NDIA Accountability Project

Inquiry into the administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Submitted by:Parents of Deaf Children (PODC)

‹ PrevPage 1 of 42 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submitted by:Parents of Deaf Children (PODC)

Inquiry into the Administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Submission

?

Table of Contents

  • Executive Summary - 3
  • About Parents of Deaf Children (PODC) - 6
  • Context: Deaf Children, Language Access and the NDIS - 8
  • Alignment with the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference - 12
  • Systemic Failures in Consultation and Planning - 16
  • Disproportionate Impacts on Deaf Parents of Deaf Children - 19
  • Compliance, Coercion and Safeguarding Failures - 23
  • Governance, Oversight and Regulatory Effectiveness - 27
  • Impact of Administrative Failure on Deaf/Deaf Children - 30
    1. Implications for Scheme Sustainability and Public Outcomes - 34
    1. Recommendations - 36
    1. Reading List - 40

Executive Summary

Parents of Deaf Children (PODC) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit inquiry into the administration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

This submission focuses on the experiences of Deaf/deaf children and Deaf parents navigating the NDIS, and what those experiences reveal about broader issues of administrative practice, consultation, governance, regulatory oversight, and risk management within the Scheme. It is informed by family experience, sector evidence, and the findings of multiple Auditor-General reports referenced in the Committee’s Terms of Reference.

POCD submits that many of the challenges faced by Parents of Deaf/deaf children are not the result of individual planning disputes, but arise from systemic failures in administration and accountability. These failures include inaccessible consultation processes, inconsistent application of law and policy, weak performance measurement, and regulatory gaps that leave families exposed to avoidable harm. For Deaf/deaf children, whose access to language is foundational to development, these failures carry permanent and lifelong consequences.

Acentral concern raised in this submission is the failure to ensure meaningful, accessible consultation, particularly for Deaf parents of Deaf children. PODC has documented repeated instances where plans were developed or altered without effective communication, where information about rights and processes was inaccessible, and where decisions were made in the absence of informed consent. These practices undermine procedural fairness and erode trust in public administration.

PODC also highlights the impact of unsafe assumptions within planning and compliance frameworks. Deaf parents are frequently presumed to have the capacity, resources, or language access to meet their child’s needs without support. This presumption fails to recognise the reality that many Deaf adults have themselves experienced educational exclusion or language deprivation, and that family language environments often require intentional, supported development. When supports such as Deaf mentors, Auslan in the home, or communication assistance are denied on this basis, the result is not efficiency, but inequity.

The submission further raises concern about compliance and review practices that operate in ways that are inaccessible, coercive, or punitive. Families report being discouraged from seeking reviews, misinformed about their rights, or placed in prolonged periods of uncertainty while critical supports are withheld. In some cases, children have been exited from the Scheme or deemed to have “met early intervention goals” despite having ongoing, lifelong language needs and no realistic access to mainstream alternatives. These practices place children at risk of language deprivation, a harm that cannot be remedied once critical developmental windows are missed.

PODC submits that these issues intersect directly with the matters under examination by the Committee, including:

  • the NDIA’s monitoring, measurement and reporting of performance;
  • the management of compliance frameworks affecting claimants and providers;
  • the regulatory effectiveness of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission; and
  • the quality of policy advice and system stewardship across the NDIS portfolio.

This submission argues that financial sustainability and scheme integrity cannot be achieved without lawful, accessible and rights-respecting administration.

Preventing avoidable harm—particularly harm with permanent developmental consequences—is not only consistent with Australia’s human rights obligations, but is essential to the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of the Scheme.

PODC makes a series of recommendations aimed at strengthening consultation, improving accountability, embedding accessibility into decision-making, and ensuring that Deaf children are supported in ways that recognise language access as fundamental, not optional. These recommendations are offered in the spirit of constructive reform, with the shared objective of ensuring that the NDIS operates fairly, transparently, and in accordance

About Parents of Deaf Children

Parents of Deaf Children (PODC) is a long-standing family-led organisation supporting parents and carers of Deaf/ deaf across New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. PODC works to strengthen outcomes for children by supporting families to understand their rights, navigate complex systems, and secure access to communication, education and community participation.

PODC’s work is grounded in the lived experience of families raising Deaf/deaf n in Australia today. This includes families who are hearing, families who are Deaf, and families in which parents, carers or children are Deaf, disabled, or neurodivergent. It also includes families from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, migrant and refugee backgrounds, and families living in regional, rural and remote areas or experiencing socio-economic disadvantage.

PODC recognises that Dea/deaf children are not ahomogeneous group, and that families’ experiences of the National Disability Insurance Scheme are shaped by intersecting factors such as language access, disability, education history, trauma, poverty, geographic isolation, cultural identity, migration status, and prior exclusion from services. For Deaf parents in particular, experiences of systemic educational exclusion or language deprivation may significantly affect access to information, participation in decision-making, and engagement with administrative processes that rely on spoken or written English.

Through its work with families, PODC has developed a strong understanding of how administrative practices, policy settings and regulatory frameworks operate in practice, and where they succeed or fail to uphold the intent of the NDIS. Families commonly seek PODC’s support at critical transition points, including early childhood, school entry, adolescence, and when moving between health, disability and education systems.

  • PODC also engages constructively with government agencies, regulators, service providers

  • and policymakers. It contributes to consultations, submissions and co-design processes,

  • drawing on family experience alongside contemporary research and sector knowledge.

  • PODC’s role is not to replace statutory decision-makers, but to support transparent,

  • accessible and accountable systems that respond to the diverse realities of families raising

  • Deaf and hard of hearing children.

