_edited.png)
Submission to the New Framework Planning and NDIS Supports Consultation
Updated: Oct 17
Prepared by Peter Gregory
Date: 14th October, 2026
Executive Summary
I recommend that the Government retain the administrative improvements proposed through New Framework Planning but not finalise or implement the new assessment and budget arrangements until their capacity to recognise and fund individual disability support needs has been publicly demonstrated. Longer plans, fewer repetitive reassessments, accessible information, mainstream purchasing and flexible funding can improve participants’ lives. Those improvements will be undermined if the Support Needs Assessment and Budget Method place people into funding classifications that cannot respond adequately to their circumstances.
The central issue is where authority resides when credible evidence of individual need conflicts with a standardised result. An individually administered assessment does not necessarily produce individualised funding. A participant can be interviewed individually, described in considerable detail and then allocated a budget principally determined by a relative needs level, benchmark, policy setting or single funding amount. The consultation’s budget fact sheet expressly describes these mechanisms. It also says the detailed Budget Method Rules are being developed and tested. Participants are therefore being asked to evaluate a consequential restructuring before its full financial operation has been disclosed. [2, 6]
This submission develops five connected arguments. First, the complete Support Needs Assessment process must be valid for its intended use, including complex, fluctuating, relational and environmental needs. Second, the Budget Method must remain responsive to credible individual evidence and must demonstrate that its calculated budget can actually purchase the supports assessed as necessary. Third, assumptions about informal support, sharing and mainstream provision must be examined rather than treated as available resources. Fourth, transparency must include reasons, calculations and meaningful opportunities to correct and challenge decisions. Fifth, the reform must preserve self-direction, community inclusion and genuine participation in system design.
The Government should publish the instruments, assessor instructions, scoring rules, validation findings, budget mappings, benchmarks, adjustment factors and mechanisms for departing from standard results. These should be accompanied by complete worked cases, including people who require continuous individual support and people whose needs cannot safely be met through sharing. The Rules should establish accessible correction and replacement processes, responsive variations, safeguards during transition and independent evaluation of actual outcomes. Where the governing Act prevents these protections, legislative amendment should precede implementation rather than leaving an operational promise that delegates cannot lawfully fulfil.
To read the full submission click on the link below.
Comments