Additional information to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme: Integrity of the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Anonymised case study: removal of self-management following alleged conflict of interest Prepared by Self Manager Hub
The Self Manager Hub provides this additional information further to the evidence already given by the organisation. It demonstrates that the issues raised by Karen Shine at the hearing are not isolated. They are reflected in the experiences of other participants and point to a systemic problem that falls squarely within the Committee’s terms of reference, particularly the impact of government policies intended to improve scheme integrity, safeguard participants and address non-compliance. This case study has been de-identified to protect the privacy of the participant involved. It is provided to assist the Committee to understand the practical impact of current NDIA integrity processes and behaviour on participants who self-manage or self-direct their supports.
The participant’s circumstances
The participant is a long-standing NDIS participant with significant disability support needs. They have used self-management to maintain stable, efficient and personalised support arrangements. Their self-directed model has enabled them to exercise choice and control, retain trusted workers, manage costs responsibly and respond flexibly to changing support needs.
The participant was subjected to an agency-initiated reassessment. As part of that process, the NDIA raised concerns that the participant was deriving an income from their own NDIS plan and stated that this was not in line with section 46 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. On this basis, the participant’s self-management was removed and their plan was changed to agency- managed.
The participant strongly disputes the allegation.
The participant is involved in a separate not-for-profit arrangement established to support efficient and participant-directed supports. They are not using their NDIS plan to generate improper personal income. The arrangement was established to help maintain quality, continuity and value for money in their supports. It reflects the kind of practical self-direction many participants develop because standard service models do not meet their needs.
Procedural fairness concerns
The concern in this case is not only the outcome, but the process.
The participant repeatedly sought clarification about the allegations and asked for a meeting so they could explain their arrangement. Despite this, no meaningful discussion occurred before the decision was made. The participant was not given clear, actionable information about the alleged breach, the evidence relied upon, or what steps they could take to address the NDIA’s concerns.
From the participant’s perspective, the decision had been effectively predetermined. They experienced the process as punitive and distressing. Consistent with the evidence provided by Karen Shine, they were left feeling that a lawful, efficient and carefully managed self-directed arrangement had been treated as non-compliance without proper investigation or procedural fairness.
Impact of removing self-management
The impact of removing self-management is significant.
For participants with complex support needs, self-management allows them to choose trusted workers, maintain continuity of care, manage risk, respond quickly to changing needs and live with dignity. Removing self-management can destabilise a person’s entire support arrangement.
In this case, the move to agency management undermined the participant’s independence, confidence, support continuity and ability to direct essential daily supports. It also sends a concerning message to other participants that self-directed arrangements may be treated with suspicion, even where they are established in good faith and are designed to use NDIS funds effectively.
Systemic concern
This case reflects broader concerns raised with the Self Manager Hub by participants who self- manage or self-direct their supports. We are increasingly hearing from participants who feel that NDIA compliance processes are being used in ways that are confusing, intimidating and procedurally unfair. Participants are not being given clear reasons, a genuine opportunity to respond, or access to a direct conversation before self-management is removed or threatened.
The Self Manager Hub is concerned that section 46 is being applied too broadly or without adequate understanding of self-directed support arrangements. Participants may use a range of lawful structures to manage their supports, including direct employment, service-for-one arrangements, microboards, not-for-profit entities or other participant-led models. These arrangements should not be treated as non-compliance simply because they are unfamiliar or do not fit standard provider models.
Participants should not lose self-management unless there is clear evidence, proper investigation, written reasons, procedural fairness and a genuine opportunity to respond. Where the NDIA has
concerns about a participant’s arrangement, the first step should be guidance, clarification and support to comply, not punitive action that removes choice and control.
Recommendations
The Self Manager Hub recommends that the Joint Standing Committee recommend that the NDIA:
- Ensure NDIA staff understand the difference between unlawful personal benefit and lawful participant-led support arrangements, with clear and publicly available guidance that is co- designed with NDIS participants and families who self-manage or self-direct their supports.
- Require a fair process before self-management can be removed, including clear allegations, evidence, written reasons and a genuine opportunity to respond and appeal the decision.
- Provide participants with access to a supportive and educative discussion before any decision is made to remove or restrict self-management.
- Establish an escalation pathway for participants whose self-directed arrangements are misunderstood or treated as non-compliance.
- Work directly with the Self Manager Hub and participants with lived experience to develop practical guidance, staff training and safeguards.
- Adopt a supportive compliance approach that helps participants resolve concerns before punitive action is taken.
Conclusion
Self-management and self-direction are core features of the NDIS. They give participants the ability to design supports around their lives, rather than forcing their lives to fit around service systems.
The NDIA should protect those rights, not remove them without a fair, transparent and properly informed process.