  • This submission reflects PODC’s organisational perspective rather than individual

  • grievances. While informed by real family experiences, the issues raised are presented as

  • systemic administrative and governance concerns relevant to the Committee’s oversight

  • role. PODC makes this submission in the interests of improving public administration,

  • strengthening accountability, and supporting a Scheme that operates consistently with

  • principles of dignity, inclusion and equal participation for all Deaf and hard of hearing

  • children and their families.

Context: Deaf/Deaf Children, Communication Access, Language Access and the NDIS

3.1 Deafness, Disability and Functional Communication Access

Deafness is a sensory disability that affects how Deaf/deaf children access communication, information and participation in everyday life. The functional impact of deafness is not determined by the presence of hearing technology, but by whether a child has reliable, effective and sustainable access to communication across home, education, health and community environments.

Functional communication access may be supported through a range of approaches, including Auslan, spoken English, sign-supported speech, visual communication, written language, augmentative and alternative communication, and combinations of these approaches over time. For many Deaf/deaf children, access needs evolve as environments change and demands increase.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is intended to respond to functional impact, not to assume capacity based on diagnosis, technology use, or communication modality. For Deaf/deaf children, functional communication access must be assessed in terms of whether the child can meaningfully understand and be understood, participate in learning, form relationships, and engage safely and independently in daily life.

Where communication access is inconsistent, inaccessible or delayed, Deaf/deaf children may experience exclusion and reduced participation regardless of the communication approach used.

3.2 Language Access as a Lifelong Developmental Need

Language access is distinct from, but closely related to, communication access. Language access refers to a child’s consistent exposure to, and ability to acquire, a fully accessible language that supports cognitive development, learning, social connection and identity.

For Deaf/deaf children, language access may occur through Auslan, spoken language, or bilingual and multimodal approaches. What is critical is not the modality itself, but whether the language is accessible, consistent, and sufficient for the child’s developmental needs.

Language acquisition begins in early childhood but continues throughout life. Deaf/deaf children require ongoing language access as they move through increasingly complex educational, social and vocational environments. This includes access within the family, at school, in peer relationships, and in community settings.

Treating language access as a short-term early intervention input fails to recognise its lifelong developmental role. Where language access is withdrawn, restricted or deemed no longer necessary despite ongoing functional need, Deaf/deaf children may experience cumulative disadvantage that affects educational outcomes, wellbeing and long-term independence.

3.3 Risk and Consequences of Language Deprivation

Language deprivation occurs when a child does not have consistent access to a fully accessible language during critical developmental periods. This risk is not confined to any single communication approach and may arise whenever language access is delayed, disrupted, or inadequately supported.

For Deaf/deaf children, language deprivation can result from:

  • delayed or inconsistent provision of communication and language supports;
  • administrative delays or inaccessible planning processes;
  • assumptions that hearing technology alone ensures access;
  • premature withdrawal of language supports on the basis that early intervention goals have been met.

The Consequences Of Language Deprivation

The consequences of language deprivation are well documented and may include:

  • impacts on cognitive and academic development;

  • difficulties with emotional regulation and social interaction;

  • increased vulnerability to mental health challenges;

  • reduced educational, employment and participation outcomes later in life.

Once critical windows for language development are missed, the effects may be enduring and not fully remediable. Language deprivation therefore represents a safeguarding risk, not merely a service delivery issue.

Within the context of the NDS, failures to ensure timely, accessible and appropriate communication and language supports can materially increase this risk. Recognising and mitigating language deprivation aligns with the objectives of the NDIS to promote independence, social and economic participation, and lifelong wellbeing. It also reflects sound public administration, which requires decision-making that is informed by evidence, responsive to functional need, and attentive to the consequences of delay or inaction.

Examples of Experiences shared by our Families

Functional Impact Not Recognised

A deaf child with cochlear implants was assessed as not requiring ongoing supports on the basis of device use alone. The NDIA did not consider evidence of functional communication barriers across daily activities. Supports addressing communication access were deemed not reasonable and necessary despite ongoing functional impact.

Language Supports Characterised as Optional

A family sought Auslan support to address the child’s functional communication needs. The request was refused on the basis that spoken language therapy was available, without consideration of whether this met the child’s actual functional requirements or represented an effective and beneficial support under the NDIS Act.

Early Intervention Misapplied

A child exited the NDIS after early intervention on the basis that goals had been met. The decision did not consider whether withdrawal of supports would maintain or worsen functional capacity, nor whether continued supports remained reasonable and necessary to sustain outcomes.

Device Use Treated as Resolution

The NDIA assumed that hearing aids resolved the child’s disability-related needs. Evidence relating to fatigue, access barriers and variable environments was not considered, leading to denial of supports that addressed ongoing functional limitations.

4, Alignment with the Inquiry’s

Terms of Reference

4.1 NDIA Administration and Financial Sustainability Risks

PODC submits that administrative practices affecting Deaf/deaf children reveal financial sustainability risks that arise from system design and governance, rather than from unreasonable participant demand. Where communication and language access are delayed, denied, or inconsistently applied, families are pushed into repeated reviews, crisis-driven requests, and prolonged appeals. These processes consume significant administrative resources while failing to deliver timely outcomes.

For Deaf/deaf children, early and sustained access to communication and language supports is a preventative investment. Administrative delay or premature withdrawal of supports increases the likelihood of later, more intensive interventions across health, education, and mental health systems. From a financial stewardship perspective, this represents a false economy: costs are deferred and multiplied rather than avoided.

The Inquiry’s focus on financial sustainability should therefore consider whether NDIA administrative settings are driving avoidable downstream expenditure by failing to manage risk early and proportionately for cohorts with known, evidence-based needs.

4.2 Claimant and Provider Compliance Implications

Current compliance frameworks often assume that claimants can readily access information, participate in planning, and correct errors through standard processes. For Deaf/deaf families, these assumptions do not consistently hold where communication is inaccessible or consultation is inadequate.

