PWDA submission to the NDIS Rules: Public Consultation on New Framework Planning.
11 March 2026
PWDA welcomed the opportunity to respond to the NDIS Rules: Public Consultation on New Framework Planning (NFP). This consultation directly affects the supports many people rely on every day to live, work and participate in community life and the Rules determine every aspect of participants’ experiences of the NDIS.
Far-reaching changes like this require time, support and accessible information for people with disability to understand what is being proposed and to respond in meaningful ways.
Background on New Framework Planning
The Australian Government’s NDIS new framework planning: what we heard summary report stated people said communication regarding changes to the NDIS must be clear, timely and meet different communication needs.
Survey respondents said they felt that consultation processes were not transparent and felt tokenistic. They felt engagement with the disability community is limited and some decisions are made before consulting. They asked for clear information about how the NDIS rules are used.
People were also worried about moving to new framework plans before foundational supports are ready, and asked for a slow and supported change, with trauma informed communication.
Despite these findings, the Australian Government released a large volume of consultation materials on January 23, 2026, less than five months prior to the first group of participants transitioning to the new framework.
The consultation materials and briefings with the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (DHDA) contain significant gaps in information.
There are:
- no details about potential changes to the budget methodology,
- no updates on the NDIS Support rule and
A lack of clarity on
- how I-CAN based tools will work in practice,
- replacement needs assessments and
- plan variations.
PWDA recognises the significant complexity and challenges involved in delivering NDIS reform, however, codesign and consultation cannot be considered genuine or effective unless the Government provides the disability community with full and timely access to all relevant information.
PWDA has consistently called for disability-affirming, trauma-informed and community-centred approaches to NDIS communication and consultation. We remain deeply concerned that these principles are not always reflected in how major changes are developed and announced.
PWDA member consultation
On January 23, 2026, PWDA released a NDIS New Framework Planning member and community consultation survey to understand community views about the NFP consultation process and the proposed changes to NDIS Rules. The survey was sent out the same day the Government released the consultation materials, to ensure PWDA’s response would meet the consultation deadlines and incorporate the information available at the time.
We received a total of 213 responses.
Survey findings indicate confusion and distress within the disability community about the design and implementation of the proposed NDIS New Planning Framework with 63% of respondents saying the consultation documents did not provide them with enough time to be ready for the changes and 30% stating they were unsure.
Only 10% of respondents felt the NDIA and providers would be ready to implement these changes within the proposed timelines.
A deeply concerning theme across responses is the psychological impact of proposed reforms, particularly the way changes were communicated and perceived instability in essential supports, due to forthcoming changes.
Respondents describe panic, severe anxiety, trauma and feeling unsafe as participants, and experiences of suicidal ideation linked to planning instability and funding uncertainty.
PWDA’s submission and recommendations are based on responses to our survey and the limited information available in the consultation materials and from the DHDA’s briefings with DROs. We may need to update our recommendations when the Government releases further, critical information regarding proposed changes under the NFP.
This submission addresses the concerns of our members and the disability community, and strives to assist the Australian Government to ensure that changes to NDIS Rules under the New Framework Planning will:
- protect participant rights and safety
- safeguard choice and control
- guarantee access to essential supports
- hold the Scheme to its legislative obligations
- and will have a strong base in human rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
Recommendations
Recommendation 1 – PWDA urges the Government to release all outstanding information and details of the current state of Rule development which is essential to understanding the proposed NFP. First group of participants is expected to transition to the new framework in less than four months, withholding this undermines the intent and integrity of the consultation process.
Recommendation 2 – Provide DROs with access to exposure drafts of all relevant NDIS Rules and Instruments to ensure genuine codesign and adjust the timelines to allow for informed consultation.
Recommendation 3 – Regulate CEO “own initiative” powers by introducing mandatory safeguards, independent verification, and procedural fairness requirements.
Recommendation 4 – Address structural power imbalance by aligning participant and NDIA constraints and embedding independent oversight.
Recommendation 5 – Require the Notice of Impairments to Include a clear explanation of the specific diagnoses or conditions under each impairment category and clarify how interacting disabilities will be assessed.
Recommendation 6 – Establish and publish a minimum notice period for transition to New Framework Plans.
