In recent weeks, there has been a growing volume of information emerging about changes to how the NDIS makes decisions about participant funding, how plans are reviewed, and how funds are allocated and managed. During Senate Estimates hearings, it was confirmed that most participants will no longer be able to appeal the total amount of funding support through external review processes under the new system, and that funding plans will be generated by computer-based decision systems with reduced human oversight and discretion [1,2].
For many people, particularly those applying to the NDIS for the first time or approaching a plan review, this has understandably created significant anxiety. There is uncertainty about how automated planning tools will operate, questions about what will be reviewable, and concern about the practical impacts of these changes on participants’ rights and wellbeing [2,3].
When systems change in ways that feel opaque or difficult to understand, fear and mistrust are natural responses, particularly for people who are already navigating disability supports and complex health systems [3].
This blog is not about creating alarm, but about clarity. We aim to share what is currently understood, what these changes may mean in practice, and how people can prepare and protect themselves within the system in ways that support access, fairness, and dignity.
What we understand so far
Several key themes are emerging from recent disclosures and public documentation about changes to the NDIS.
First, funding decisions are now increasingly processed through AI-based and digital decision-support systems rather than through traditional paper-based human decision models [1,2]. According to media reporting and disclosures made by NDIS representatives in Senate Estimates enquiries, the NDIA has developed systems that automate the drafting of plans based on structured inputs and algorithms. This represents a structural shift in how decisions are made, even if the language used publicly sometimes emphasises continued human review.
Second, when participants feel underfunded, the current review pathway is more limited than it has been in the past. Evidence presented in Senate Estimates indicates that external review bodies like the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) can no longer make determinations about the amount of funding awarded. Instead, they can only direct a reassessment through the NDIA’s internal decision system, which may result in the same automated process being applied again [3].
Third, there are increasing controls over how funds are managed. Recent policy discussions and participant materials note greater use of managed funding arrangements, including agency management for participants who are perceived to be overspending or unable to self-manage effectively. While these controls intend to support financial accountability, they also raise understandable concern among people who value self-management and choice [4].
Finally, decision systems now rely heavily on structured data and clearly articulated needs. This places greater emphasis on how information is presented in applications, reports, and assessments, and raises the importance of functional and evidence-based descriptions of need rather than narrative summaries alone [5,6].
None of this means that people cannot access the NDIS, nor does it mean that support is unavailable. However, it does mean that how information is communicated, documented, and structured now matters more than ever.
What this may mean in practice
Automated decision systems are not inherently prone to error. However, they depend on structured inputs, categorised information, and standardised thresholds [1,5]. This creates risks when real human experience does not translate neatly into system-friendly language and when the user cannot see, understand or adjust for the “blackbox algorithm” that the AI is using to come to its predictions about what the participants plan needs to look like to meet their goals.
This is most visible when people minimise their needs because of shame, masking, or fear of stigma, when distress and overwhelm affect communication in formal meetings, when functional impacts are described vaguely rather than concretely, and when reports are clinically rich but poorly structured for decision systems.
The result is not the invalidation of needs, but the misinterpretation of them. People can end up underfunded not because their needs are not real, but because those needs were not clearly translated into a format the computer-based system can interpret and act on [2,3]. For example, a human may take into account those critical non-verbal cues and environmental context of the participants surroundings when forming their judgement but these clinically rich sources of information will not be fed into the algorithm and decision.
This is where preparation and structure become protective.
What You Can Do
For applicants and participants
One of the most complex parts of engaging with systems like the NDIS is finding language that feels both honest and clear. Many people describe their experiences modestly, minimise their struggles, or rely on broad phrases that make sense to those close to them but do not communicate the real impact of disability to formal systems.
Clarity matters.
Instead of describing experiences in general terms, it helps to anchor explanations in function, impact, and consequence. This approach aligns directly with how the NDIS assesses eligibility and funding, which prioritises functional impact and daily living capacity over diagnosis alone [6,4]. This means being specific about what is hard, why it is hard, and what happens without support.
