Australian Disability Association
DISABILITY advocates are demanding the Federal Government explain how new National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) assessments will work, warning the proposed overhaul could be distressing and disempowering for participants if they lose control over how their needs are measured.
From mid-2026, the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) will begin phasing in a new planning and funding model that replaces professional reports with structured interviews and a digital assessment tool known as I-CAN.
The system, already used in aged care, is intended to make the process fairer and more consistent.
NDIS Minister Jenny McAllister announced the change in September, describing it as a shift toward simpler, faster and more equitable decision-making.
But many within the disability community are alarmed by what they see as a lack of transparency and a potential erosion of trust between participants and the agency.
Under the current model, participants rely heavily on reports from doctors and allied health professionals who know them personally.
These reports can be lengthy and expensive, but they provide detailed insight into each person’s circumstances.
The new approach instead centres on a one-to-three-hour interview conducted by a government assessor, potentially in the participant’s home. The I-CAN tool and a series of questionnaires would then be used to determine funding levels.
While the Government says the change will reduce costs and administrative burden, participants fear it will come at the expense of dignity, accuracy and safety.
Disability advocate Jarrod Sandell-Hay, who lives with cerebral palsy, said the proposal risked traumatising people who may be required to discuss intimate or sensitive topics with strangers.
“How would you feel if you were a woman with a disability who’s already experienced trauma, and someone you don’t know comes into your home asking personal questions?” he said. “These three hours could decide your next five years of funding. That’s incredibly stressful.”
Advocates say the Government must clarify whether home visits will be mandatory and confirm that professional reports will continue to carry weight in funding decisions. Without that assurance, they warn, participants may disengage from the process altogether.
Advocates argue that excluding professional evidence would sideline the expertise of treating specialists and put too much pressure on participants to self-assess.
“If the agency doesn’t trust self-assessment in court, why would it build a whole tool around it?” Mr Sandell-Hay said. “It doesn’t make sense.”
The Government said consultations with participants, families and carers would continue before the rollout begins.
“This is about dignity, safety and independence,” Mr Sandell-Hay said. “We need a system that treats us as experts in our own lives – not problems to be managed.”
