05/01/2026
Is anyone willing to help me pursue and fight against these new changes happening this June regarding - No more advocation, powers stripped of the ART, computer generated plans, no more utilising a Federal MP to help to get things done. Ive already had to deal with people I know taking their own lives due to the NDIS/NDIA not doing their jobs properly in the last 2 years. Ive spent the last 3 years fighting for my participants, not lost a case yet but this will all change this year. Has anyone else lost a participant taking their own lives because of the system? Has anyone else had legitimate circumstances to appeal and they have let you down badly? Im only one voice but Ive got the contacts to push back on this if Ive got enough evidence to do so! Unfortunately there is not human rights act in WA but NDIS have an obligation under:
Instead, human rights are protected through:
The NDIS Act 2013
The Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
Administrative law principles (fairness, reasonableness, lawfulness)
Some states (e.g. Victoria, Queensland, ACT) have Human Rights Acts, but WA does not.
2. NDIS has a statutory obligation to ensure “choice and control”
Under section 3 and section 4 of the NDIS Act 2013, the NDIS is explicitly built on human-rights principles.
Key principles include:
Choice and control over supports and decisions
Respect for individual autonomy
Participation and inclusion
Equality and non-discrimination
Best interests of the participant
Recognition that people with disability are experts in their own lives
These are not optional — the NDIA must apply them when:
Making planning decisions
Approving or refusing supports
Implementing plans
Reviewing plans
Failure to do so can amount to unlawful decision-making.
3. Fairness is also required under administrative law
Even beyond disability-specific law, NDIA decision-makers must comply with procedural fairness, including:
Giving participants a genuine opportunity to be heard
Properly considering evidence
Not acting arbitrarily or unreasonably
Making decisions for a proper purpose
If choice and control are ignored or overridden without lawful justification, the decision may be:
Legally unreasonable
Reviewable by the AAT
Contrary to the objects of the NDIS Act
4. Human rights obligations under the UN CRPD
Australia is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which requires:
Respect for dignity and autonomy
Freedom to make one’s own choices
Equal recognition before the law
Participation in decisions affecting one’s life
While the CRPD is not directly enforceable on its own, Australian courts and tribunals use it to interpret the NDIS Act.
5. What this means in practice
Yes — the NDIS must treat all participants fairly and must:
Act consistently with choice and control
Avoid blanket policies that remove individual autonomy
Not substitute its own preferences over a participant’s reasonable choices
Properly consider the participant’s circumstances, goals, and wishes
If it does not, that is grounds for:
Internal review
AAT review
Complaint to the NDIA
In serious cases, human rights or discrimination complaints
Happy to hear from anyone with legitimate circumstances and it will be private and confidential information. I live in Wanneroo WA so Im local to Perth not Eastern States.
Mike Riley
ECSWA
Send a message to learn more
