to exhaust treatment options before eligibility

The issue: A person with disability will need to exhaust treatment options before they can be eligible for the Scheme (Schedule 1 Part 8). There will also be a removal of whole-of-person assessment, replaced by single eligible impairment consideration (Schedule 1 Part 3). The note that previously acknowledged environmental factors and other ineligible impairments could affect support needs will be removed (Schedule 1 Part 3).

How This Affects Participants

People with disability will need to prove their impairment cannot be treated before they access the NDIS. Once in the scheme, their supports will only be assessed against a single eligible impairment rather than their whole experience. A person’s individual circumstances will not be considered, including ability to pay for treatment, where they live or whether treatment is actually available to them.

Requiring my nephew to exhaust “appropriate treatment” options extends the time before effective interventions can begin and risks embedding any setbacks he suffers in the meantime.

  • Recommendation: Do not proceed with a requirement to exhaust “appropriate” treatment“ options - there are no safeguarding measures around participant harm due to side effects or complications, a participant’s financial ability to pay, or their geographic capacity to access treatments.

Unvalidated functional capacity assessment tool risks misidentifying need

The issue:

The Bill shifts assessment from whole-of-person consideration to a single eligible impairment (Schedule 1 Part 3). Read together with the eligibility thresholds in Parts 8 and 9, the tool used to conduct functional capacity assessments must be capable of sufficiently identifying whether a person meets the threshold for that single impairment.

The named assessment tool:

The Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN). I-CAN requires validation to ensure it will sufficiently identify the needs of all people with disability, including those whose needs may be fluctuating or episodic and may not be captured through a point-in-time assessment, and to ensure it is culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.

How this affects participants:

If the assessment tool does not accurately capture the full extent of a person’s disability, including needs that fluctuate or vary over time, a participant may be found ineligible or have their supports undercounted, with no guarantee the result reflects their actual experience.

*“The single assessment will increase or decrease the support my nephew gets depending on if he is having a good day or a poor one.”

Across the NDIS this risks people leaning into a perverse outcome of being asked by those around them to place their wellbeing at risk by making sure they are having a “bad” day when the assessment is undertaken.*

Recommendation:

do not proceed with I-CAN as the functional capacity assessment tool unless it has been demonstrably validated to identify the needs of all people with disability, including those with episodic or fluctuating disability, and demonstrated to be culturally appropriate for First Peoples with disability.

Supports Cut Before Replacement System Is Ready

The issue: From 1 October 2026, the government has announced funding for social, civic and community participation supports will be cut by 50 per cent and capacity building daily activities by 10 per cent for all participants, reductions that will be implemented through the ministerial instrument power in Schedule 1 Part 4. The Foundational Supports system intended to fill that gap has no confirmed implementation date and is not yet operational.

How this affects participants: Supports that help participants connect with their community, build skills and maintain independence may be cut before anything exists to replace them, leaving carers and families with greater responsibilities and no additional support. These supports are often what help people stay visible, connected and safe.

My nephew is clearly in a better mental and physical space when he involved in the community around him. Removing these encounters has been directly observed by those around him. It is a much longer road back to the benefits of involvement than it is to a poor outcome when his involvement is reduced.

  • Recommendation: Require that no reductions to community participation or capacity building supports take effect until Foundational Supports are fully operational, adequately funded and demonstrably able to meet the needs of those who will lose NDIS supports.