9.1
This chapter examines some of the key issues raised in evidence concerning staffing and internal resourcing for the Quality and Safeguards Commission (the Commission). These issues included:
staff expertise and training
constraints on the ability of the Commission to conduct own-motion investigations.
9.2
In mid-2020, multiple submitters and witnesses argued that there may not be sufficient resourcing or staff for the Commission to effectively carry out its work. Issues pointed to as proof of insufficient resourcing included:
limited internal communication between different divisions of the Commission, indicating that often one part of the Commission may be unaware of issues and situations in another
significant delays in initial responses to or concluding complaints, suggesting systems and human resource constraints
the large number of reportable incidents that have not been closed, and the backlog of incidents
the length of time for registration renewal to be completed
the fact that the Commission may be heavily reliant on complaints to alert it to possible breaches, suggesting that it may lack funding to carry out 'own-motion' investigations; and
some decisions may appear to be based only on a phone call to the provider concerned.
9.3
Submitters pointed to the effects of under resourcing, with VALID, for example, describing the Commission as under-resourced, and unable to operate to its full potential without more staff and training. VALID also commented on the potential consequences of under-resourcing, stating:
Under-resourcing leads to a focus on process instead of rights and relationships. People with intellectual disabilities cannot rely on the NDIS Commission’s safeguards if staff are not able to answer every call…if there isn’t time to go out to meet the person face-to-face, or if investigations are put off for lack of investigators.
This under-resourcing is most evident where there is a lack of specialist expertise and appreciation of the time needed to work with people who have complex communication or behaviour support needs as they work through the complaints or investigation process.
9.4
Similarly, the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) emphasised that for providers to be held accountable for meeting standards in the Code of Conduct and Practice Standards, the Commission must be adequately resourced. The AASW asserted that fraud is a major area of concern, stating:
In addition to major fraud cases that attract public attention, there are unethical financial practices, whether intentional or not, that require focus and a commitment from the Commission to address. This may include holding the NDIA to account in their activities in educating providers adequately.
9.5
Cara suggested that the Commission does not appear to be sufficiently resourced to allow for an investigation at the request of a provider or participant, and it requires providers to undertake an investigation internally, or appoint an external investigator at the provider’s discretion. Both of these approaches, it argued, lack the independence of a Commission-led investigation, and increase the administrative burden on providers operating in a price-capped environment. According to Cara, such delays also indicate that available human resources are inadequate for the Commission to execute its functions in a timely manner.
Staffing levels
9.6
The committee heard that the Commission does not have sufficient staff to effectively perform its functions. In particular, evidence indicated that the Commission may lack adequate numbers of ‘frontline’ staff—such as complaints officers and investigators—to respond to and investigate complaints and reportable incidents.
9.7
As of April 2021, the Commission had an Australian Public Service (APS) headcount of 315 as well as 174 labour hire staff, with a total of 489 staff. The number of temporary staff is expected to decrease as APS staff are employed.
9.8
The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) noted that in a survey of Commission staff in July 2020, 83 per cent of respondents reported that their current workload is affecting their ability to do their job. This was consistent with the 2019 APS Census of the Commission, in which just 22 per cent of staff disagreed or strongly disagreed that they had unrealistic time pressures.
9.9
Representatives from the CPSU, in a hearing with the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee in July 2021, stated that after 'a recent provisional improvement notice, the Commission was forced to openly accept that workloads are indeed a work health and safety issue'. They also flagged that 'rather than hiring more permanent frontline staff, nearly half of the Commission is made up of executive level staff' and suggested that this made the Commission 'one of the most top-heavy organisations in the [Australian Public Service]'.
9.10
Due to low staffing levels, the committee heard, officers within the Commission are obliged to deal with high caseloads. A reportable incidents officer may hold up to 120 matters, while a complaints officer may hold up to 60 matters. Members of the CPSU commented on the impact of understaffing as follows:
Frontline operation teams do not have adequate employee numbers to manage the volume of reportable incidents, complaints, or compliance activities currently within the Commission’s oversight. Participants are at risk due to the inability of the Commission Branch functions to perform thorough assessments to ensure the ongoing safeguarding of participants has occurred and NDIS providers are meeting legislative obligations.
9.11
According to the CPSU, the Average Staffing Level (ASL) cap has also limited the Commission’s ability to engage permanent staff to meet these workloads, and has instead engaged staff on a contractual basis.
9.12
In addition, the CPSU noted that while there have been assurances from the Commission that there would be more resources allocated to the ‘front line’, there has been little evidence of this in practice. Instead, resources have been directed to more senior (SES) positions. As a result, there is inadequate or no cover for staff absences, high staff turnover and a lack of staff mobility.
