New framework planning is coming to the NDIS. What’s actually changing, and why it matters.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is Australia’s system for funding disability-related supports. It provides individual plans and budgets so people with permanent and significant disability can access the supports they need in everyday life, from personal care and therapy to community access and assistive technology. How those plans are built matters. It affects not just what supports people can access, but how much time, money and energy they spend navigating the system to get there. That’s why changes to the planning process itself are significant, even for people who don’t deal with the NDIS day to day.

From mid-2026, the NDIS will begin moving participants onto a new planning approach known as “new framework planning”. On the surface, the language is familiar: fairer, more consistent, easier to navigate. What matters more is what’s changing underneath.

The NDIS is shifting how it decides what supports people need and how those decisions are turned into a budget. That shift will affect how plans are prepared, how evidence is used, and how much room there is to correct things once a plan is in place.

If you’ve ever felt that NDIS planning depends on who can afford the right reports or who knows how to frame their situation in the right way, this reform is meant to respond to that.

Why the planning process is being reworked

The Independent Review of the NDIS heard a consistent message: planning is too inconsistent, too slow, and too expensive for the people it’s meant to support. Participants, families and providers described a system where maintaining a plan often requires repeated reports, time-consuming reviews and a level of persistence that not everyone can sustain.

In response, the Australian Government amended the NDIS Act in October 2024 to enable a different way of planning, with new rules now being developed to guide how the model operates in practice. This matters because it signals intent. These changes are not framed as a pilot or a temporary adjustment. The legislative settings are being altered so the system can operate differently over time.

The real shift: from impairment to support needs

Under the new framework, planning is intended to focus on a person’s disability support needs rather than functional impairment. That distinction is important. An impairment-based approach often leads to a narrow, evidence driven conversation about limitations. A support-needs approach is meant to focus on what actually has to happen for someone to live their life day to day, and what breaks down when supports aren’t there.

The NDIA has been clear about the outcomes it is aiming for: more consistent budgets, less reliance on expensive reports, and plans that are simpler and more flexible. Whether those outcomes are achieved will depend on how the new planning tools are applied, but the decision-making logic is changing.

Support needs assessments: what’s different in practice

The most significant practical change is the introduction of a support needs assessment.

Instead of building plans primarily from reports commissioned by participants, a trained assessor will meet with the participant and work through a structured conversation about daily life and support requirements. Participants can involve family members, carers or support people if they choose. The outcome of that process is a support needs assessment report, which becomes the main input into how the participant’s budget is set.

Two points here are critical. First, planning decisions will still be made by trained NDIA staff. This is not an automated system. Second, the NDIA has stated that staff will spend more time engaging with participants than under the current approach. If that holds in practice, it represents a material shift in how planning conversations are conducted.

The quality of this reform will stand or fall on implementation. The assessment model is only as good as the consistency and judgment applied by the people using it.

Who conducts the assessments, and how consistency is meant to improve

Support needs assessments will be undertaken by assessors who complete a training and accreditation program developed with the University of Melbourne and the Centre for Disability Studies.

The NDIA has also positioned these assessments as a way to reduce the ongoing burden of report writing. In theory, this should allow participants to use their funding on supports rather than evidence, and allow providers to spend more time delivering services instead of justifying them. If that balance shifts even modestly, it will change how people experience the planning process.

The role of I-CAN v6 and context

The support needs assessment will draw on I-CAN v6, a person-based, strengths focused tool that has been used in the care sector for many years. It will be used alongside a new personal and environmental circumstances questionnaire. This matters because support needs are rarely just about disability in isolation. Housing, informal supports, transport access, safety and service availability all shape what level of support is actually required.

The new framework is explicitly recognising that context belongs in the assessment, not as an afterthought. Some participants may still be asked for reports from treating professionals where needs are more complex. The key change is that additional reports are not intended to be the default pathway.

Budgets, flexibility and longer plans

Under new framework planning, budgets must be set using the information in the support needs assessment and a method defined in the rules. The intent is twofold. First, to improve consistency in how budgets are determined. Second, to change how plans operate once they are in place.

Funding will be provided either as stated supports, which must be used for a specific purpose, or as part of a flexible budget that can be used more adaptively across NDIS supports. This moves plans away from tightly controlled line items and toward a structure that can respond to changes in real life without triggering constant reviews.

Plans are also intended to run for longer periods, with fewer scheduled reviews. That increases certainty, but it also increases the importance of getting the initial settings right.

What isn’t changing

Despite the shift in process, review rights remain. Participants will still be able to request reassessment or variation if circumstances change, and can still seek internal and external review, including through the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Where the new planning framework puts the pressure

As 2026 approaches, there is a clear opportunity to rethink how NDIS planning decisions are prepared. Reform has created a different pathway, but it has not removed the need for sound judgment. Support needs assessments and longer plan durations mean early decisions matter more. When plans run longer, initial assumptions last longer too. Fixing a poorly framed plan can take time.

The participants and providers most likely to benefit from the new framework will be those who prepare deliberately rather than defensively. That means understanding what the system is now designed to listen for, and being clear about how daily life actually works, not just how it is described on paper.

At Planna, this is where we see the greatest value in our role. As with statutory planning reform, new pathways do not remove risk, they shift it. Our focus is on helping clients recognise where those shifts sit and make considered decisions early, before positions are locked in.

Reform can improve systems, but it does not replace good planning. The outcomes in 2026 will depend less on policy language and more on the quality of thinking that happens before a plan is set.

The takeaway

New framework planning changes the mechanics of NDIS decision making. Structured support needs assessments, contextual information, and budgets set using a defined method are intended to produce simpler, more flexible plans.

Whether this delivers fairer outcomes will depend on how consistently the new model is applied and how clearly the final rules translate intent into practice. Between now and mid-2026, those details will matter more than the headline promises.