When Support Becomes a Lottery: The Need for Fair and Consistent NDIS Decisions About Assistance Animals

Assistance animals are not a luxury. For many Australians with disability, they are an essential support that enables independence, safety, participation, and quality of life.

At the Working Animals Federation of Australia (WAFA), we have recently received increasing reports from assistance animal handlers, disability advocates, and professionals about significant inconsistencies in National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) decision-making regarding assistance animals and related supports.

The concern is not simply that funding decisions are changing. The concern is that decisions appear increasingly unpredictable, inconsistent, and disconnected from individual circumstances.

When the same support is treated completely differently

We are hearing from people whose lives have been transformed by their assistance animals, only to find their supports reviewed or removed with little explanation.

Some dog guide handlers have reported losing their canine-related funding because decision-makers considered the assistance animal a duplication of support worker assistance.

Others have experienced the opposite outcome: retaining their assistance animal funding while having their support worker hours significantly reduced because their dog was considered capable of meeting all their needs.

Yet other participants report being allocated substantially increased support worker funding instead of assistance animal-related supports — including situations where a person who had previously received a modest annual contribution towards their assistance animal was instead allocated extensive support worker hours.

In one reported case, a participant who had received approximately $2,750 per year towards their assistance animal plus 10 hours per week of support work for many years was provided with a plan containing 24/7/365 support worker funding. While this may appear generous on paper, it was not the support the person wanted or identified as most beneficial. Their assistance animal provided unique assistance, independence, emotional regulation, confidence, and daily functional support that support workers could not replace.

A larger budget does not necessarily mean an appropriate support.

Assistance animals are not interchangeable with human supports

A recurring issue appears to be a misunderstanding of the role of assistance animals.

A support worker and an assistance animal are not identical supports.

A support worker provides human assistance, supervision, personal care, social support, and practical help.

An assistance animal provides trained disability-related tasks and supports that occur throughout a person’s daily life. The relationship between a handler and their assistance animal is continuous. The animal provides support in moments when a support worker is not present, including during anxiety-provoking situations, community access, sensory overload, medical episodes, mobility challenges, and emotional regulation difficulties.

Replacing one with the other without considering the person’s goals, preferences, and functional needs risks undermining the principles of choice and control that underpin the NDIS.

A postcode lottery of decision-making?

Perhaps one of the most concerning reports WAFA has received is the apparent inconsistency between different decision-makers and organisations. Whilst we recognise that the NDIS is designed to provide individualised plans, many of the recent decisions behind funding outcomes seem contradictory.

Some assistance animal providers report that their applications have been consistently approved over an extended period, whilst others report that almost every application they submit is now rejected, despite almost identical applications previously being approved for years.

Some participants report being told that assistance animals are no longer funded, while others with comparable circumstances continue to receive approval.

When different planners make contradictory decisions about similar supports, participants are left confused, distressed, and forced into lengthy review processes simply to access supports they previously relied upon.

A disability support system cannot operate effectively when access depends on which planner reviews a person’s application.

The hidden cost of refusing reasonable supports

When assistance animal funding decisions are disputed, many participants are forced to seek internal reviews and appeals through the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).

These processes can be lengthy, stressful, and expensive.

WAFA has heard examples where significant government resources have been spent defending decisions against individuals with disability who are simply trying to retain supports that allow them to live independently.

In one reported matter, a person with moderate intellectual impairment represented themselves while facing multiple legal representatives including two barristers arguing against their access to supports — and they were successful.

This raises an important question:

How much public money is being spent challenging, reviewing, and defending decisions to deny assistance animal supports, when that funding could instead be invested into providing timely, evidence-based disability supports?

A fair system should seek to resolve appropriate supports early, not create unnecessary barriers that require people with disability to fight for years.

The importance of evidence-based decision-making

WAFA supports responsible stewardship of public funds. Assistance animals must be appropriately trained, assessed, and matched to the needs of the individual.

However, responsible funding decisions require more than cost-cutting.

They require:

• consistent national guidelines;
• evidence-based assessment processes;
• recognition of the unique role of assistance animals;
• meaningful consultation with the participant and their treating professionals;
• transparency in decision-making;
• recognition that different supports cannot simply be substituted without considering individual outcomes.

The question should not be:

“Can another support technically perform a similar function?”

The question should be:

“What support enables this person to achieve their goals, participate in the community, and live as independently as possible?”

A call for consistency, transparency, and participant choice

Assistance animals represent years of training, commitment, and partnership between animals and their handlers. They are not simply another line item in a budget.

For many Australians, their assistance animal is the difference between isolation and participation, dependence and independence, fear and confidence.

WAFA calls for greater transparency and consistency in NDIS decision-making relating to assistance animals. Participants should not have to navigate a system where identical supports are approved for one person, denied for another, and replaced with unsuitable alternatives for someone else.

The goal of the NDIS should be supporting people to live ordinary lives with dignity, autonomy, and choice.

That includes recognising the legitimate and evidence-based role of assistance animals.

Because when a person has found the support that works — the question should not be how to remove it.

The question should be how to ensure it is delivered responsibly, ethically, and sustainably.