NDIS 'failing' some of the very people it was set up to protect

Original architect of NDIS says scheme is 'failing' to protect people it was created to help Thu 16 Jul 2026 at 5:38am In short: Martin Laverty, one of the architects of the NDIS, says it's failing some of the people it was set up to protect, such as 31-year-old Lucy Muggeridge. The agency that administers the NDIS has knocked back a request for one-on-one care for Lucy, despite an occupational therapist's report, which found she had "very high support needs that require both 1:1 support at home and 2:1 support in the community". What's next? Lucy's parents will appeal the decision to the Administrative Review Tribunal. Lucy Muggeridge could have been a poster child for the original National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The 31-year-old, who lives with an intellectual disability and cannot speak beyond a few words, receives one-on-one care from support workers in a Queensland Housing Department home, paying a quarter of her disability pension in rent. She enjoys watching the Wiggles on television, bringing the washing in, and exploring her home garden, which was landscaped for her by dozens of family members and friends. When the NDIS was rolled out in Queensland from 2016, her parents Melissa and Brad were "elated", sold on the promise that Lucy would be well cared for under the scheme so that "when we do die, she's safe". "I thought: 'This is it'," Lucy's mum said. "We've hit the jackpot. I felt that it was going to be a wonderful thing for us." But a decade on, the Muggeridges, who have two older adult children, fear for her safety after a recent National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) decision that compromises her one-on-one care at home. The NDIA is the body responsible for administering the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Last month, the agency ruled one-on-one care was not "value for money" in her case. Lucy's NDIS plan funds her instead to share support workers with another tenant. Disability support provider Aruma has been filling the gap, allowing her to receive one-on-one care from support workers in the same house she's lived in for the past 13 years. Aruma also subsidises her care so that she has two support workers when she's in the community, rather than one. Aruma chief executive Martin Laverty, who was involved in the campaign to establish the NDIS, said it was set up for people like Lucy — those with significant and permanent disabilities to help them live "safe and happy lives". "What we're about to see in Lucy's circumstance is she could be worse off under the NDIS than the life she lived before it was established," Dr Laverty said. "The NDIS is failing Lucy, the very person for whom the scheme was designed. "This is happening across the sector and it's happening in advance of reforms that the government has flagged to change participants' plans even further in the years ahead." Dr Laverty said Aruma was subsidising the care provided to "dozens of families" and he was aware of thousands of NDIS participants who were receiving similar support from other charities "where the evidence of need exists". "If Aruma was to provide the services for all of the NDIS participants that are insufficiently funded, Aruma would go broke and we can't leave ourselves in that circumstance," he said. Lucy's parents say their daughter, who was born with the rare disorder Trisomy 15 Chromosome Abnormality Syndrome, previously shared support in the house at different times with another resident, but she absconded, endangering her life. "It was chaos in that house, I can't describe it to you," Mrs Muggeridge said. On one occasion, Lucy was found sitting in the middle of a busy road near her home at Loganlea, south of Brisbane. "How she hasn't been hit by a car, we don't know," Mrs Muggeridge said. Lucy also fled to a local shop, grabbed a soft drink and some chips, and sat on the floor to eat them. "She did that several times," her dad said. "The last time it happened, they said: 'If it happens again, we're going to have to call the police.' Lucy has no idea that what she's doing is wrong. She has no idea that she's stealing. She has no idea that she should pay for that." Rather than approve funding for Lucy to live alone in the house with support workers, an NDIS bureaucrat suggested in a conversation with her father that they explore ways to physically restrain her. "They suggested that we put a physical restraint belt on her, almost like a leash," Mrs Muggeridge said. "Just stick the belt on her, just hoick her around everywhere. They say the NDIS is all about human rights and dignity. Where's her human rights and dignity with that?" The Muggeridges go to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) yearly to approve restrictive practices, such as keeping doors locked, for Lucy's safety. Her support workers also must be trained in how to restrain her if she starts to abscond. 'Apply common sense' Lucy's absconding ended when the last tenant moved out three years ago and she had one-on-one attention from the support workers, with Aruma stepping in to pay for the corresponding funding shortfall. The Muggeridges are grateful for the extra support Aruma has provided for years but realise that will not last forever. "They've been saying for a while that they can't afford it," Mrs Muggeridge said. Lucy's parents have been unable to find a suitable tenant with disability to share the Loganlea house, and support workers, with their daughter, and fear for her future. Rejecting a request for one-on-one care for Lucy, the NDIA failed to accept the recommendations of a 52-page report by Aruma occupational therapist Heather Fuller, which found Lucy had "very high support needs that require both 1:1 support at home and 2:1 support in the community". "I'm asking the NDIA to apply common sense and accept the evidence of the health professionals that's before the agency," Dr Laverty said. "Why go to the trouble of getting a health professional's opinion about the support needs only for it to be knocked back? "It only takes five minutes with Lucy to know that she has profound support needs. Lucy does not live in luxury. Her standard of accommodation is simple. It meets her needs." After reviewing Lucy's NDIS plan, the National Disability Insurance Agency accepted that: "The (sic) Lucy requires significant daily assistance across activities of daily living, including personal care, hygiene, meal preparation, medication management, and supervision to mitigate risks arising from impulsivity, reduced safety awareness, and communication limitations. "The (sic) Lucy also presents with behaviours of concern, including absconding, physical aggression, and self-injurious behaviours, which increase risks to herself and others." But it ruled that "on balance, a shared … model with a support ratio of one support worker to two participants during both day and overnight periods is considered a reasonable and proportionate response to the Lucy (sic) needs currently." The cover letter was sent by "Tina M", a delegate of the NDIA's review branch CEO, and lists her branch manager as Melissa Brotherson-Clarke. But it contains no personal emails or direct phone numbers to easily contact them to discuss the outcome. "I've described them as faceless people in windowless rooms," Mr Muggeridge said of the agency decision makers. Despite rejecting the Aruma occupational therapist's recommendation for one-one-one care for Lucy, the Muggeridges say no-one from the NDIA had met their daughter to assess her needs for themselves. Instead, the NDIA rejected the Aruma assessment as having been prepared by "a provider currently delivering supports … to the participant". "This represents a potential conflict of interest and limits the weight I can place on these recommendations," the NDIA delegate said in her report. The agency did not answer questions put to it by ABC News related to Lucy Muggeridge's case, instead saying: "The NDIA's priority is ensuring every participant has access to the disability-related support they need. "While our trained NDIS staff consider all the evidence available and recommendations from health professionals, they must also meet the reasonable and necessary criteria of the NDIS Act. "If a participant has a significant change in their circumstances, such as a change to their informal care, a request for a reassessment of their supports can be submitted." The Muggeridges are seeking a new report from another occupational therapist and will appeal the NDIA decision to the Administrative Review Tribunal. Dr Laverty, who spent eight years on the first board of the NDIA, said he was "one of the strongest supporters of the government reforms to reset the cost of the NDIS so that it's sustainable for the future". "The NDIS was not ever intended for those with mild to moderate disability," he said. "It was legislated for those with significant and permanent disability. It was legislated for Lucy Muggeridge."