PODC is concerned that inaccessible processes can lead to:

  • inadvertent non-compliance by families who are not aware of requirements or changes;

  • punitive responses to minor or technical errors;

  • increased use of restrictive Agency management arrangements without meaningful consultation.

4.3 Monitoring, Measurement and Reporting of Performance

PODC submits that current performance measurement does not adequately capture outcomes that are critical for Deaf/deaf children, including:

  • timeliness of access to communication and language supports;

  • continuity of access across developmental stages;

  • the impact of administrative delay on functional participation.

Performance indicators that focus primarily on processing times or volume of decisions risk obscuring material harm caused by delay, particularly where developmental windows are time-limited. For Deaf/deaf children, the absence of timely language access is not a neutral delay; it has cumulative and potentially permanent consequences.

Improved performance reporting should therefore include measures that reflect quality, accessibility and harm prevention, enabling Parliament to assess whether administrative efficiency is aligned with the Scheme’s objectives.

4.4 Regulatory Oversight by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission

Effective regulation is essential to ensuring that Deaf/deaf children and their families are not exposed to unacceptable risk. PODC submits that weaknesses in regulatory oversight disproportionately affect Deaf-specific and communication-dependent services, where market depth is limited and continuity of access is critical.

Where providers withdraw, reduce services, or are unable to operate sustainably, Deaf/deaf families may be left without viable alternatives. The consequences of such gaps are immediate and serious, particularly for children reliant on consistent communication and language input.

Regulatory effectiveness must therefore be assessed not only in terms of compliance activity, but in terms of market stewardship, early identification of risk, and continuity of critical supports. Where regulatory systems respond slowly or retrospectively, the burden of risk is shifted onto families least able to absorb it.

4.5 Policy Advice and System Stewardship

The Inquiry’s consideration of policy advice provided to government is particularly relevant to the experiences outlined in this submission. PODC submits that policy settings must be informed by:

  • evidence on language development and communication access;
  • the lived realities of Deaf/deaf families;
  • and the cumulative impact of administrative decisions over time.

Effective system stewardship requires anticipating how eligibility thresholds, time-limited interventions, and compliance settings operate in practice. Where policy advice does not adequately account for accessibility, intersectionality, or developmental risk, administrative systems may inadvertently produce exclusionary outcomes.

PODC submits that strengthening policy advice and stewardship across the NDIS portfolio is essential to ensuring that administration, regulation and funding decisions work together to prevent avoidable harm, support participation, and uphold the Scheme’s foundational principles.

Examples of Experiences Shared by Our Families

Inconsistent Application of Reasonable and Necessary Criteria

Two families with children of comparable age and functional needs received significantly different funding decisions. One family was required to pursue multiple reviews to access supports that had been approved for another child, indicating inconsistent application of s 34 criteria.

Compliance Burden Created by Administrative Practice

A family was repeatedly asked to provide evidence already held by the NDIA to justify reasonable and necessary supports. The repeated requests delayed plan approval and increased administrative burden without improving decision quality.

Outcomes Not Measured

Achild’s plan was reduced without reference to outcomes achieved or maintained. The NDIA did not demonstrate how the revised plan would continue to meet the reasonable and necessary test or support the child’s functional capacity.

Limited Regulatory Oversight

Concerns raised about the application of reasonable and necessary criteria were not examined through a compliance or quality assurance lens, leaving inconsistent decision-making unaddressed.

Systemic Failures in

Consultation and Planning

Inaccessible Consultation Processes

Consultation is a foundational element of lawful and effective decision-making under the NDIS. PODC submits that, for many Deaf/deaf families, consultation processes are not consistently accessible, despite accessibility being a prerequisite for meaningful participation.

Families report being contacted through communication channels that are inaccessible or unsuitable, including uncaptioned phone calls, voicemail messages, or written correspondence that assumes high levels of English literacy without support. Where communication barriers exist, consultation is effectively curtailed before it begins.

Inaccessible consultation processes undermine the ability of families to share relevant information, clarify misunderstandings, and participate in decisions that directly affect their child’s development and wellbeing. These failures are systemic rather than isolated, and indicate a gap between policy intent and operational practice.

5.3 Failure to Provide Accessible Information

Access to accurate and accessible information is essential for informed participation in the Scheme. PODC submits that many Deaf/deaf families are not provided with information in formats that are accessible to them, including information about:

  • planning pathways and review rights; « changes to policy or operational practice;

  • compliance expectations and consequences.

Where information is inaccessible or inconsistently communicated, families may unknowingly miss critical deadlines, misunderstand options, or be unable to respond effectively to NDIA decisions. These gaps in access can have material consequences, including loss of supports or reduced plan flexibility.

The absence of accessible information undermines transparency and places Deaf/deaf families at a structural disadvantage in navigating the Scheme.

5.4 Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice

Procedural fairness requires that individuals affected by decisions are given a genuine opportunity to be heard, understand the basis of decisions, and respond before adverse outcomes occur. PODC submits that failures in consultation and accessibility raise serious concerns about compliance with principles of natural justice.

Where plans are changed without accessible consultation, or where families are not informed of their rights or options, the integrity of decision-making is compromised. In some cases, families report being discouraged from seeking review or warned of negative consequences if they do so, further eroding confidence in the fairness of processes.

Ensuring procedural fairness is not only a legal obligation but a cornerstone of public trust. For Deaf/deaf families, accessible consultation and information are not ancillary supports— hey are prerequisites for lawful and ethical administration.

Inquiry into the administration of the

Submis

Examples of Experiences shared by our families

Inaccessible Consultation Affecting R&N Decisions

A Deaf parent was contacted only by phone regarding a plan review. When contact was unsuccessful, the NDIA proceeded to issue a new plan. The resulting plan removed supports without consultation, undermining procedural fairness in determining what was reasonable and necessary.