For example, saying “I struggle a bit in public places” may feel accurate, but it does not communicate functional impact. A clearer description would be:
“Because of the combination of sensory overwhelm, social communication differences, and the anxiety and distress these cause, I am unable to attend shops, appointments, or public services independently without support. Without assistance, I experience shutdowns, disorientation, and distress that make community participation unsafe and/or inaccessible maintaining isolation.”
Similarly, “I have trouble managing daily life” becomes much clearer when described as:
“Executive functioning difficulties, cognitive fatigue, and emotional dysregulation related to my disability, makes me unable to consistently manage daily living tasks such as meal preparation, medication management, planning, and personal care without structured support.”
Another typical pattern we see is minimisation. People often say, “I can usually cope,” when the reality is that coping comes at a high cost. A more accurate reflection might be:
“I can sometimes manage tasks without support by ignoring my disability and overcompensating anddoing so comes at a significant cost to my mental health and energy, and leads to exhaustion, shutdown, and worsening symptoms that is not sustainable.”
Preparation is also protective. The NDIS itself emphasises the importance of clear documentation, structured evidence, and functional reporting in planning and review processes [5,6]. Practical strategies that genuinely help include writing notes or scripts beforehand, bringing an advocate or support person, requesting environmental or communication adjustments, and preparing structured dot-points rather than relying on memory in meetings.
Support systems exist for a reason. Advocates, clinicians, and support coordinators can help structure communication to reduce misunderstandings and ensure needs are represented clearly and accurately within NDIA decision frameworks [4,5].
For supporters, carers and loved ones
Advocacy plays a decisive role in how needs are understood and interpreted. The most effective advocacy is not emotional escalation, but clarity.
Avoid general language like “they struggle sometimes” or “they need a bit of help.” Instead, communicate in terms of function and consequence. This approach aligns with how the NDIS assesses support needs, which prioritises functional impact and daily living capacity rather than generalised descriptions of difficulty [7,8].
For example:
“They get overwhelmed and struggle to cope” becomes:
“Because of sensory overload and anxiety, they are unable to attend appointments, shops, or community settings without support. Without assistance, they experience distress, shutdown, and disorganisation that makes these environments unsafe and inaccessible.”
“They can’t manage independently very well” becomes:
“Due to difficulties with planning, organisation, emotional regulation, and cognitive fatigue, they are unable to manage daily living tasks such as budgeting, scheduling, medication management, and household organisation without structured support.”
It is also important to challenge assumptions calmly and clearly. Systems often rely on observable presentation during structured interactions, which can lead to overestimation of functional capacity. Clear documentation of functional impact, fatigue, and post-interaction impairment is essential in ensuring accurate representation of support needs [8,9].
Strong advocacy does not require confrontation. Calm, structured, factual communication is often more effective in systems driven by standardised processes and structured decision frameworks [7,9].
For clinicians and health professionals
How evidence is written now matters as much as what it contains.
Reports must be written for a purpose. Long, narrative, clinically rich reports have professional value, but they are often poorly suited to funding decision systems. Clarity, structure, and functional relevance now matter more than length. This aligns with NDIA guidance, which prioritises functional capacity, structured evidence, and clear linkage between impairment and support needs in decision-making processes [10,11].
Documentation should prioritise:
- functional capacity
- daily living impact
- participation limitations
- risk and safety factors
- support needs
- evidence linking diagnosis to impairment and functional impact [10,11]
Narrative “waffle” weakens clarity. Decision systems require structured information that directly links assessment findings to functional needs and support requirements.
Functional capacity assessments are essential, particularly for new applicants and reviews. Diagnosis alone is not sufficient. The system is driven by function, not labels [11,12].
Alongside complete reports, clinicians can markedly improve their clients’ capacity to self-advocate by providing additional simplified documents, such as one-page summaries or structured overviews that clearly list the diagnosis, date of diagnosis, diagnosing clinician and qualifications, functional impacts, support needs, and the assessment findings that substantiate those needs. These documents support consistent, accurate communication by participants themselves within NDIA decision frameworks [10,12].
