By Sheryl Warren

There’s no denying the NDIS is in need of reform. Costs are ballooning, participant outcomes are uneven, and the system has long been criticised for complexity and inconsistency. But with the sweeping reforms introduced in the 2023–24 and 2024–25 federal budgets—and the legislative overhaul via the “Getting the NDIS Back on Track” Bill—there’s a growing unease: are we moving from a person-centred approach to one where service delivery is dictated by algorithms, assessments, and centralised control?

From Participant Choice to Predefined Frameworks

At the heart of the proposed changes is the introduction of “Framework Plans,” a new structure in which supports are grouped into budget categories based on a “Needs Assessment.” On paper, it sounds like progress—structured, efficient, measurable. But scratch beneath the surface and the concern becomes clear: this isn’t about amplifying participant voice; it’s about fitting people into predefined funding templates.

Instead of plans reflecting a person’s unique goals and lived experience, we may soon see a system that prioritises administrative neatness over real-world messiness. Needs assessments, conducted by a soon-to-be-trained 1,000-person workforce using standardised tools, will determine what support someone is entitled to. But who defines “need”? Who ensures the tools recognise nuance, diversity, and lived experience?

Budget Measures vs. Real Lives

The federal budget promises a whopping $468.7 million over five years for system improvements—including bolstering the Quality and Safeguards Commission—but little of that seems focused on actually listening to participants and receiving the support services they need. The 8% annual growth cap on NDIS costs signals a shift from support-driven funding to cost containment. Sure, sustainability matters—but if it comes at the cost of individual autonomy, what exactly are we sustaining?

Meanwhile, the legislation lays the groundwork for a top-down transformation. Clarifications around what constitutes “NDIS supports” and stricter financial management controls may reduce rorts and inefficiencies, but they also risk further entrenching a paternalistic model where someone in a Canberra office decides what support is “reasonable and necessary.”

A System Designed to Serve Itself?

The language coming from official sources is heavy with bureaucracy: “actuarial modelling,” “financial sustainability,” “framework consistency.” What’s missing is a human story. If we replace collaborative planning with needs assessments and participant budgets with algorithmically-derived funding bands, we’re edging dangerously close to a system that serves itself—not the people within it.

Team DSC’s thoughtful breakdown of the changes flags this well: the shift from functional to needs-based assessments is radical. Rather than exploring what a person can do with the right support, we’re assessing how much support the system is willing to allocate. That’s not empowerment; it’s control.

Is the NDIS Still About People?

The promise of the NDIS was bold: choice and control for people with disabilities. These reforms—no matter how well-intentioned—risk undermining that vision. We should be deeply critical of any move that shifts power away from participants and into the hands of system managers. Framework Plans, needs assessments, and capped budgets might make spreadsheets happier—but do they make lives better?

We need reform. But we need the right reform. Not a shift from chaos to control, but a move from confusion to co-creation. Not system logic over human logic. Not budgets before people.

Let’s not let a system designed to liberate become one that categorises and contains.