Decisions Made Without Evidence Consideration

A family provided evidence supporting ongoing functional need. A plan was issued before this evidence was discussed, resulting in denial of supports that should have met the reasonable and necessary criteria.

Lack of Accessible Information Leading to Adverse Outcomes

Changes to NDIS processes were communicated in inaccessible formats. As a result, a family missed an opportunity to respond, and supports were reduced due to perceived non- compliance rather than reassessment of reasonable and necessary need.

Procedural Fairness Not Observed

A family was advised that a plan had already been approved prior to consultation. The process did not allow for genuine consideration of whether the funded supports met the class’s reasonable and necessary requirements. They were told the only option was to proceed to section 100 review.

un into the e“) ion of the Insurance Scheme

Sula

6. Disproportionate Impacts on Deaf Parents of deaf Children

6.1 Unsafe Assumptions About Parental Capacity

PODC submits that Deaf parents of Deaf/deaf children are disproportionately affected by assumptions that conflate Deaf identity with automatic capacity to meet a child’s access needs without formal supports. In planning and review contexts, Deaf parents report being treated as inherently equipped to provide communication, advocacy and therapeutic input without recognition of the structural barriers they face.

These assumptions overlook the diversity of Deaf parents’ experiences, including those who were educated in oral or mainstream settings, those who experienced language deprivation, and those whose access to formal supports was limited in childhood. Presuming capacity without assessment risks substituting assumption for evidence and undermines individualised planning

6.2 Denial of Deaf Mentors, Auslan in the Home and Family Supports

Deaf parents report being denied access to Deaf mentors, Auslan in the home, interpreters and family-centred supports on the basis that such supports are unnecessary where parents are themselves Deaf. This approach fails to recognise that family supports serve a distinct purpose from parental capacity.

Deaf mentors and in-home language supports contribute to a child’s linguistic, social and cultural development and provide structured guidance that cannot be replaced by parental effort alone. Denial of these supports on the basis of parental Deafness reflects a misunderstanding of family-centred practice and risks narrowing a child’s access to broader Deaf community connection.

6.3 Inaccessible Planning, Reviews and Communication

Deaf parents report that planning and review processes are frequently conducted through inaccessible channels, including phone-based contact or written correspondence without interpretation or translation. When communication is inaccessible, engagement is often interpreted as non-responsiveness rather than as a failure of process.

In some cases, where Deaf parents were unable to participate in planning conversations, plans were issued without their input. These outcomes reinforce power imbalances and undermine confidence that the Scheme recognises Deaf parents as equal partners in decision-making.

6.4 Use of Parents’ Own Plans to Substitute Child Supports

PODC is concerned by reports that Deaf parents have been advised to use their own NDIS plans to support their child’s communication and access needs, rather than the child receiving appropriate, individualised supports.

This practice blurs the boundary between participant entitlements and parental responsibility, and risks depriving children of supports that are reasonable and necessary for their own development. It also places undue strain on parents’ plans, which are intended to meet the parent’s own disability-related needs.

Substituting child supports with parental plans undermines the Scheme’s commitment to individualised funding and fails to recognise children as rights-holders in their own capacity.

6.5 Intersectionality, Language Deprivation and Intergenerational Risk

The impacts outlined above are compounded where Deaf parents and children are affected by intersecting factors such as socio-economic disadvantage, migration background, trauma, disability, or geographic isolation. For families where parents experienced language deprivation in childhood, inaccessible systems may reinforce long-standing exclusion.

When Deaf parents are denied accessible engagement and appropriate family supports, the risk of language deprivation is not confined to the child alone. Intergenerational patterns of exclusion may be perpetuated, contrary to the preventative and capacity-building objectives of the NDIS.

PODC submits that recognising and addressing these intersectional risks is essential to ensuring that Deaf families are not further disadvantaged by the very systems designed to support them

6.6 Strengths of Deaf Families and System Responsibility

PODC wishes to state clearly that the issues raised in this submission do not reflect a deficit in Deaf families or Deaf parents. Deaf families demonstrate resilience, adaptability and deep commitment to their children’s wellbeing, language development and identity, often in the face of significant structural barriers.

Deaf parents bring lived knowledge, cultural understanding and practical insight that strengthen their children’s development and sense of belonging. Many Deaf families navigate complex systems, advocate persistently for access, and build rich language environments despite limited institutional support. These strengths are consistently evident across the families PODC supports.

The concerns outlined in this submission arise not from parental capacity, but from systems that are not designed to recognise, accommodate or respect Deaf experience. Where planning, consultation and compliance frameworks fail to be accessible or inclusive, even d highly capable families are placed at a disadvantage.

A system that works well should amplify family strengths, not rely on them to compensate

for administrative gaps.

The NDIS was intended to operate as a supportive, enabling framework. When systems instead assume capacity as a substitute for support, they shift responsibility away from public administration and onto families, creating inequitable outcomes.

Recognising the strengths of Deaf families while addressing systemic failure is not contradictory. It is essential to building a Scheme that is fair, effective and aligned with its founding principles.

Examples of experiences shared by our families

Parental Capacity Substituting for Supports

The NDIA assumed Deaf parents could meet their child’s communication needs without funded supports. Requests for Deaf mentor and Auslan-in-the-home supports were refused on the basis of parental capacity rather than the child’s functional needs.

Family Supports Deemed Unreasonable

Family-based supports were denied as not reasonable and necessary, despite evidence that they directly supported the child’s functional communication and reduced reliance on more intensive future supports.

