A recent investigation by A Current Affair has brought to light the troubling case of Carl Young, a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participant whose abuse compensation payout was partially claimed by the scheme.
The story has ignited a national debate about the ethics of the NDIS’s compensation recovery policies and their impact on survivors of abuse.
Carl Young, now 64, endured sexual abuse at a boys’ home in New South Wales over 50 years ago. After decades of trauma, including battles with addiction and violence, he successfully sued the state of NSW in 2023 and was awarded compensation.
However, the NDIS claimed $20,000 of his settlement, citing legislation that allows them to recover funds for disability-related supports previously provided under the scheme.
Young, who lives with schizophrenia and a physical disability, was left shocked by the decision. “I didn’t think the NDIS was means-tested, and it was a criminal compensation payout, nothing really to do with them,” he said.
He also highlighted the deep emotional toll of having the funds he fought so hard to secure partially reclaimed.
Under the current legislation, the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), which administers the NDIS, has the authority to recover funds from participants’ compensation payments. This applies when the compensation is deemed to overlap with disability-related supports funded by the NDIS.
The NDIA defended its decision, stating: “This helps ensure a participant is not funded twice for supports required as a result of an impairment caused, to any extent, by an injury.”
However, advocates, including Natalee Davis from Shine Lawyers, argue that the benefits Young received under the NDIS were unrelated to his abuse compensation. The law firm is now supporting Young in his legal challenge against the NDIA.
Bill Shorten, the outgoing Minister for the NDIS, expressed sympathy for Young’s case but stated his “hands are tied” by the laws governing the scheme.
A spokesperson for Shorten explained that while the minister sought alternatives, the NDIA confirmed the recovery was legally required under current regulations.
Shorten’s office added: “No amount of money can truly compensate what happened to Carl, but the Minister is frustrated that the legislation does not allow more flexibility in such cases.”
The case has sparked outrage among advocacy groups and the broader public. Critics argue that the policy undermines the purpose of compensation, which is to acknowledge the harm done and provide financial restitution for survivors of abuse.
Young’s story also highlights a deeper concern: the potential retraumatisation of abuse survivors when their compensation is subject to claims by government programs. “They didn’t go through what I went through,” Young said, emphasising the emotional strain of the process.
Advocates are now calling for a review of the legislation to ensure that survivors of abuse are not penalised for receiving compensation. They argue that the NDIS’s mandate to provide support should not come at the expense of those who have already endured significant trauma.
For many, Young’s case is emblematic of broader issues within the NDIS, including the balance between financial sustainability and the ethical treatment of its participants.
If you or someone you know needs support, contact 1800RESPECT at 1800 737 732 or the National Disability Abuse and Neglect Hotline at 1800 880 052.
Just another reason why the NDIS should have its own royal commission.