That ICPA (Aust) advocate to the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to amend its policies and guidelines regarding parental care requirements for rural and remote National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants under the age of 16 who are attending boarding school, to recognise these students as not under parental care while residing at boarding school.
Students from rural and remote areas are often required to attend boarding school to access appropriate educational opportunities. While at boarding school, these students are no longer in the daily care of their parents, yet current NDIA requirements continue to assess them as being under parental care.
This classification fails to reflect the reality of their living arrangements and places an inequitable burden on families, who must meet care expectations despite being geographically separated from their children. It can also limit access to appropriate NDIS supports, as funding decisions are based on the assumption that parents are available to provide daily care.
Recognising boarding school students as not under parental care during school terms would better align NDIS policy with the lived circumstances of rural and remote families. This change would ensure equitable access to supports, improve participant outcomes, and acknowledge the unique challenges faced by geographically isolated families.
Case Study:
At a recent NDIS reassessment, a Julia Creek member found herself in the difficult position of having to strongly advocate for her son’s needs—needs that were already recognised, but not adequately supported under current policy.
Her son, a young student from a remote property, must attend boarding school to access his education. At home, the family’s isolated location means that many essential therapies and supports simply do not exist. There are no local providers, long travel distances make regular appointments impractical, and options are extremely limited despite best efforts.
However, while attending boarding school, her son is finally within reach of a wide range of supports—therapies, specialist services, and interventions that are critical to his development and wellbeing. For the first time, consistent and meaningful support is possible.
Despite this, during the reassessment process, she was required to justify why her son needed funding for supports that he could only access while at boarding school. The NDIA’s position remained anchored to the assumption that parental care and the home environment should dictate funding decisions—even though those supports are not available in that home environment.
As a result, although her son is physically located where services exist, funding was not aligned to allow him to access them. The system effectively recognised the supports he needs, and acknowledged that they are available where he currently lives during school terms, yet denied adequate funding because his parental home is in a remote area where those supports do not exist.
This placed the family in an incredibly unfair position. A child finally able to access essential services was prevented from doing so—not due to lack of need, but due to a policy that does not reflect the reality of rural and remote life.
The mother was left feeling that she had to “fight the system” simply to secure equitable access for her child—something families in metropolitan areas can often take for granted.
Her experience highlights a critical gap in current NDIA policy: boarding school students from remote areas are living away from home specifically to access opportunities and services, yet they are still assessed as if those services should be delivered in their home environment.
Without change, families like hers will continue to face unnecessary barriers, and children will miss out on vital supports during the very time they are most accessible.