Detailed reports still matter clinically. But documentation should be written with a clear understanding of the audience and purpose. Bureaucratic systems do not interpret context and nuance well. Structured, functional, evidence-linked reporting protects clients more effectively than volume. This position is reinforced by evidence given during Senate Estimates in February 2025, where former NDIA CEO Rebecca Falkingham stated that NDIA staff do not have the capacity to read extensive reports, highlighting systemic time and workload constraints in plan development and review processes [13].
A final word
Large systems change. When they do, uncertainty, fear, and mistrust follow, especially when the care, safety and dignity of society’s most vulnerable people are involved. These responses are human and understandable and it is important to have a plan for how we can cope ahead with change.
While decision-making structures may be shifting, the underlying purpose of the NDIS has not changed: supporting people with disabilities to live safer, more independent, and more supported lives.
The strongest protection in any system is not fear, but clarity, preparation, structure, and advocacy.
At Minds & Hearts, our focus remains on supporting people to navigate these systems with dignity and confidence, ensuring that individuals are not reduced to data points, but recognised as people with real lives, real needs, and a right to meaningful support.
How Minds & Hearts can support you
Navigating systems like the NDIS can feel overwhelming, particularly when processes are changing, and information feels uncertain or unclear. You do not have to do this alone.
At Minds & Hearts, we work with individuals, families, and professionals across the full spectrum of neurodiversity and disability support. This includes psychological assessment, functional capacity assessment, support for NDIS applications and reviews, advocacy-focused documentation, and clinical input into funding processes. We also provide consultation and supervision for clinicians and services working with neurodivergent clients, particularly where complexity, co-occurring conditions, or systemic barriers are present.
Whether you are seeking an assessment, preparing for a plan review, supporting a loved one through the NDIS process, or working professionally with neurodivergent clients and families, we can help you to navigate these systems with clarity, structure, and confidence.
Our approach is grounded in evidence, clinical experience, and a deep respect for the lived experience of disability, with a focus on helping people access support in practical, ethical, and genuinely meaningful ways.
References
[1] Taylor, J., & Lyons, K. (2025, November 12). Government using machine learning to help create draft plans for NDIS participants, documents reveal. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/nov/12/government-using-machine-learning-to-help-create-draft-plans-for-ndis-participants-documents-reveal
[2] The Guardian. (2025, December 3). NDIS plans will be computer-generated, with human involvement dramatically cut under sweeping overhaul. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/03/ndis-plans-computer-generated
[3] Parliament of Australia. (2025). Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Senate Estimates – Transcript. Hansard. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=committees/estimate/29020/&sid=0005
[4] National Disability Insurance Scheme. (2026). Supports funded by the NDIS. https://www.ndis.gov.au/understanding/supports-funded-ndis
[5] National Disability Insurance Scheme. (2026). Our Guidelines: How decisions are made. https://www.ndis.gov.au/our-guidelines
[6] National Disability Insurance Scheme. (2026). Reasonable and necessary supports. https://www.ndis.gov.au/understanding/supports-funded-ndis/reasonable-and-necessary-supports
[7] National Disability Insurance Scheme. (2026). NDIS planning and plan management information. https://www.ndis.gov.au/participants/using-your-plan/plan-management
[8] National Disability Insurance Scheme. (2026). How the NDIS makes decisions about supports. https://www.ndis.gov.au/participants/understanding-ndis/how-ndis-makes-decisions
[9] National Disability Insurance Scheme. (2026). Access to the NDIS: Eligibility and functional impact. https://www.ndis.gov.au/applying-access-ndis/am-i-eligible
[10] National Disability Insurance Scheme. (2026). NDIS evidence requirements and supporting information. https://www.ndis.gov.au/applying-access-ndis/how-apply/supporting-information
[11] National Disability Insurance Scheme. (2026). Operational guidelines: Evidence and functional assessment in planning. https://ourguidelines.ndis.gov.au
[12] National Disability Insurance Scheme. (2026). Functional capacity and support needs assessment guidance. https://www.ndis.gov.au/providers/working-ndis-clients
[13] Parliament of Australia. (2025, February 27). Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Estimates (Statement by Rebecca Falkingham on report consideration) [Hansard]. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=committees/estimate/28748/&sid=0000