Position Statements
Position Statement on NDIS Automated Planning
Recent reporting about proposals for computer generated NDIS plans signals a major shift in how budgets may be set. For Disability Rights and Culture (DRC) this is not just a technical change – it goes to the heart of disabled people’s rights, communities and culture. Any reform to NDIS planning must meet the highest standards of transparency and safeguarding so it does not erase or restrict disability culture.
Under the New Framework Planning model, it appears that automated systems may be used to generate budgets, review rights may be narrowed, and the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) may be limited to sending matters back to the original decision maker rather than changing the plan. At the same time, there is no clear guarantee that written evidence from disabled people, families and trusted professionals will be properly considered. Combined, automation plus weaker review pathways create serious risks, especially for disabled people with the highest support needs and for communities whose lives don’t fit a standard “average case”.
Opaque systems, weaker rights
Automated tools make it harder for disabled people to understand how decisions are made. Digital systems do not easily explain:
- which assumptions were prioritised
- whether the model is driven by cost cutting or by meeting need
- how geography, thin markets and local context are taken into account.
If disabled people cannot see the reasoning behind a decision, it becomes almost impossible to challenge. When this opacity is combined with limits on what the ART can change and no clear obligation to consider written evidence, there is a real risk that people are trapped in a closed loop controlled by the same decision maker and system.
This is especially dangerous for disabled people who already face barriers to navigating the NDIS or legal processes – including intellectually disabled people, people with complex communication support needs, people without strong informal networks, and those without advocacy or legal support. Many are also impacted by colonisation, racism and poverty. Automation without strong rights protections will not be neutral in this context; it will reinforce existing injustice.
Australia still lacks a comprehensive legal framework to regulate AI and automated decision making in public administration. There is no clear, enforceable duty for algorithms used in the NDIS to be transparent, explainable, challengeable and accountable. Questions about privacy, data quality, security and reliance on commercial AI products remain unresolved. Disabled communities are being asked to trust systems we cannot properly see.
What Disability Rights and Culture is calling for
DRC calls on the NDIA to:
- Open up its plans on automation and AI
Clearly explain where automated systems are being used or proposed in New Framework Planning – including budget setting – how they work in plain language, what data they rely on, and what power staff have to positively intervene when outputs do not reflect disabled people’s real lives and communities.
- Provide ongoing, accessible information and briefings
Offer regular public updates and community briefings on each stage of the Needs Assessment and New Planning Framework, including how assessments will be turned into budgets and what this means for supports organised around disability culture, peer networks and community-led practices.
- Clarify and safeguard review rights
Publish legal advice on the reviewability of New Framework plans at the Tribunal. Ensure that planning rules can incorporate all relevant information, including written evidence from disabled people and allies, and that plan budgets can be meaningfully contested and changed at internal and external review.
- Co-design with disabled communities, centring disability culture
Work with Disabled People’s Organisations, DROs and DRCOs to agree a co-design strategy for all aspects of New Framework Planning and Rule development – including any use of automation – by the end of 2026. This must explicitly include disabled artists, cultural leaders and community-led groups so disability culture is protected and strengthened, not standardised away.
Automated planning must not be allowed to flatten or erase disability culture. Disabled people’s lives, communities and creative practices are not edge cases to be tidied up by an algorithm; they are central to what a just NDIS must sustain.