9.13
Physical Disability Australia (PDA) suggested that information on the Commission’s corporate structure and current and projected staffing levels is not easy to find on the Commission’s website. According to PDA, without such details it is difficult to assess the overall adequacy of the Commission’s resources— ‘beyond feeling [they] should be significantly boosted’.
9.14
The Northern Territory Office of the Public Guardian and Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health called for 'the human and financial resources available to the Commission to reflect the circumstances of rural and remote Australia, including the Northern Territory and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
9.15
Other issues raised about staffing included, for example, staff diversity, with the Chief Executive Officer of First Peoples Disability Network (FPDN) noting at the hearing on 29 September 2020 that of 194 staff, the Commission only had two staff who identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Commission view
9.16
The Commission outlined in its initial submission recent funding it had been allocated from the Australian Government, including:
$220 million over four years in the 2019–20 Budget, from 2019–20 to
2022–23;
$1.418 million per year in the 2019–20 Budget, for 2019–20 until 2021–22, to address work related to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability; and
$2.6 million, in the July 2020 Economic and Fiscal update, for 2019–20, and $3.6 million for 2020–21, 'to recognise the NDIS Commission's additional support to individuals and service providers impacted by COVID-19'.
9.17
In a hearing with the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, held in July 2021, Ms Samantha Taylor, the Acting NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner, highlighted a recent staff increase in the Commission:
We did have a budget uplift that came through in the last budget, only two years after our commencement, which increased our headcount by around 100 employees. We've been successful in onboarding the vast majority of those roles. That's enabled us to stabilise our workforce considerably over the labour arrangements that we had in place in our first couple of years of operation.
9.18
In a supplementary submission provided in September 2021, the Commission noted that the increase in temporary staff numbers was partly because of 'otherwise unspent funds [that] permitted a short-term increase in capacity'. However, it informed the committee that the temporary staff numbers 'will reduce as current recruitment activity concludes and available funds are spent'. Further, the average staffing level (that is, the average number of full-time equivalent employees) is expected to reduce from 350 in 2020–21 to 342 in 2021–22, following the completion of transition of quality and safeguarding to the Commission in all states and territories.
Staff expertise and training
9.19
Some evidence concerned the expertise, knowledge and training of Commission staff, suggesting that Commission staff:
may not be sufficiently trained in the Commission’s role and responsibilities, or in how to carry out their functions (such as complaints handling and investigations);
may lack an adequate understanding of disability and its manifestations; and
may not have an adequate understanding of the NDIS Code of Conduct or other relevant guidelines.
9.20
Cara asserted that the focus on resolution of complaints appears to vary across complaints officers, stating that it has experienced ‘high quality, solution focused complaint handling’ in some cases, and ‘low quality, general information gathering with a lack of clarity’ in others. Connectability similarly stated that its experience with the Commission in relation to complaints has been ‘varied’, noting that some complaints officers are knowledgeable and responsive while others lack a clear understanding of how to engage with providers. In this respect, Connectability stated:
One particular officer would ring and demand a return phone call immediately. This shows a total lack of understanding of how a disability service works and what we deal with on a day-to-day basis. All communication should in writing, rather than over the phone so there is a record of what is communicated.
9.21
The CPSU argued that while there is a triaging system for complaints, some teams within the Commission are not aware that the system exists. Moreover, little guidance is available as to which matters to deal with first, and there is no formal risk matrix to support staff to prioritise complaints in a consistent manner. The CPSU stated that its members have been asking for a formal risk matrix for ‘some time’:
Reportable Incident Officers have been requesting a formal risk matrix to support work prioritisation action for the last 2 years. Officers were told by SES staff that the Commission would not use a risk matrix in frontline incident management…[and] were advised that [they] were 'oversighting' provider conduct which did not require a matrix.
9.22
The CPSU further stated that for those who work in complaints, triage shifts are on top of normal caseloads, and result in a ‘domino effect’—worsening already high workloads and causing delays. According to the CPSU, there has been no consistency to addressing this issue.
9.23
Evidence indicated that some staff of the Commission are also concerned that they do not receive the training necessary to enable effective job performance. For example, the CPSU noted that in a recent survey of Commission staff who were CPSU members, 79.3 per cent of respondents did not believe that staff receive adequate training and guidance to enable them do their jobs effectively. Staff expressed frustration that ‘training was almost non-existent, and [staff] had to learn everything on the job’.
9.24
The CPSU also noted that staff are frequently expected to understand complex legislation, as well as medical, mental health and disability issues, to make the decisions which underpin their work.
