Labor \u2014 particularly its NDIS spokesperson at the time, Bill Shorten \u2014 celebrated too, having heaped a lot of political pressure on the then-government to abandon the change.<\/p>\n
Now Labor is at the wheel of the NDIS and the financial sustainability of the scheme \u2014 which supports more than 750,000 participants \u2014 is again in focus.<\/p>\n
NDIS spending has grown to more than $50 billion per year and governments across the country are scrambling to moderate its growth.<\/p>\n
One of the scheme’s architects called independent assessments “robo-planning”<\/a> and now, with reports of computer-generated plans and a watered-down appeals process<\/a> starting from mid-2026, some participants, advocates and academics are getting a distinct sense of deja vu.<\/p>\n “If you told me five years back the very people who were arguing against independent assessments would be introducing a more souped-up version of that, I would have been really surprised,” Helen Dickinson, professor of public service research at the University of New South Wales, said.<\/p>\n Helen Dickinson says the new planning process looks like a “souped-up version” of independent assessments. (ABC News: Patrick Stone)<\/p>\n What were independent assessments?<\/p>\n Independent assessments<\/a> would have seen health professionals unknown to the person with disability meet with them for a few hours to discuss the level of supports they needed.<\/p>\n The model would have done away with the need for someone to gather costly reports from their usual specialists or doctors, but crucially, also eliminate any input from those medical professionals who knew the person with disability best.<\/p>\n The proposal caused a revolt. The disability community rallied<\/a>, wrote letters and petitioned. Many saw it as a “cookie-cutter” assessment designed to cut costs, turning people’s nuanced support needs into numbers.<\/p>\n Do you have a story to share?\u00a0Email\u00a0Specialist.Team@abc.net.au<\/a><\/p>\n Fast forward a few years, and once again we have a change to the planning process<\/a>.<\/p>\n This one would see a health professional use a questionnaire and assessment model called the I-CAN<\/a>, a tool<\/a> developed with the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Disability Studies. Meetings would take roughly between one to three hours and participants with more complex support requirements may still be asked for reports from treating doctors.<\/p>\n Eventually, a budget will be “costed” for the participant by the I-CAN.<\/p>\n The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), which runs the NDIS, says the assessment itself is not automated and a human will approve the overall plan \u2014 but nobody seems to know, or be able to say, exactly what will happen in the middle, during the creation of the budget.<\/p>\n The NDIA did not answer specific questions about the use of automation in the process, and at a tense sitting of Senate estimates last week<\/a>, senators also struggled to get clear answers from agency officials and NDIS minister Jenny McAllister.<\/p>\n The lack of clarity is seeing the phrase “robo-plans” spread through participant Facebook groups, further fuelling the anxiety of a community that feels like it constantly has to fight for its rights.<\/p>\n This is also a community already worried about the redirection of some kids away from the scheme<\/a>, changes to what participants can spend funding on<\/a>, and reviews and cuts of plans<\/a>.<\/p>\n Families say NDIS agency doesn’t understand disability<\/a><\/p>\n NDIS participants report sudden cuts or reviews of plans by staff who don\u2019t understand disability, while\u00a0a legal service representing participants through appeals says it has experienced a surge in demand.<\/p>\n Advocacy group Every Australian Counts was central to the campaign against independent assessments. Steering committee member Mark Pietsch said “robo-plans” did not pass the pub test then and won’t now.<\/p>\n “The disability community strongly opposed independent assessments due to the invasion of privacy and the lack of transparency in the process. People remember how [they] were tied to cost-cutting and they see the same risks here,” he said.<\/p>\n Dickinson is worried about the apparent lack of discretion NDIA staff will have to amend a plan created by the new assessment process and what powers the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) will have to compel the agency to change the total funding amount in a plan.<\/p>\n “If you are assessed to need less support that can mean you aren’t able to live independently. [Maybe] you are forced to live in a group home or \u2026 you need to make really difficult decisions about whether you use support work hours to either go to the GP or have a shower,” Dickinson said.<\/p>\n A change to the role of the ART would be significant given how active it has become.<\/p>\n More than 7,132 applications for reviews of NDIS decisions were lodged in 2024-25, a 76 per cent increase from 4,043 the year before, according to annual reports.<\/p>\n Community legal groups told the ABC earlier this year demand for their services at the ART has surged<\/a>, while documents recently released under Freedom of Information laws show the NDIA spent $60 million in 2024-25 on external legal firms to fight participants at the tribunal.<\/p>\n Calls for ‘full transparency’<\/p>\n A streamlined planning system was recommended by an independent review of the NDIS<\/a> and is part of a wider shift towards a needs-driven system, rather than a diagnostic one.<\/p>\n Senator McAllister said the I-CAN would help participants get support “in a fair and consistent way”.<\/p>\n Jenny McAllister says finer details of the change are still being ironed out with disability and state government representatives. (ABC News: Mary Lloyd)<\/p>\n “It is important that we engage in sober discussion based on the facts. We are talking about a tool that has been used in the care sector for 20 years,” she told the ABC.<\/p>\n “This is about making sure that everyone gets a fair plan, no matter who you are, and no matter where you live.”<\/p>\n The rules and policy arrangements to support the new process is still being developed with disability representatives and state governments, she added. The NDIA says these rules will be published when finalised.<\/p>\n But many in the disability community remain sceptical.<\/p>\n The community’s trust in the institution of government was severely damaged during the tussle over independent assessments, and is yet to fully recover<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n