“The whole vision of the NDIS was to give severely and profoundly disabled Australians choice, control, and a personalised plan with goals,” Mr Shorten said. “This hidden plan kills the dream of an ordinary life for 430,000 people with disability and their carers.”

Notes from the draft laws show that a former senior agency official, Victor Walter, warned against the proposal to remove the term “reasonable and necessary” from the legislation because it would remove both the floor and the ceiling on funding.

“This leaves the interpretation wide open and is terrible wording,” he wrote in January.

Disability advocates, who have seen the draft, believe the proposed changes will reduce the ability of participants to exercise “choice and control” over their support package and remove avenues of appeal, which have flooded the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in recent years. They also warn any plan to give the minister oversight will centralise decision-making and take responsibilities and influence away from state ministers.

The notes reveal bureaucrats also bickered over the definition of “psychosocial disability” and the exclusion of cognitive impairment, warning it would lead to the exclusion of young children with intellectual disabilities, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and acquired brain injury. Another note says: “Our preference is to have a definition of disability and/or additional rules to clarify condition that wouldn’t necessarily meet the disability criteria”.

Loading

NDIS Minister Stuart Robert announced last year the government would appoint independent assessors to review everyone on the scheme to ensure the funding was fairly distributed and not just given to “those who can pay the most for a report”. The assessments will be conducted by a panel of private providers such as psychologists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech pathologists – but not the person’s usual therapists.

A coalition of 20 disability organisations issued a statement earlier this month warning the step could lead to false comparisons between individual NDIS participants.

“While we all want greater consistency, we are very concerned this increasingly automated process will not adequately consider individual need and circumstance,” their statement read. “This is not the NDIS we fought for. These changes will fundamentally alter the individualised and personalised nature of the NDIS.”

Loading

Disability Discrimination Commissioner Dr Ben Gauntlett told Senate estimates this week it was important to remember that the independent assessment policy change had not yet been put into legislation. While he said he welcomed increased consistency, equity and efficacy in the delivery of scheme, he had concerns the proposed process for independent assessments undermined its effectiveness and would not have the intended effect for individuals with complex support needs.

“The practical operation of these independent assessments is critical and their implementation has caused widespread concern and comment from people with disability, disabled persons organisations, advocates, academics, carers, and health and medical professionals, which should influence legislation to be introduced into the parliament,” he said.

Mr Robert’s spokesman said the draft legislation would be released “in due course”.