Recommendation 7 – Provide clear, early, and publicly available criteria for inclusion in Group 1 which should only include people aged above 18 with defined lower complexity needs, in geographical areas with adequate providers and services and ensuring equity for remote and First Nations participants.
Recommendation 8 – Ensure people with complex needs are given the time and supported decision-making supports to ensure co-design.
Recommendation 9 – Support needs assessments must be led or meaningfully informed by qualified allied health professionals, incorporate participant‑chosen evidence, and operate within a rights‑based, trauma‑informed framework.
Recommendation 10 – People must be able to review the draft of the support needs assessment before it is finalised and submitted. This ensures there is the opportunity to correct any misunderstandings that could result in delayed access to critical supports.
Recommendation 11 – Publish clear guidance on how I‑CAN 6 scores translate into funding to ensure I‑CAN 6 scores are not used as de facto funding caps. Develop a public explanation of the scoring-to-funding logic, so participants can understand how their assessment leads to specific budget decisions.
Recommendation 12 – Strengthen procedural fairness by ensuring human review and transparent decision-making. Every decision informed by I‑CAN 6 undergoes documented human reasoning, not just automated scoring — particularly since the support needs assessment report must inform budgets under new rules.
Recommendation 13 – Clearly define the role, limits, and safeguards surrounding the use of I‑CAN 6, the personal and environmental circumstances questionnaire and the targeted assessment, if required.
Recommendation 14 – Publish a simple, participant-focused guide to clarify the roles of the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.
Recommendation 15 – Guarantee accessible pathways for replacement assessments and meaningful review where assessments are flawed or disputed.
Recommendation 16 – Clearly define access, timeframes, and triggers for replacement assessments and provide participants with clear, transparent reasons why their request for a replacement assessment was denied.
Recommendation 17 – Strengthen replacement assessments by requiring additional safeguards beyond re‑use of I‑CAN 6.
Recommendation 18 – Ensure replacement assessments function as a genuine remedy, not a procedural formality.
Recommendation 19 – Make reasonable and necessary budget‑setting transparent, participant‑facing, and outcomes‑focused.
Recommendation 20 – Ensure budgets are genuinely individualised and informed by participant‑chosen evidence and incorporate flexibility to meet individuals’ needs, real-world costs and lived experience.
Recommendation 21 – Limit the use of stated supports and require a clear, rights‑based justification.
Recommendation 22 – Strengthen transparency, participation, and review rights in decisions to apply stated supports.
Recommendation 23 – Amend the rules/guidance so that plan variations are the default response to most changes in circumstances unless the NDIA can clearly justify why a full needs assessment (or reassessment) is necessary.
Recommendation 24 – Add enforceable safeguards so NDIA discretion — especially CEO/Agency-initiated actions — can’t be exercised in ways that undermine participant rights. This includes mandatory notice, reasons, and strengthened review protections whenever the NDIA refuses a variation and instead directs a participant to a needs assessment.
Recommendation 25 – Re‑embed person‑centred decision‑making within the current list‑based framework to ensure participant choice and control.
Recommendation 26 – If the lists are retained, they must be significantly reformed to ensure they are broad enough to accommodate diverse disability-related needs, developed transparently and applied consistently; and designed with recognition of lived experience and intersectional disadvantage.
Recommendation 27 – PWDA recommends that the Australian Government undertake and publish a formal assessment of the compatibility of the NDIS support lists and replacement rule with Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD, particularly Articles 3(a), 19, 20, 24, 28 and 30
Recommendation 28 – Make longer funding periods the default, with shorter periods used only as a last resort or at participant’s request.
Recommendation 29 – Introduce stronger safeguards and limits on CEO discretion.
Recommendation 30 – Strengthen review and variation rights for funding periods.
Recommendation 31 – Publicly disclose current Agency proposals on where ADM or AI will be used in New Framework Planning – including in the budget allocation process – how it operates, the datasets it relies on, the degree of human oversight and capacity for positive intervention.
Recommendation 32 – Publish any legal advice about the reviewability of new framework plans at the Tribunal and ensure all aspects of the NFP rules are explainable, can incorporate all relevant information, and that the plan budget is capable of being meaningfully challenged at internal and external review.