Alarming parallels are being drawn between the infamous robodebt scandal and new government plans to automate the calculation of support budgets for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Experts warn that replacing human discretion with computer algorithms could have devastating consequences for Australia's most vulnerable citizens.
From Robodebt to NDIS: A Dangerous Path of Automation
The robodebt royal commission delivered a clear verdict: the automated welfare debt recovery system was a "cruel and crude" mechanism that caused immense harm. Its resounding message was "never again." Yet, according to revelations by Guardian Australia, the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) is now pursuing reforms that would dramatically reduce human involvement in crafting individual NDIS plans.
Currently, a participant's support budget is created using computer-based tools, but a crucial layer of human discretion allows an NDIA delegate to modify the plan to suit unique circumstances. Under the proposed overhaul, a new assessment tool will feed data directly into software to generate a budget automatically. The delegate's role will be stripped back to merely accepting or rejecting the computer's calculation, with no power to amend it.
Who Bears the Brunt of Flawed Algorithms?
The shift towards automation raises profound concerns about bias and accuracy. The system's success will depend entirely on the quality of data fed into the algorithm. If an assessment fails to capture the full complexity of a person's needs, the resulting budget will be fundamentally flawed.
Georgia Van Toorn, a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales and an associate investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, highlights the uneven impact. "The people who are most likely to have their NDIS funding cut or supports misjudged are the people whose disabilities are complex, fluctuating or not easily captured through standardised assessments," she writes.
This automated process is seen as particularly perilous for individuals whose disabilities are compounded by social factors like poverty, discrimination, or involvement with the justice system. These nuances fall outside the bounds of standardised data collection, meaning the system could, as with robodebt, inflict its heaviest toll on the communities least equipped to withstand it.
Life-Sustaining Support on the Line
This is not merely a bureaucratic debate about efficiency. For NDIS participants, these budgets translate directly into life-sustaining support. Cuts mean fewer hours of personal care, reduced access to essential therapies, and compromised independence. For some, it could force a move into institutional care. The Disability Royal Commission has starkly illustrated that reductions in support can, in the worst cases, become a threat to life itself.
Disturbingly, the proposed system reportedly includes no safety net for appeal. Neither the NDIA delegate nor the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would have the power to adjust a computer-generated budget, leaving the algorithm with the final say on vital support.
While the reforms are slated for introduction from mid-2026, there is still time to heed the lessons of the past. A similar attempt by the Morrison government in 2021 was abandoned as too risky. This new push presents a critical opportunity to insist that algorithmic efficiency must never come at the expense of human need and dignity.