9.25
According to the CPSU, this complexity is not reflected in the training that Commission staff receive. For example, one staff member stated that there is:
…[n]o training in relation to suicidal ideal, self-harm etc.…No training to handle psychosocial disability despite complexity. When trying to review an incident when no apparent cause of death, need to look at suicidal ideation and whether provider should have mentioned it.
Proposals for change
9.26
Suggestions from submitters to improve many of the issues outlined above focused on increased training. For example, the CPSU noted that its members were strongly of the view that more training is needed to ensure staff have the ability and the confidence to perform their roles effectively. In addition, there must be funding to enable better training and development.
9.27
Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect) contended that Commission staff do not understand the realities of the disability service provision for providers and—more significantly—for people with disability. Aspect recommended increased training for Commission staff, including understanding of the Commission's role, and greater exposure to the realities of disability service provision.
9.28
The Chief Executive Officer of the FPDN suggested that all Commission staff, including senior executives, should undergo training to better understand key issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with disability.
9.29
The Junction Works Limited recommended that investigators be provided with training and information about how disability may impact a participant, and on the operations of the NDIS.
Commission view
9.30
In a supplementary submission provided to the committee in September 2021 the Commission highlighted actions that it had taken to improve its handling of complaints management, including:
significantly increased funding for staffing (as outlined above), which has led to an additional 67 reportable incidents and complaints officers being employed in state and territory offices, and an additional 75 staff being employed temporarily in this area under labour hire arrangements
significantly revised policies and procedures, in the form of a complaints manual and a reportable incidents manual, that 'better' emphasise, for example, 'the critical decision points in the complaints process and the tools that can assist officers to make those decisions'
a revised approach to intake assessment and streaming of complaints, 'to enable NDIS Commission complaints officers to respond more quickly to complaints'
intensive training for staff on the new policies, procedures and changes to the intake model, as well as external training for some officers in mediation skills and proposed external training in conciliation skills; and
a new internal quality assurance process, including a Quality Assurance Framework for complaints handling.
ICT Systems
9.31
Other evidence raised concerns about the Commission's information, communication and technology (ICT) systems. For example, the CPSU noted that in a survey of Commission staff who were CPSU members, 69.8 per cent of respondents stated ICT infrastructure and systems limited their ability to effectively perform their role. CPSU members provided examples of issues with ICT systems affecting their work, including:
the current system cannot identify the same provider if they use different trading names, previous contacts or even search for a particular address to identify the usual place of residence prior to death
data entry requirements have led to multiple entries, sometimes incorrect with limited data analytics
staff have to use multiple spreadsheets to manage caseloads, other datasets and undertake analysis
complaints can only be examined on a case-by-case, meaning that staff may miss things as they are working in silos
difficulties with the system affecting workflow activities and making it harder to escalate matters
constant error messages and a lack of real-time data; and
staff needing to rely on work-arounds and spreadsheets.
9.32
The CPSU further elaborated that data analysis 'is a manual process as wider trends and data that sits between different teams cannot be accessed', but staff in the national and state offices do not have time to run multiple reports and analyse the results.
9.33
According to CPSU members who are Commission staff, another issue is that the ICT systems were built by the Department of Social Services (DSS). As at the date of the CPSU’s submission, DSS continued to control data mechanisms and systems. There was a lack of real-time support for data, and changes had to be proposed to DSS six months in advance.
9.34
Ultimately, the CPSU asserted that there is an ‘urgent need’ to improve the tools that staff have available, stating:
The Commission and DSS need to work together to ensure a more responsive and intuitive ICT system. This needs to involve staff and result in a system where staff have access to a more sophisticated case management package with increased functionality where modules can be integrated and analysis can be undertaken to identify trends and assist with cases.
Commission view
9.35
In September 2021, the Commission noted, in relation to its handling of provider registrations, that it had realised a revised online application form for provider registration in June 2021 and that further enhancements to the Commission's operation system were due to be released later in 2021, which were expected to improve information processing as part of the application process.
Constraints in conducting own-motion investigations
9.36
Other evidence pointed to constraints on the Commission's ability to launch investigations of its own accord, largely because of limited funding. People with Disability Australia (PWDA) argued that the Commission had a 'reactive rather than proactive approach'. It submitted that this had particularly become evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Commission encouraged individuals to make their own complaints to address the issue of service providers not providing continuity of support. PWDA contended that:
This is problematic as many people with disability live in closed settings where it is difficult and often frightening to make a complaint… Relying on complaints is particularly problematic during the pandemic as people with disability have reduced access to visitors, including advocates who can help them make a complaint. Further, people with disability may not be in a safe situation to risk making a complaint when they may be reliant on this same person for supports.