Inaccessible Planning Limiting Evidence

Planning meetings proceeded without interpreters, restricting the parents’ ability to present evidence relevant to reasonable and necessary supports.. Childs plan was Drastically cut and the review process was unclear.

Substitution of Plans

Parents were advised to use their own NDIS plans to support their child, effectively shifting responsibility away from the NDIA’s obligation to fund supports that were reasonable and necessary for the child. Parents used the funding and then moved to Agency Managed after being accused of fraudulence.for funding interpreter for their child

7. Compliance, Coercion and

Safeguarding Failures

7.1 Punitive Responses to Inaccessible Processes

PODC submits that compliance mechanisms are, in some cases, being applied in ways that penalise families for barriers created by inaccessible systems. Where families are unable to respond to communications or meet administrative requirements due to lack of accessible engagement, subsequent compliance actions may proceed without consideration of the underlying cause.

Such responses can include restrictive plan management arrangements, reduced flexibility, or heightened scrutiny, despite the absence of intentional misuse. These outcomes do not strengthen scheme integrity; rather, they risk compounding disadvantage and eroding trust between families and the NDIA.

A compliance framework that does not adequately account for accessibility risks can inadvertently produce punitive outcomes for families who are already navigating systemic barriers.

7.2 Misrepresentation of Law, Policy and Review Rights

Families report being provided with inaccurate or incomplete information regarding their rights under the NDIS Act, including eligibility, review pathways and the potential consequences of seeking review. In some instances, lawful review options have been presented as risky or discouraged on the basis that families may lose existing supports.

Misrepresentation of legal and policy settings undermines informed decision-making and compromises procedural fairness. It also raises concerns about whether decision-making authority is being exercised consistently with legislative intent.

Ensuring that participants and families receive clear, accurate and accessible information about their rights is essential to lawful administration.

7.3 Threats, Bullying and Coercive Planning Practices

PODC is concerned by reports of planning interactions characterised by pressure, intimidation or implied threats, particularly where families seek to question decisions or request review. Families describe experiences in which raising concerns resulted in warnings about loss of supports, increased scrutiny, or referrals to other authorities.

Such practices are inconsistent with trauma-informed, rights-based service delivery and create environments in which families may feel compelled to accept unsuitable plans to avoid perceived risk. Coercive dynamics distort consent and undermine the integrity of planning processes.

Where power imbalances are not actively mitigated, planning processes may cease to function as collaborative decision-making and instead become mechanisms of control.

7.4 Children Exited from the NDIS Despite Ongoing Language Needs

PODC submits that some Deaf/deaf children have been exited from the NDIS on the basis that early intervention goals were deemed to have been met, without adequate consideration of ongoing functional and developmental needs.

Language and communication needs do not cease at the conclusion of an early intervention phase. Premature exit decisions may overlook the cumulative and evolving nature of participation barriers, particularly as children transition into more complex educational and social environments.

Removing access to supports without ensuring that alternative systems are in place exposes children to significant risk and undermines the preventative intent of the Scheme.

7.5 Families Held in Review Limbo and Resulting Harm

Families report prolonged periods in which review requests are neither accepted nor refused, leaving plans unchanged while critical needs remain unmet. During these periods, families are unable to access appropriate supports, escalate concerns, or seek timely resolution.

Review limbo creates uncertainty and instability, particularly where access to communication and language supports is time-sensitive. The absence of clear timeframes or interim safeguards places children at risk of harm caused by administrative inaction.

From a governance perspective, unresolved review processes represent a failure of administrative accountability and expose families to avoidable risk while decisions remain pending.

Examples of experiences shared by our families

Compliance Action Triggered by System Inaccessibility

A family was recorded as non-responsive after correspondence was issued in formats that were inaccessible to them. This non-response was treated as a compliance issue rather than a communication access failure. As a result, supports were reduced without any reassessment of functional need or consideration of whether the remaining supports continued to meet the reasonable and necessary criteria.

This case illustrates how system-generated inaccessibility can be misclassified as participant non-compliance, exposing families to punitive outcomes.

Deterrence from Lawful Review Processes

Families were advised that requesting a plan review could result in the loss of existing supports or a worse outcome. This information was provided informally during planning interactions and discouraged families from exercising their lawful right to seek review of reasonable and necessary decisions.

The effect was to suppress oversight mechanisms intended to correct error, shifting risk from administrative accountability to participant acquiescence.

Pressure to Accept Reduced Plans

Parents were presented with reduced plans and advised that challenging the decision would result in prolonged delays or further restrictions. The decision-making process prioritised administrative finalisation rather than proper consideration of whether the reduced supports remained reasonable and necessary.

This case reflects coercive dynamics that undermine voluntary agreement and informed consent in planning.

Exit Decisions Used as Administrative Closure

Children were exited from the NDIS following internal determinations that early intervention goals had been met. No contemporary functional assessment was undertaken to determine whether disability-related needs had genuinely reduced or whether continued supports remained reasonable and necessary.

Exit functioned as an administrative endpoint rather than an evidence-based decision about ongoing need.

8. Governance, Oversight and Regulatory Effectiveness

8.1 NDIA Decision-Making and Accountability Gaps

The patterns outlined in this submission point to systemic weaknesses in NDIA decision- making accountability. Where decisions that materially affect a child’s access to essential supports are made inconsistently, delayed without explanation, or allowed to remain unresolved for extended periods, this reflects a failure of internal governance rather than individual judgement alone.

Effective public administration requires that decision-making processes are subject to active assurance, timely review and correction where harm is identified. In practice, Deaf/deaf families are often required to initiate reviews or appeals to trigger scrutiny, shifting responsibility for accountability onto those least equipped to carry it. This approach risks trenching inequity and undermines confidence in the Scheme’s administrative integrity.

Clearer accountability mechanisms are required to ensure that decision-making failures are identified and addressed early, rather than after prolonged harm has occurred.