The problematic nature of relying on complaints to trigger investigations was also recently highlighted by the tragic death of Ann Marie Smith... [I]f Ms Smith wanted to make a complaint to the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Commission, in the absence of other visitors, it would need to be done through the very person who would be subject of the complaint.
9.37
PWDA called for the Australian Government to provide' sufficient funding to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to enable it to carry out own-motion investigations' and 'properly protect people with disability'. Chapter 4 of this report contains further discussion of calls for the Commission to take a more proactive approach to its compliance activities.
Commission view
9.38
The Commission informed the committee in September 2021 that it had commenced an own motion investigation into aspects of supported disability accommodation.
Other issues
9.39
Other key issues raised in evidence related to staffing and resourcing included:
a lack of structured risk assessment processes within the Commission and the absence of a clear strategy to understand when a matter should be escalated
lack of national consistency in how complaints are triaged, with triage shifts resulting in additional delays to resolving complaints
the need for the Commission to urgently establish consistent operating procedures and introduce formal risk matrixes and other supporting guidance to aid the prioritisation of work and manage workloads
the need for the Commission to introduce 'more frequent and timely reporting around tighter performance measures'
the effect of a hierarchical working culture at the Commission on its work, leading to lengthy processes and inconsistent advice
internal 'siloing' or limited communication between teams within the Commission, causing delays finalising or escalating matters and a lack of awareness of similar complaints dealt with in other units; and
reliance on verbal communication with the Commission, with decisions not communicated widely to all staff.
Committee view
9.40
The issues raised in this inquiry concerning staffing and resourcing of the Commission can be summarised as being caused by insufficient staff numbers; insufficient training for staff; inefficient ICT systems; and poor communication within the Commission. However, the committee notes that submissions to the inquiry closed in July 2020, and that, since that time, the Commission has received increased funding and significantly increased its staffing levels. The committee welcomes the Commission's advice that it has undertaken reforms to its complaints processing practices, including training all staff on the new procedures. The committee also particularly welcomes the advice that the Commission has commenced an own motion investigation into aspects of supported accommodation in the NDIS and looks forward to learning more about this inquiry as it gets underway.
9.41
The committee is however concerned that the current increased staffing levels are anticipated to decrease slightly, despite the evidence suggesting that some of the issues raised about the work of the Commission can be traced to high staff workloads and inadequate staff numbers. While it is encouraging that the Commission's overall staffing levels have increased, it is not yet clear whether the current staffing levels are adequate to resolve the concerns identified in relation to the early implementation of the Commission.
9.42
As such, the committee recommends that the Australian Government review the Commission's current staffing levels compared with its workload and wait times and ensure that it is providing the Commission with sufficient staff and resourcing to fulfil its functions. In particular, the Government should adequately resource the Commission so that it is able to investigate complaints thoroughly and promptly and initiate more of its own investigations, if needed. Resourcing should be sufficient to take account of the specific context of particular complaints, such as those in rural and remote areas.
9.43
The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission's current staffing levels and provide additional resources for increased staff numbers if necessary.
9.44
The committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that it is adequately resourcing the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission so that the Commission is able to investigate complaints thoroughly and promptly, and initiate its own investigations.
9.45
The committee was concerned about the suggestion raised in multiple submissions that the Commission does not have adequate and appropriate training in place for staff, particularly in the following areas:
awareness of disability types
awareness of disability service provision
awareness of the Commission's role and responsibilities
understanding of the NDIS Code of Conduct; and
understanding of the key issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with disability.
9.46
As a matter of urgency, the committee recommends that the Government ensure that Commission staff are receiving adequate training in the above areas, to ensure that the work of the Commission is not affected by limited staff knowledge of crucial aspects of their work.
9.47
The committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has adequate and appropriate training in place for staff, including in the following areas as appropriate:
awareness of disability types
awareness of disability service provision
awareness of the Commission's role and responsibilities
understanding of the NDIS Code of Conduct; and
understanding of the key issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with disability.
9.48
On the matter of 'siloing' and poor communication within the Commission, the committee considers that this is reflective of working culture, and the Government should ensure that management structures and communication across the Commission are effective and encourage efficiency.
9.49
Finally, regarding the issue of inefficient ICT systems, the committee notes with concern that ICT systems are central to both the efficiency and quality of work of Government agencies. While it appears that some work has been undertaken to review at least parts of the Commission's ICT systems in relation to the processing of provider registration applications, it is unclear if broader improvements are being undertaken or contemplated. If the current systems that the Commission is using are affecting the Commission's work and reputation, the committee considers that these should be changed or updated to ensure that they are fit-for-purpose.
9.50
The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission's current ICT systems and replace or update them if necessary to ensure that they are fit-for-purpose.