8.2 NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission Limitations

The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission plays an essential role in protecting participants from harm. However, the experiences described in this submission suggest that current regulatory arrangements are limited in their capacity to respond to risks that arise from administrative decision-making, rather than provider misconduct.

Where safeguarding risks are created by planning decisions, delays, or withdrawal of access to critical supports, families may find there is no effective regulatory pathway to raise concerns. This leaves gaps in protection for children whose wellbeing depends on continuity, timeliness and reliability of access.

Safeguarding frameworks that focus narrowly on provider compliance risk overlooking systemic harms that emerge from governance and administrative settings. Addressing these gaps requires clearer delineation of responsibility and stronger coordination between regulatory and administrative bodies.

8.3 Alignment with Auditor-General Findings

The issues raised by PODC are consistent with concerns identified in recent Auditor-General reports relating to governance, performance oversight and regulatory effectiveness across the NDIS. Findings regarding assurance, transparency, timeliness and corrective action are directly relevant to the systemic patterns described by families.

These reports highlight risks that arise when oversight mechanisms are insufficiently proactive or rely on retrospective correction. For Deaf/deaf children, delays and failures in access are not neutral administrative matters; they can result in irreversible developmental harm.

The alignment between independent audit findings and lived experience underscores the need for governance reform that moves beyond process compliance toward meaningful risk management and early intervention.

8.4 Risks to Participant Safety and Scheme Integrity

Taken together, the governance and oversight gaps identified in this submission present a clear risk to participant safety and to the integrity of the Scheme. Where accountability mechanisms fail to prevent or address administrative harm, children may lose access to essential supports during critical developmental periods.

Scheme integrity depends not only on financial controls, but on lawful, transparent and responsive administration. Participant safety depends on systems that recognise risk, act promptly and place the child’s wellbeing at the centre of decision-making.

PODC submits that strengthening governance, oversight and regulatory effectiveness is essential to ensuring the NDIS fulfils its purpose as a protective and enabling system. Without such reform, systemic risks will continue to be borne by children and families rather than addressed at an institutional level.

Examples of experiences shared by our families

No Internal Review of Decision Quality Despite Repeated Reversals

A family successfully overturned multiple NDIA decisions through review mechanisms. Despite this pattern, no internal quality review was initiated to assess planner decision- making or systemic causes of error.

Each reversal was treated as isolated, indicating a governance failure to learn from corrected decisions.

There was also no rights to privacy as each correspondence was dealt with by a different person.

New failure demonstrated:

absence of feedback loops from review outcomes.

Delegation Without Subject-Matter Competence

Planning decisions involving complex communication needs were made by delegates without demonstrated expertise in sensory disability or communication access. No escalation or specialist review pathway was available.

This resulted in decisions that met procedural requirements but lacked substantive competence.

New failure demonstrated:

governance gap in delegation and expertise assurance.

Inconsistent Interpretation of NDIA Operational Guidelines

Families received contradictory advice about eligibility and supports based on different interpretations of the same NDIA operational guidance. No authoritative clarification mechanism was available to resolve conflicts.

This created decision volatility unrelated to legislation or evidence.

New failure demonstrated:

lack of authoritative guidance control.

9. Impact of Administrative Failure on Deaf/deaf Children

9.1 Time Sensitivity and Irreversible Developmental Impact

Administrative delay is not neutral for Deaf/deaf children. Unlike many other cohorts, access interruptions during early childhood and key developmental stages can result in permanent loss of opportunity rather than temporary disruption.

Delays in decision-making, prolonged review processes, and gaps in access occur during periods when language, communication and cognitive foundations are being established. Once these windows are missed, later intervention cannot fully remediate the loss. From a public administration perspective, this elevates the consequences of delay from inconvenience to irreversible harm.

This makes timely, stable decision-making a critical safeguard for Deaf/deaf children.

9.2 Instability of Supports and Developmental Regression

Frequent plan changes, premature exits, or prolonged uncertainty undermine continuity of support. For Deaf/deaf children, instability can lead to regression in communication, learning engagement and emotional regulation.

Administrative practices that allow supports to lapse during reviews or appeals place children at risk of losing progress already achieved. This creates a cycle in which additional intervention is later required to restore functioning that could have been maintained through continuity.

Stability is therefore not an ancillary benefit, but a core requirement for effective outcomes.

administration of the National Disability Insurance Sche

Submission 37

9.3 Misclassification and Functional Misunderstanding

A recurring systemic issue identified by PODC is the misclassification of Deaf/deaf children based on the presence of hearing devices rather than functional communication access. Assumptions that cochlear implants or hearing aids negate disability risk result in inappropriate planning decisions and premature withdrawal of supports.

These assumptions fail to account for variability in outcomes, listening fatigue, environmental access barriers and the distinction between auditory input and language access. When functional impact is misunderstood, children are assessed as having needs that have been “resolved” when they have not.

This represents an administrative failure with direct developmental consequences.

9.4 Early Exit Decisions and Long-Term Harm

Decisions to exit children from the NDIS on the basis that early intervention goals have been met carry particular risk for Deaf/deaf children. Language access is not a time-limited need, and withdrawal of supports does not reflect a reduction in disability-related impact.

Where children are exited without sustainable, accessible alternatives in place, responsibility is effectively transferred to systems that are not equipped to provide specialist communication access. This places children at risk of cumulative disadvantage and later crisis-driven re-entry into support systems.

From a governance perspective, early exit decisions require heightened scrutiny where long-term developmental needs remain.

redacted 3? Fc Po * s e s & :

9.5 Psychological and Emotional Impact of Administrative Uncertainty

Extended periods of uncertainty, unresolved reviews, and repeated reassessment contribute to psychological distress for Deaf/deaf children. For children who rely on predictability and clear communication, administrative instability can exacerbate anxiety, withdrawal and disengagement.

These impacts are not incidental. They directly affect a child’s capacity to participate in education, social life and community settings. Systems that generate prolonged uncertainty without resolution undermine both wellbeing and developmental outcomes.

9.6 Implications for Safeguarding and State Responsibility

Taken together, the impacts outlined above raise serious safeguarding concerns. Where administrative processes expose children to avoidable harm through delay, instability or misclassification, this engages the state’s responsibility to protect children with disability from foreseeable risk.

PODC submits that safeguarding for Deaf/deaf children must include protection from administrative practices that undermine access during critical developmental periods.

Failure to recognise this risk weakens both participant safety and system integrity.

Examples of experiences shared by our families

Loss of Plan Usability Despite Funding Presence

A plan technically included communication supports, but funding structure and scheduling made them practically unusable within the plan period. No adjustment mechanism was offered despite evidence the plan could not be implemented as approved.

The child remained nominally supported but functionally unsupported. New failure demonstrated: plan design failure, not access denial.

Delay Between Decision and Implementation

Supports were approved but implementation was delayed due to administrative processing errors. The delay spanned critical developmental months, during which no interim arrangements were offered.

The issue was not eligibility or funding, but execution failure.

Mum sort Mental Health Support to deal with anxiety that this situation had created. New failure demonstrated: administrative lag as a source of harm.

Support Reduction Through “Efficiency” Adjustments

Supports were reduced under the justification of “efficiency” without evidence that reduced hours would meet the same functional outcomes. No outcome modelling or risk assessment was documented.

The child’s needs had not changed; the planning rationale had. New failure demonstrated: efficiency claims substituting for R&N analysis.

Indefinite Administrative Holding Pattern

A family lodged a change in situation supported by evidence. The NDIA neither accepted nor refused the request for an extended period, leaving the plan unchanged while needs escalated.

The absence of a decision itself became the source of harm.

New failure demonstrated: non-decision as an administrative failure.

10. Implications for Scheme

Sustainability and Public Outcomes

10.1 Administrative Consistency as a Financial Control Issue

Variation in planning decisions for Deaf/deaf children with comparable functional needs introduces financial unpredictability into the Scheme. Where similar circumstances produce materially different outcomes, the result is increased reliance on reassessment, escalation and corrective processes.

From a public accounts perspective, inconsistent application of policy weakens financial controls by making expenditure reactive rather than planned. Sustainable schemes depend on predictable, evidence-based administration that reduces variance driven by discretionary interpretation rather than need.

10.2 Avoidable Administrative Load and System Throughput

The volume of internal reviews, reassessments and unresolved requests linked to initial planning decisions places sustained pressure on NDIA operational capacity. These processes consume staff time, generate backlogs and reduce throughput across the system.

This administrative load is not an inevitable feature of participant demand. It is, in many cases, the downstream consequence of decision-making that does not sufficiently reflect functional need or anticipate foreseeable support requirements. Reducing avoidable rework is therefore a matter of operational efficiency.

10.3 Fragmentation of Public Expenditure and Accountability

Where NDIS decisions restrict access to disability-specific supports, costs are frequently absorbed elsewhere in the public system without coordination or visibility. Expenditure may shift to education adjustments, health responses or crisis-driven interventions without corresponding planning or accountability mechanisms.

This fragmentation makes it difficult to assess true whole-of-government cost and undermines transparent stewardship of public funds. Scheme sustainability requires decision-making that considers cumulative public expenditure, not isolated budget lines.

10.4 Long-Term Value for Money and Return on Investment

Public investment in disability supports is intended to produce durable outcomes over time. Decisions that interrupt or destabilise access increase the likelihood of later, more intensive intervention without commensurate gains in independence or participation.

From a value-for-money perspective, administrative practices that fail to support continuity of outcomes reduce the return on earlier investment. Sustainable administration requires aligning funding decisions with long-term outcome trajectories rather than short-term cost containment.

10.5 System Credibility and Participant Engagement

A scheme’s effectiveness depends in part on participant confidence in its fairness and reliability. Where decision-making is perceived as inconsistent or unpredictable, engagement becomes adversarial rather than cooperative.

Loss of confidence has practical consequences: increased disputes, reduced voluntary compliance and greater reliance on formal review mechanisms. Maintaining scheme credibility is therefore integral to both performance and sustainability.

10.6 Relevance to the Committee’s Oversight Responsibilities

The issues identified in this section fall directly within the Committee’s mandate to examine financial sustainability, administrative performance and regulatory effectiveness. They demonstrate how operational practices influence cost, efficiency and public value beyond individual planning outcomes.

Addressing these risks requires structural and governance responses, not reliance on individual advocacy or corrective review.

11. Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Clear and Consistent Functional Decision-Making

That the NDIA establish and apply clear, nationally consistent decision-making guidance for Deaf/deaf children that is based on functional communication and language access, rather than audiological thresholds, device use or assumptions of capacity.

This guidance should be consistently applied across planners and regions to reduce variability in access and planning outcomes.

NDIA should seek guidance from Deaf/deaf specialist, peer and family led organisations.

  • Terms of Reference: NDIA delivery of the NDIS; monitoring and reporting of NDIA performance; management of financial sustainability risks
  • Auditor-General: Report No. 41 (NDIA Board Effectiveness); Report No. 25 (Performance Statements Auditing)

Recommendation 2: Accessible and Meaningful Consultation

That the NDIA ensure all planning, review and reassessment processes involving Deaf/deaf participants or Deaf parents are accessible by default, including the provision of Auslan interpreters and appropriate communication supports.

Plans should not be issued unless meaningful consultation has occurred and participant input has been considered.

  • Terms of Reference: NDIA administration; claimant compliance
  • Auditor-General: Report No. 25 (Performance Statements Auditing); Report No. 39 (Key Financial Controls)

Recommendation 3: Procedural Fairness in Planning Decisions

That the NDIA implement safeguards to prevent plans being issued where contact has been inaccessible, missed due to communication barriers, or treated as non-engagement.

Procedural fairness should be actively assessed and documented, particularly where communication access barriers exist.

  • Terms of Reference: NDIA decision-making and performance monitoring
  • Auditor-General: Report No. 41 (Board Effectiveness); Report No. 25 (Performance Statements Auditing)

Recommendation 4: Continuity of Supports During Reviews

That the NDIA ensure continuity of supports for Deaf/deaf children during internal reviews, reassessments and appeals, particularly where delays create risk to developmental outcomes.

Children should not lose access due to unresolved administrative processes.

  • Terms of Reference: Financial sustainability risks; NDIA delivery of the NDIS

¢ Auditor-General: Report No. 22 (Financial Statements Audit); Report No. 39 (Key Financial Controls)

Recommendation 5: Child Supports Not Substituted by Parental Plans

That the NDIA prohibit the practice of using a parent’s NDIS plan to substitute for a child’s disability supports, or assuming parental capacity removes the need for child-specific supports.

Supports for children must be assessed and funded on the child’s functional needs.

  • Terms of Reference: Claimant compliance; integrity of plan administration
  • Auditor-General: Report No. 48 (Management of Claimant Compliance)

Recommendation 6: Oversight of Planner Conduct

That the NDIA strengthen oversight and accountability mechanisms to address:

  • misrepresentation of law or policy

  • coercive or punitive planning practices

  • inappropriate threats relating to loss of supports or child protection involvement Clear escalation and accountability pathways should be available to families.

  • Terms of Reference: NDIA governance; regulatory performance

  • Auditor-General: Report No. 41 (Board Effectiveness); Report No. 48 (Claimant Compliance)

Recommendation 7: Improved Monitoring and Reporting

That the NDIA improve monitoring and reporting of outcomes for Deaf/deaf children, including data on access, plan stability, reviews and exits, to identify systemic risks and inform performance improvement.

  • Terms of Reference: Monitoring, measurement and reporting of NDIA performance

« Auditor-General: Report No. 25 (Performance Statements Auditing); Report No. 41 (Board Oversight)

Recommendation 8: Clarity for Ineligible Cohorts

That governments clearly articulate and make public how Deaf/deaf children and families who are not NDIS participants will be supported, to prevent service gaps and ensure continuity of access.

  • Terms of Reference: Policy advice to government; NDIA delivery

  • Auditor-General: Report No. 25 (Performance and Accountability); Report No. 39 (Control Gaps)

Recommendation 9: Risk-Based Regulatory Oversight

That the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission prioritise regulatory oversight of planning and administrative practices that create safeguarding risk through delay, instability or coercion, particularly for children.

  • Terms of Reference: Regulatory performance of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission

« Auditor-General: Report No. 2 (2025-26) - Effectiveness of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission

Recommendation 10: Accessibility Expertise in System Stewardship

That the NDIA and relevant oversight bodies embed disability-specific and communication access expertise within governance, policy and operational decision-making to support lawful, consistent and effective administration.

  • Terms of Reference: NDIA governance; policy advice to government ¢ Auditor-General: Report No. 41 (Board Capability); Report No. 25 (Performance Governance)

The recommendations presented are targeted, practical and aligned with existing audit findings. Implemented together, they would strengthen governance, reduce avoidable cost, improve compliance integrity and better safeguard outcomes for Deaf/deaf children.

PODC welcomes the Committee’s consideration of these matters and supports reforms that uphold both the integrity of the NDIS and the rights of the children and families it serves.

Please also refer to our Breaking through Barriers workbooks that provide further insight into the needs of Deaf/deaf children and their families.

Warm regards PODC Committee info@podc.org.au

Parents of Deaf Children - Breaking Through Barriers Advocacy

SaaS A as & o. Cw i oe w) p

Reading List

1. Language Deprivation and Developmental Risk

Foundational evidence on the cognitive, emotional and mental health risks associated with delayed or restricted language access in Deaf children.

“What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: The Risk of Language Deprivation by Impairing Sign Language Development in Deaf Children” Humphries et al. (2012), Harm Reduction Journal https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5392137/

“Understanding Language Deprivation and Its Role in Deaf Mental Health” Glickman (2018) https://www.jstor.org/stable/26983957

2. Critical Periods for Language Acquisition

Evidence demonstrating that early language access is time-sensitive and that delays have permanent impacts.

“Early Language Acquisition and Adult Language Ability”https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28159/chapter-abstract/212970837

3. Bimodal-Bilingual and Sign Language Access

Evidence supporting bimodal-bilingual approaches and the role of signed languages alongside hearing technology.

4. Sign Language and Spoken Language Outcomes

Research refuting the claim that sign language interferes with spoken language development.

5. Executive Function, Mental Health and Emotional Regulation

Evidence linking language access to executive functioning, emotional regulation and wellbeing.

Page 42

Identity, Social Inclusion and Safeguarding

Evidence on Deaf identity, social connection, and the safeguarding risks of communication exclusion.

« Dinner Table Syndrome: Deaf Individuals’ Experiences with Inaccessible Communication https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342623540

« Describe, Don’t Prescribe: Translanguaging and Deaf Signers https://pure.hw.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/24265674

Early Intervention Quality and Measurement

Tools and frameworks for assessing early intervention effectiveness over time.

Policy, Population and Systems Context

Broader policy and population-level evidence relevant to equity, access and systemic responsibility.